any Text of Scripture which to you is the only rule of Faith 102. Perhaps some will vnderstand All to signify all things profitable But this sense cannot be admitted since no man can deny but that the knowledg of those things which S. John witnesseth not to haue bene written had bene profitable to vs now as then the performance or delivering them was to the beholders or hearers It were blasphemy to say that S. Paul exercised an idle action or recited vnprofitable words when Act. 20.35 he sayd you must remember the word of our Lord Jesus because he sayd it is more a blessed thing to giue rather then to take which words of our blessed Saviour are not to be found in S. Luke or the whole bible but S. Paule receyved them only by tradition Those things also which are omitted by S. Luke but recorded in the other Gospells no Christian will deny to be profitable Therfor by All we must not vnderstand All things profitable 103. Will you vnderstand by All all things necessary to be written by any First in this sense this text makes nothing for your purpose vnless first you begg the Question and suppose that all things necessary to be believed must also necessarily be written which is the very point in Question between vs. For if all things necessary to be believed are not particularly written in the bible then more is necessary to be believed than is necessary to by written and consequently though S. Luke had set downe all that is necessary to be written yet this would not proue that his Gospell contaynes all things necessary to be believed Secondly your selfe cannot allow of this sense without contradicting yourself who hold that every Gospell containes all things necessary to be believed and therfore S. Luke could not judg it necessary that he should write all such things which had bene but to repeare and write the things already written more than once Thirdly The common doctrine of Protestants is that the sole-sufficiency of scripture consists in the whole Canon or bible and therfor S. Luke according to this supposition could not think himself obliged to write every poynt necessary to be believed since he was not ignorant that before he wrote his Gospell the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Marke and some Apostolicall Epistles were written and in them some poynts necessaty to be believed which therfor were not necessary to be written by him Wherfor you cannot maintayne this sense as being contradictory both to your self and the common doctrine of Protestants 104. What then remaynes but that S. Luke vnderstood All that was necessary to be written by himself without omission of any such point according to the particular purpose and End which he had in writing his Gospell by the particular motion assistance and direction of the holy Ghost as we see every one of the foure Evangelists and other Canonicall writers do not deliver all the same things for matter or manner as the holy Ghost for ends knowen to his Infinite Wisdome did moue and direct them This sense is true and contaynes both a full Answer and a cleare Confutation and as I may say a totall Destruction of your Objection for any force it can haue against vs. For now you are obliged to proue out of some other evident text of scripture that the Holy Ghost intended that S. Luke should write in his Gospell all things necessary to be believed before you can assure vs that he by the word All vnderstood all such necessary points but then you change your Medium or Argument and passe to a new distinct proof and clearly confess that the Objection which you haue brought is of no force vnless antecedently to this word All you proue that S. Luke intended to sett downe in particular all necessary Poynts Yea though you could proue by some other Argument independently of the word All that S. Lukes purpose was to write all necessary Points of Faith yet from thence you could only infer that if All were taken in that sense it should containe a truth but not that it hath de facto that sense and not some other meaning because there is no necessity that every part of scripture contayne all truth though we are infallibly sure that it contaynes nothing but truth How vaine then is your bragg of the evidence of this Text of S. Luke for your purpose Even yourself shew how litle you can gather from the word All when Pag 210. N. 40. you say that every one of the Evangelists must be believed to haue expressed all necessary Poynts because otherwise how haue they complyed with their owne designe which was as the Titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Thus you say and then add these words By the whole Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but All that makes vp the covenant between God and man But by what or whose Commission do you vnderstand the whole Gospell with that limitation and declaration is not all that is contayned in the Gospell of S. Luke or of the other Evangelists part of their Gospells respectively And is not this still to begg the Question and suppose or take as granted that the designe of the Evangelists was to set downe all things necessary to salvation or all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Or do you not by this your voluntary restriction of All beare witness that you haue no other ground for vnderstanding All poynts or the whole Gospell to be vnderstood of all necessarie poynts except your owne voluntary affirmation and preconceyved opinion 105. Thirdly Of all men in the world you haue least reason to vrge this Text of S. Luke though it were granted the meaning therof to be that which you pretēd My reason is grounded in a doctrine which you deliver P 144. N. 32. in these words For those things which the Apostles professed to deliver as the Dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as divine Revelations why we should take them as divine revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Which doctrine though in it self very vntrue yet being by you believed to be true engages you in a very hard taske of proving that S. Luke in these words all and of all intended to deliver a divine Revelation and not only a Narration of his owne Certainly if your doctrine could be true in any case it might with greatest reason be conceyved to be such in prefaces and like occasions wherin the writer may seeme to declare his owne intention endeavour and proceeding rather than matter of doctrine Manners or revelations from God as we see S. Luke in the preface to his Gospell sayth Visum est mihi assecuto omnia It seemed good to me not Visum est Deo mihi It hath seemd good to God and me or Visum est Spiritui
had rashly presumed to write things wherof they had not full knowledg he intending hereby to withdraw vs from others vncertaine narrations And Cornel. a Lapide vpon S. Luke observes that S. Luke wrote the Gospell against some idle ignorant and perhaps false Evangelists who in Syria or Greece had written the Gospell imperfectly yea perhaps lyingly as S. Luke himself insinuates in the beginninge of his Preface in saying that for as much as many had taken in hand to set forth a declaration c. it seemed good to me also having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first to write to thee in order c So Origen S. Ambrose Theophylact here c. S. Luke therfor taxeth Apocryphall Gospells which went about vnder the name of Matthias Thomas and other Apostles Wherby it appeares that S. Luke never thought of making a Catechisme or giving a Catalogue of all points necessary to be believed but to secure vs from falshood errours vncertainty or fables which indeed might haue made the whole Gospell of Christ suspected whether the poynts contayned in such apocryphall Writers be supposed to haue bene many or few necessary or only profitable c. And therfor we may say that as others wrote against false Teachers so this Holy Evangelists wrote particularly against false Writers with which End he declares himself fully to haue complyed by that care and diligence which he mentions in the Preface to his Gospell For by this necessary industry concerning All things he was enabled and secured not to deliver vncertayntyes or falshoods or fictions in those particular points which afterward he thought fitt to write whether they were to be many or few necessary or only profitable or some necessary and some profitable Neither was there any necessity or congruity that he should write all that by industry he came to know as will appeare in my next Consideration Now what a consequence in this S. Lukes Intention was not to deliver any false or vncertaine Narration Therfor it was necessary he should expressly set downe all things necessary to salvation The true consequence should be this and no more Therfore to comply with the sayd intention it was necessary he should not set downe any thing vncertaine false or fabulous And then I hope yourself will not allow this Consequence It was necessary he should not set downe any thing false or fabulous therfor it was necessary he should set downe all things necessary to be believed 107. 5. Considering with attention this place of S. Luke I observed him to affirme indeed that he had assecutus omnia attayned to the knowledg of all things but saith not vniversally that he had written all things but only indefinitely it seemed good vnto me to write to thee Good Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherin thow hast been instructed And who can doubt but that S. Luke attayned the knowledg of many particulars which he vvrote not in his Gospell Even in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles he setts downe some particulars which happened before our Saviours Ascension and are omitted in his Gospell or who dare say that he knew not one of all those innumerable things which S. John affirmes not to be vvitten by any As also vvhen it is sayd that S. Luke vvrote that Theophilus might knovv the truth of those words wherof he had bene instructed it cannot be doubted but that Theophilus was instructed in more Points then he could read in S. Lukes Gospell aone since as I sayd S. Luke in the Acts expresses somthing concerning Christ vvhich he hath not vvritten in his Gospell and Theophilus might haue redd the Gospells of S. Matth. and S. Mark and some other Canonicall scripture written before the Gospell of S. Luke and therfor the knovvledg or Faith of S. Luke and Theophilus extended it self to more Objects or Truths than are vvritten in his Gospell so that still vve see that All cannot be vnderstood of all simply but vvith divers limitations and degrees One All may signify absolutely all things that our blessed Saviour spoke or did Another All all things which S. Luke believed another all that vvherin Theophilus vvas instructed Another all that S. Luke intended to write and amongst all these and other limitations you will never be able to proue that your All that is all things necessary to be believed is the meaning of S. Luke 108. In this Reflection that S. Luke sayth he had vnderstood all but saith not that he wrote all I was not only confirmed but setled when I found it to haue been deliuered aboue twelue hundred yeares agoe by S. Ambrose in his explanation of this preface of S. Luke in these words visum est mihi assecuto omnia a principio c. It seemed good to me having attained to all things from the beginning to write to thee in order He sayes that he hath attayned not to a few things but to all and having attained to all it seemed good to write not all things but some of all things For he wrote not all but attayned to all for if all those things which saith S. John Jesus did were written I thinke the world it self could not containe them For you may perceiue that he purposely omitted those things also which had bene written by others to the end that a different grace might shine in the Gospell and every booke might excell as it were with certaine particular miracles of mysteryes and works To this we may add that S. Luke in the entrance to the History of the Acts of the Apostles saith that in his Gospell he had written of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach But it is certaine that he wrote not all that our Saviour Jesus did Therfor it is not certaine that he sett downe all that he taught 109. 6. Let vs suppose not grant that by All S. Luke vnderstāds all necessary poynts ād thē I pray you marke how you make him speake Because may have gone about to compile a Narratiō of the things will you haue vs add here necessary that haue been accomplished among vs it seemed good also to me having diligently attayned to all things necessary from the beginning to write to the in order that thou mayst know the verity of those necessary words wherof thou hast beē instructed And in like manner his Preface to the acts must goe thus the first speech I made of all things nacessary ô Theophilus which Jesus began to doe and to teach c Let I say S. Luke be falfly supposed to speake thus and then tell me what good sense will you find in those words of all things necessary which Jesus began to doe And how dare you limit the contents of S. Lukes Gospell to things necessary seing it containes many things not necessary Perhaps you think I do you wrong in saying you limite the word All to things necessary and that you say only that All must at least
of exercising humility in our selves and obedience to Gods Church and to our Saviour himself who sayd Luke 10.16 He that heares you heares me and Matth. 18.17 If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as a Heathen or Publican together with a dependence of one man vpon another as it was sayd to S. Paul even in that great vision Act. 9. V. 7. Goe into the citty And it shal be told thee what thou art to doe and to him who was cured of the leprosy Matth. 8.4 Goe shew thy self to the Priest As also for procuring peace and vnity in Religion which cannot be conserved if all controversyes must be tryed by scripture alone that being in effect to leaue every man to his owne witte will and wayes as we see by constant experience in all those who reject the Authority of a Living Judg. 148. But what you cannot evince by reason you endeavour to proue by an example in these words Suppose Xaverius had bene to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would haue left out any fundamentall Doctrine of it 149. Answer Are these Arguments taken from evident Texts of scripture as yours against vs ought to be in this poynt which is the only foundation of Protestantisme If you tell vs what you meane in this particular Objection by the Gospell of Christ yourself may easily answer for vs out of what hath beene sayd already We haue heard you saying By the Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Now then to your example I Answer that if S. Xaverivs had intended to write the Gospell as it signifyes the History of Christ he had not bene obliged to write all necessary Points as neither the Evangelists who wrote the Gospell were obliged to do ād it is strāge that we denying it of them you would seek to proue it only by changing the person as if any would attribute more to S. Xaverius than to the Evāgelists But if S. Xauerius had purposed to write not the History of our B. Saviour as the Evangelists did but a Catechisme or summe of Christian doctrine or the Gospell as it signifyes to vse your words all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man which the Evangelists did not intend then what you say or imagine of S. Xaverius cannot be applyed to the Evangelists seeing in that case their ends in writing had bene very different Nevertheless even vpon this supposition that S. Xaverius had purposed to write a Catechisme we must consider some particular circumstances before we can affirme that he was obliged to write all necessary points of Faith for example if that Saint had bene assured that in his absence and for all future tymes there would never be wanting Preachers Teachers Prelats Pastors and Apostolicall men to instruct Christians convert Infidels and supply abundantly by word of mouth and a perpetuall Succession and Tradition whatsoever was not expressed in such a Catechisme as de facto we see God in his Goodness hath furnished the Indyes with so many Pastours Preachers c. that no one Cathecisme is absolutely necessary in that case I say no man can judge that S. Xaverius had bene obliged to leaue in writing precisely every particularnecessary Point but only such as Tyme Place Persons and all other particular circumstances considered should in prudence seeme most for the purpose and such a Catechisme togeather with those other helpes had bene a most sufficient Meanes for that End which S. Xaverius had proposed to himself vpon the sayd supposition of Pastours c. Now this is our case The Evangelists were most certaine that Hell-gates could no◠prevaile against the Church Matth. 16. that there should be a perpetuall Succession of Pastours that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Timot. 3. that he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours c. that now we be not children wavering and carryed about with every winde of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftyness to the circumvention of errour Ephesi 4. Where we see that for avoyding errours Scripture alone is not appointed as the only Meanes yea is not so much as mentioned but Apostles Pastours Doctours c. to the worlds end To which purpose ancient S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 4. speaks very fully in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order ād tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many nations yielded assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth It is therfor cleare that the Evangelists had no obligation to write all necessary points in particular and some may retort your example thus the Evangelists had no reason to doe so therfor neither S. Xaverivs in the like case and circumstances had been obliged therto and not argue as you doe S. Xaverius should haue bene obliged to do so therfor we must say the same of the Apostles I will not stand heer to say that although S. Xaverius had bene obliged to set downe all Points necessary to be believed by every priuate person as such yet I hope you would not haue obliged him to expresse all things necessary for the whole Church as I sayd in the beginning which yet is a most necessary thing 150. But here occurs a difficulty which will shew your example of S. Xaverius or of any other to be not only insufficient or impertinent but also impossible and chimericall and even ridiculous in your grounds of which I believe you did not reflect You teach that there cannot be given a particular Catalogue of fundamentall poynts but that men may be sure not to faile in believing all such Articles if they belieue all that is evidently found in scripture which clearly containes all necessary things in particular and many more If then S. Xaverius could not know precisely what points in particular be fundamentall how will you oblige him or any other not to omitt any one such point Neither I do vnderstand how in your principles any man can set downe all necessary points in such manner as he may be sure to omitt none except by referring them to scripture or procuring that they haue either the whole bible according to the common opinion of other Protestants or at least the Gospell of S. Luke which you hold for certaine that it contaynes all necessary points for of the other three Evangelists you are doubtfull which is a strange kind of composing a Catechisme and yet there can be no other perfect Catechisme made either
you wholy but by word of mouth and that thervpon Paul also sayd we speake wisdome amongst the perfect But the word wholy in your parenthesis is wholy your owne false glosse to make those Heretikes seeme like to vs Catholiques wheras it is plaine as we haue heard out of your owne confession that those Heretiks held scripture vnfitt to proue any truth at all and not only vnfitt to proue all necssary truths because they held it not to be the infallible word of God but to contayne falshoods and contradictions and your conscience cannot but beare witness that we do not deny the sufficiency of scripture alone and necessity of tradition vpon any such Atheistical perswasion as that was 164. This also appeares by S. Irenaeus in the first Chapter of the same Book which you cited where he sayth against those Heretiks Neither is it lawfull to say that they preached before they had receyved perfect knowledge as some presume to say boasting that they are correctours of the Apostles And this horrible Heresy he confutes because the Apostles did not preach till first they had receyved the Holy Ghost Where I beseech you remember with feare and trembling your owne doctrine that the Apostles did erre about preaching the Gospell to Gentils and in some things did not deliver divine truths but the dictates of humane reason and all this after they had receyved the Holy Ghost and then consider whether you or wee disagree from S. Irenaeus and detract from the sufficiency of scripture which if these your doctrines were true would be of no greater authority than those absurd Heritiks wickedly affirmed it to be with whom therfore you do in this perfectly agree This also appeares by the words of S. Irenaeus Lib 1. Cap 29 where he sayth of Marcion the Heretike he perswaded his disciples that his word was more to be believed than the Apostles who delivered the Gospell 165. You could not also but speak against your conscience while you liken the Tradition which Catholiks belieue to those of the sayd wicked Heretiques who indeed agreed with you in the point of denying the Traditions which we defend as is fully witnessed by S. Irenaeus in that very Chapter and Book which you alledg and therfor you are inexcusable in laying to our charge the traditions of those men For S. Irenaeus in the same Lib 3. Cap 2. having sayd that when those Heretiks are pressed with scripture they fly to tradition he adds But when we provoke them to that Tradition which comes from the Apostles and which is kept in the Churches by the Successions of Priests they oppose themselves against Tradition saying that they themselves being wiser not only than Priests but also than the Apostles haue found out the sincere truth And so it comes to passe that they assent neither to scripture nor Tradition Which is agreeable to the Title of that Chapter Quod neque scripturis c. as I sayd aboue Wherby it appeares that they rejected Catholike Traditions derived from the Apostles by succession of Pastours and therfor when they appeale to Tradition it was to certaine secret traditions of their owne men which even yourself Pag. 344. N. 28. affirme out of S. Irenaeus where you say that Catholikes alledged Tradition much more credible than that secret tradition to which those heretikes pretended against whom he S. Irenaeus wrote And Pag. 345. N. 29. You speake most clearly and effectually to your owne confutation For there you make a paraphrase of some words of S. Irenaeus and make him speake in this manner You heretiks decline a tryall of your doctrine by scripture as being corrupted and imperfect and not fit to determine Controversyes with out recourse to Tradition and insteed thereof you fly for refuge to a secret tradition which you pretend that you receaved from your Antecessours Do not these words declare both that those heretiks held scripture to be corrupted and that they relyed vpon certaine hidden and vaine traditions of their owne As contrarily it is evident out of S. Irenaeus that the Fathers were wont to convince heretiks by Tradition coming from the Apostles and which is conserved in the Churches by succession of Priests which demonstrates that there was no necessity that all necessary points should be written and you wrong S. Irenaeus alledging him to the contrary wheras it is most certaine and evident that this holy Father writes most effectually in favour of Traditions descending to vs by a continued succession of Bishops and Pastours ād particularly of the Bishops of Rome whose succession and names he setteth downe to his tyme as may be seene Lib. 3. Chap 3. and then concludes by this order and succession that tradition which is in the Church derived from the Apostles and preaching of the truth came to vs. And this is a most full demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving Faith which from the Apostles to this tyme hath bene in the Church conserved and delivered in truth I beseech the Reader for the good of his owne soule to read what this holy Father writes of traditions Lib. 3. C. 4.25.40 and Lib. 4. C. 43. where he hath these remarkeable words wherfore we ought to obey those Priests which are in the Church and haue succession from the Apostles who with Episcopall succession haue receyved the certaine gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father But others who depart from the principall succession and haue their conventicles in what place soever we ought to hold for suspected either as Heretikes and of ill doctrine or as schismatikes and provd and pleasing themselves or els as hypocrites doing these things for lucre and vainglory And yet further L. 4. C. 45. he hath these words Paul teaching vs where we may find such he meanes Faithfull persons whom our Lord hath placed ouer his family of whom he spoke in the end of the precedent 44. Chapter saith he placed in his Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Doctours where therfor the gifts of our Lord are placed there we ought to learne the truth with whom there is a succession of the Church from the Apostles and that is constantly kept which is wholsome vnblemished for conversation and not spurious but incorruptible in doctrine that is both for manners and Faith affirming that in neither of those the Church can erre For those men do keepe our Faith which is in one God who made all things and expound to vs the scriptures without danger And the same he sayth L. 4 C. 63. yea even vvhitaker Controu 1. 9. Q. C. 9. saith We confess with Irenaeus the Authority of the Church to be firme and a compendious demonstration of Canonicall doctrine a posteriori Where vve see Whitaker speakes of doctrine and not only of conserving and consigning scripture to vs. And S. Epiphanius is so cleare for traditions Heresi 61. we must vse traditions for the scripture hath not all things and therfor the Apostles delivered
that we are obliged to belieue the contents or verityes contained in scripture but one of those is that scripture it self is the word of God and inspired by Him therfor we are obliged to belieue scripture to be the word of God The minor is proved out of S. Paul 2. Timoth 3.16 All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach c. that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke Which words Protestants and yourself in part alledg to proue that scripture is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith And if it be a perfect Rule certainly it must be a Rule therfor that scripture is a Rule of Faith is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently a materiall Object of our Faith Or if you will needs say that we do not belieue as an Object of Faith scripture to be a totall Rule of faith you overthrow the cause of Protestants and yourself by confessing it cannot be proved out of scripture that scripture is such a totall Rule which is the thing I haue mainly vrged against you in my last Chapter and if this cannot be done why do you goe about to doe it by alledging texts of scripture for that purpose Or out of what ground can you possibly pretend to proue that scripture alone is the Rule of Faith if you graÌ„t it cannot be proved out of scripture on which you profess all matters of Faith to be grounded Yourself P. 143. N. 30. note it is saied in scripture All scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrâ—es of the Church are divinely inspired and the controversy will bâ—at an end that is you will belieue as a matter of Faith that the decrees of the Church are infallible seing then scripture saith that itself is divinely inspired you must belieue as a matter of faith that it is infallible or the word of God The like argument I take from the doctrine of Protestants and their endeavour to proue out of scripture that it is a Rule evident for all necessary Points for which they are wont to alledg the words of the Psalme 18. V. 9. The precept of our Lord lightsome illuminating the eyes and Psalm 118. V. 105. Thy word is a lampe to my feete and 2. Pet 1. V. 19. which you doe well attending vnto as to a candel shining in a darke place Therfor according to them this Proposition scripture is an evident Rule for all necessary Points is a truth contayned in scripture and a materiall Object of Faith vnless they will grant what we vrge against them that it cannot be proved out of scripture that it is an evident Rule for such Poynts Besides Pag 143. N. 30. you bring the said words of S. Paul All scripture is divinely inspired expresly and immediately to proue that the Apostles were infallible in their writings Therfor it is a truth contayned in scripture and consequently by your owne confession a materiall Object of Faith Morover we read 2. Pet. 1.20.21 vnderstanding this first that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation For not by mans will was prophesy brought at any tyme but the Holy men of God spake inspired with the holy Ghost Therfor we are obliged to belieue as a truth contayned in scripture that the writers therof spoke and wrote inspired by God And what is oftner repeated in the Prophets then the word of our Lord was made to me or the like Therfor one truth contained in scripture is that they wrote by divine inspiration Doth not S. John begin his Apocalyps with these words The Apocalyps of Jesus Christ which God gaue him c blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy Which words declare that he wrote a Prophecy which God gaue him or inspired into his mynd and so it is contained in scripture and a materiall Object of our Faith and his Apocalyps is the word of God Which Truth being declared by S. John men are bound to belieue it as a matter of Faith though they were supposed to know all the contents of the Apocalyps by other meanes for example by immediate Revelation or Inspiration as S. John himself came to know them vnless you will say that men may reject what an Apostle hath set downe in writing Doth not S. Peter also 2. Epist Cap. 3.15.16 teach that S. Paul wrote his Epistles by wisdom and inspiration from God Therfor it is a materiall object of Faith that S. Paules Epistles are the word of God even although one were not bound to know the particular contents of them or had knowne them by some other meanes Therfor your Doctrine that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the conteÌ„ts of scripture though we deny scripture itself is clearly against scripture and repugnant to a truth contayned therin 24. Ninthly and lastly in stead of an argument I may express a just admiration how such a Doctrine as this could appeare in a Book printed in England and approved as agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Fulke a chief man amongst English Protestants saith plainly in his Confutation of Purgatory Pag. 214. Whosoever denyeth the Authority of the Holy Scriptures therby be wrayeth himself to be an heretike And hitherto all English and other Protestants haue pretended to oppose themselves against the Swenckfeldians who rejected all the Scripture as you say one may doe and yet be saved And certainly if men be not obliged to belieue Scripture as a matter of Faith it imports nothing whether they accept or reject it if also they do not belieue it to be the word of God what certaine credit can they giue to it and if Christians did not belieue it to be such they would account it very great foolishnesse to belieue Mysteryes which seeme repugnant to all Philosophy and naturall Reason and depriue men of those things to which nature is most inclined vpon any Testimony or Authority less then Divine And this your Doctrine is less tolerable because you are not able to bring in favour therof any one argument deserving answer 25. You say indeed Pag 116. N. 159. that without knowing or believing scripture one may performe the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospel and not that it is contayned in these or these Bookes 26. But this is a plaine begging the Question to suppose or affirme without proofe that one condition of the new Covenant is not to belieue scripture to be the word of God Yourself Pag 134. N. 13. expressly teach that among the conditions which Christ requires one is that we belieue what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to hane beene revealed by him Now that scripture hath bene revealed by God is proved with the many Miracles which the Apostles wrought to confirme that they were messengers of God and Infallible in all matters which they
delivered by word or writing and therfor cannot without damnation be rejected by any to whom it is sufficiently propounded for such which sufficiency of proposition is required in all articles of Faith fundamentall or not fundamentall before one can be obliged to belieue them 27 Since then according to your Doctrine we are not obliged to belieue Scripture to be the word of God yea and may reject it It remaines true then as I sayd in the last Chapter Scripture cannot be a perfect Rule nor any Rule at all of Faith although we should falsly suppose that it containes evidently all things necessary to be believed For what can it availe me in order to the exercising an act of Faith to read any Point in that Booke which I conceiue my self not obliged to belieue Let vs now come to another errour of yours 28. Your second errour I find Pag. 144. N. 31. where you write thus If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they dâ—livered constantly as a certaine divine Truth and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a tyme in errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is vnanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstaÌ„ding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations yet vntill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both h o and the rest of the Church held is vnlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes And Pag. 145. N. 33. you say the Apostles could not be the Churches Foundations without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths Do not these words overthrow Christian Religion and Authority of Scriptures 29. These conditions you require that the Doctrine of the Apostles be to vs certaine and receyved as Divine Truth 1. It must be delivered constantly 2 It must be delivered as a Divine Truth 3. It must haue the Artestation of Divine Miracles and these conditions you require for every part therof For you say the Doctrine of the Apostles was false or vncertaine in no part and then you add expressly this limitation I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine Divine Truth and which had the Artestation of Divine Maracies You cannot deny but that the Apostles if they conceyved that the Gospell was not to be preached to the Gentills did frame that opinyon out of some apprehended Revelation for example In viam gentium ne abieritis Matth 10.5 Into the way of the Gentiles goe ye not or Matth 15.24 I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel or some other and so delivered a thing conceyved by them to be a Divine Truth yet they were deceyved in that Poynt because it wanted the other conditions of constancy and Attestation of Divine Miracles and consequently your doctrine must be that every Point of Faith must haue all the sayd three conditions and that the Apostles after the sending of the Holy Ghost might faile in some of them and might teach an errour in delivering matters concerning Faith and Religion 30. If this be so what certainty can we now haue that they on whom Christians are builded as vpon their Foundation Ephes 2.20 haue not erred in writing as then they erred in speaking And in particular whether they did not erre in setting downe that very command which Pag 137. N. 21. You cite out of S. Matth 29.19 Goe and teach all Nations And so at this present we cannot be certaine whether the Apostles erred in their first thoughts of not preaching or in their second of preaching the Gospell to Gentils If they were vniversally assisted by the Holy Ghost they could erre in neither without it in both and if once you deny such an vniversall assistance we cannot possibly know when they are to be trusted and how can you be certaine that S. Luke hath not erred in declaring this very Story out of which you would proue that S. Peter and the other Apostles did erre You grant Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing Seing therfor you teach that the Apostles were deceaved in a thing which God required them to belieue and commanded them to practise according to your owne saying we can yield vnto them but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing What the Apostles spoke or preached they might haue written it is your owne saying Pag 54. N. 7. Whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written neither had it bene more or less true or false by being committed to writing than if it had bene only spoken or preached and so if they could erre in speaking we cannot be sure but that their writings may containe some errour proceeding from inadvertence or prejudice or some other cause as you speake Pag 137. N. 21. This I may confirme by what you say to Ch Ma Pag 84.86 D. Fields words I confess are somwhat more pressing and if he had bene infallible and the words had not slipt vnadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Booke In which words I note that although D. Field had bene infallible yet words might haue slipt from him vnadvisedly even in writing for you speake of what he hath written in his Book and therfor much more if the Apostles were supposed to haue bene fallible and actually to haue erred as you say they did why might not their errour haue vnadvisedly slipt from them into their writings 31. If you answer that it belongs to Gods providence not to permit an errour to be set downe in writing and conveyed to posterity I reply by this very Reason it is cleare that God could not permitt the Apostles to erre against any revealed Truth and yet oblige vs to belieue with certainty their writings which we can belieue only for the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers especially since you pretend that this errour of theirs is
our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations Christ then according to you did not depriue the Apostles of freewill though he proposed externally the Object and gaue them sufficient Grace to performe his will For if he had mooved them to Truth by way of necessity they could not haue erred If you grant this what will follow but that as the Church so the Apostles might deviate from that which God declared and commanded and consequently either belieue amiss or not set downe faithfully in writing what they believed Which is also confirmed by what you write P. 86. N. 93. If it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himself to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of scripture And a little after God is not lavish in superfluityes and therfor having given vs meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make vse of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate vs to make vs of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorifyed by our free Obedience Wheras necessity and freedom connot stand togeather And afterward If God should worke in vs by an absolute irresistible necessity the Obedience of Faith c he could no more require it of vs as our duty than he can of the sun to shine of the Sea to ebb and flow and of all other creatures to do those things which by meere necessity they must do and cannot choose And Pag 88. N. 96. you say expressly That God cannot necessitate men to belieue aright without taking away their free will in believing and in professing their belief It seemes by these words you hold the Apostles to haue had freewill in believing preaching and writing and that therfor it was in their power to deviate from Gods will and motion and then according to your grounds as the church so also the Apostles might erre Which deduction is also proved by your words Pag 172. N. 71. The spirit of truth may be with a man or Church for ever and teach him all Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that he may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now who can assertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of freewill in believing if it be not of this nature Now if you do not depriue the Apostles of freewill because otherwise God could no more require of them as their duty to belieue preach and write such truths as were inspired by Him than he can of the sun to shine of the sea to ebb and flow c this discourse of yours takes away their infallibility and proves that they might fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which was taught or revealed to them and the contrary assertion cannot possibly be reconciled with their freewill And Pag 87. N. 95. you say If the Holy Ghosts moving the Church be resistible then the Holy Ghost may moue and the Church may not be moved And why do you not say if the Holy Ghosts moving the Apostles to belieue preach and write Scripture be resistible it must in the same manner follow that the Holy Ghost may move and the Apostles may not be moved and so may belieue preach and write errours 64. But this is not all the bitterness you Vent against the church in such manner as it wounds the Apostles no less than the church You say P. 86. N 93. and P. 87. N. 94. If you Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctours follow her infallible direction why doth she thus put her candâ—e vnder a bushell and keepe her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallâ—bly thus long wrapt vp in napkins why sets sheenot forth Infallible Commentaryes or Fxpositions vpon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The scripture itself tells vs all scripture is profitable And the scripture is not so much the words as the sense 65. In answer to this your weake and irreligious discourse I returne the like Demands whether the Apostles were infallibly directed concerning the true meaning or interpretatioÌ„ of scripture as they were for writing it I suppose you will say they were so directed Why then did they put their candle vnder a bushell and keepe their Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly wrapt vp in napkins Why did they not set forth infallible commentaryes or expositions vpon all the bible Was it because this would not haue bene profitable for Christians that scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture itself tells vs all scripture is profitable And scripture is not so much the words as the sence And when you haue made these Demands against the Apostles you may in like manner ascend higher and aske why divers parts of scripture were so written as they not only need expositions but that no mortall man can vnderstand them When you haue given a satisfactory answer to these Demands the same will answer your Questions concerning the church which being directed by the Holy Ghost will not faile to interpret declare and performe all that is necessary in order to the Eternall salvation of soules and in particular will supply by Tradition or other Meanes what is obscure or is not contayned in Scripture But then you aske againe N. 95. Whether this Direction of the Holy Ghost be resistible by the Church or irresistible I still answer by demanding whether the Motion of the Holy Ghost was resistible by the Apostles or irresistible If irresistible why may we not say the same of the church for those particular Actions of Interpreting Scripture and Deciding controversyes in Religion If resistible then either we are not sure that the Apostles did not deviate from the Motion of the holy Ghost as you inferâ— against the infallibility of the church or els we learne by this example of the Apostles that God may moue resistibly and yet infallibly for attainng that End which by meanes of such a Motion he intends This if you be resolved to deny we must conclude that the Apostles were not infallible in their writings and that we can haue no certainty that Scripture doth not containe errours But whatsoever you thinke the truth is that God wants not power to moue men resistibly and yet infallibly by divers wayes knowen to his infinite Wisdome I would gladly know whether you belieue that God can possibly be sure to make any one a Saint or a repentant sinner or can promise perseverance to the end I
haue some Errours yet seeing they are not soe great as yours he that conceiâ—es it any disparagement to his judgment to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to haue some corruptions it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgment Do not these words declare your opinion that in case of perplexity when of two Evills one must be chosen it is judgment and consequently no sinne to make choise of the less This is the very thing which I haue alledged out of Divines and which obliges you to answer your owne argumeÌ„t against Charity maintayned This your chiefest objection being answered confuted and retorted let vs examine the rest 136. You say Pag 164. N. 57. It is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church mâ—ll things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fondamentalls 137. Answer Although indeed if once we suppose that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall it be an evident consequence that we can never belieue the Church in some things vnless we belieue her in all and so your objection is of no force yet Charity Maintayned never sayd that one may adhere to the Church in all things precisely and formally because she is infallible in some things which in speculation and good Logicke had been like to this Argument Mans vnderstanding is infallible in some things for example in the most vniversall knowne principles as that two contradictoryes cannot be true or that every whole is greater than a part therof and the like Therfore I am to belieue mans vnderstanding to be infallible in all things But he spoke morally and pro subjectâ materia and therfore sayd expressly seing Protestants grant the Church to be infallible in Points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferre that it behooves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her Where you see he speakes of what were to be done in wisedowne and for the safety of ones soule and considers tkings as in this subject they ought to be considered in a morall not in a Logicall or Metaphisicall way That the Church being confessedly infallible in all necessary Points men must consider well how they leaue her in any point least perhaps either that point wherin they forsake her be a Fundamentall point or els least they may fall into some Fundamentall errour after they haue left her as also that seing they rely on her Authority in Fundamentall Articles it is no wisdome to suspect her credit in matters of less moment especially considering the many examples of those who de facto forsaking the Church haue fallen into damnable and Fundamentall Heresyes and in a word seing there may be great danger in leaving the Church and damnation cannot be feared by adhering to her which I am sure neither doth nor can erre in Points necessary to salvation there may be great harme in leaving but no hurt in fellowing Her in all that she proposes as matter of Faith which is your owne grant as we haue seene aboue in these words Pag 168. N. 63. It is true if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to perswade any man to leaue it Now that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall or necessary Points I will proue herafter out of your owne words out of Potter and other Protestants and therfore it was madnesse to perswade men to leaue Her 138. These and the like morall and prudentiall Arguments Charity Maintayned vrged which truly in a matter concerning Eternity ought to mooue every one and more than meere Metaphysicall speculations And that this discourse of Charity Maintayned was very reasonable yourselfe make good in your words which I haue cited that if there were set vp some setled society of Christians for our guide in Fundamentalls then Charity Maintayned might with some colour and shew of reason haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking Her in a necessary Point What Mr. Chillingworth For feare of forsaking Her in a necessary Point What colour of reason can there be in this your feare Seing we haue heard you tell vs P. 164. N. 57. It is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things And what will become of your vaine Dialogue in this same section wherby with great pompe of words you endeavour to prove that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all thingr hauing no other ground c Is it not cleare that you contradict yourselfe and are engaged to answer all the Arguments which you object against Charity Maintayned for saying that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentalls it is no wisdome to leaue her in any Point Can one judge that there is reason for that which the same man is confident which is your owne word Pag 165. N. 57. may be demonstrated to be false And by this appeares that your whole discourse N. 63. is against this your owne grant Neither do we say that vniversally one must stick to one side for feare of going too far towards the other but that when there is no harme in embracing one part and evident danger in forsaking it in such a case we cannot forsake one part and goe to the other that is we cannot forsake the Church in Points not necessary for salvation because we may chance to leaue her in some Fundamentall Point which even yourselfe grant to be a rationall deduction if once it be supposed that any particular Church is infallible in Fundamentall Points as Protestants commonly grant the vniversall Church to be infallible in such Articles and therfore as I sayd aboue Luther and his fellowes could not in wisdome forsake the vniversall Church in any one Point Morover remember what you write Pag 277. N. 61. in these words Neither is there any reason why a Church should please herselfe too much for retaining fundamentall truthes while she remaines regardless of others For who is there that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not according to the vsuall fecundity of errour bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and Piety If this be true of the vniversal Church which is infallible for Fundamentalls much more may we say of any private person who hath no such priviledg of infallibility forsaking the Church in some Point of Faith Who is there can put him in sufficient caution that these Errours about profitable matters may not according to the vsuall fecundity of Errour bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very fundations of Religion and Piety And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to
not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholique cānot erre in Points not fundamētall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmes to erre only in points not fundamētall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamētall This is the Argumēt of Ch Ma and is it not cleare that if the Church Catholique can erre for example in the Doctrines of Purgatory Invocations of Saynts reall presence and the like as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did erre and that they were reformers of such errours seing the Roman Church may and doth hold the same Doctrines the Church vniversall and the Roman Church shall agree in the same pretended errours and so Potter saied not truly that if we agree with the Roman Church for example about Purgatory Praiers to saynts c we cannot agree with the Church Catholique Will you deny the Axiom Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se If then the vniversall and the Roman Church agree in the belief of errours as you falsly terme them do they not agree one with an other And so contrary to Potters affirmation it must be saied If we did dissent from these opinions of the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church Catholique if once it be supposed that the Church holds those or the like vnfundamentall errours as you grant she may And further it would follow that seing Protestants dissent from the Roman Church they cannot agree with the Catholique Church But let vs heare how you make good your censure 69. You say let vs suppose either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church may erre in some few things but that the Roman errs in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches infallibility a man may truly saie vnless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therfore you must retract your imputation laied vpon Dr. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may held some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same tyme with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same tyme to agree with the Roman and the Catholique 70. Answer Your conscience cannot but witness that the Doctor when he saied If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique did not speak of accidentall cases or voluntary suppositions such as you put but meant and spoke absolutely that if we did not dissent from the Present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique For if he meant only of contingent cases without regard to any particular advantage or prerogatiue of the Church vniversall he might haue made suppositions directly contrary to yours that the Roman Church may erre but doth not but the vniversall actually doth or that the Roman Church doth erre in some few things but the Catholique errs in many more For if once it be granted the Catholique Church to erre to say she may erre in many or few is a voluntary vngrounded conjecture or divination and nothing to any purpose Nay seing if once the Catholik Church be supposed to erre she may multiply errours without end and so to day agree with to morrow disagree from the Roman Church and it must follow that according to your explication the Doctours words may be in a perpetuall alteration to day fals to morrow true which either was farre from his meaning or his meaning was not only impertinent but against his owne scope and Intention which was to make the vniversall Church as it were the Modell or Rule to judge of the necessity which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholiques which had bene no good reason if the vniversall Church may erre and erre as much and more than the Roman or any other partioular Church Which appeares also by these words of the Doctor in the same Pag 97. The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations vpon the divine Authority of Gods written word And therfore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretique And P 132. he saieth For vs the mistaker nor his he Masters will never prove that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholique Church or any Fundamentall or other truth of Scripture and therefore he doth vnjustly charge vs with Schisme or Herisie Do not these sayings attribute more to the vniversall than to particular Churches and more than a meerely casualty that either she doth not actually erre or els erres in fewer things than the present Roman Church And vpon the whole matter is not that true which Charity Maintayned N. 22. saied That D. Potter must either grant that the Catholique Church cannot erre in Points not Fundamentall or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the saied words If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique Would not Protestants take it in ill parte if one should say If we did not dissent in some opinions from Protestants we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique And yet according to your explication and suppositions it could not be ill taken because either the Church might be supposed not to erre actually or in some few things but that the Protestants erre in many more it being manifest that some of them erre By the way when Potter saieth For vs the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholique Church or any truth of Scripture I would know whom he vnderstand by vs Seing it is evident that of Protestants holding so many contrary Doctrines some must of necessity oppose some Declaration of the Church or truth of Scripture and since they haue no certaine Rule to know which of them be in the wrong and oppose some Declaration of the Church or Scripture we must conclude that no man desirous of his salvation can commit his soule to any of them all Your Conclusion Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid vpon Dr Potter or doe that c. is obscure but I am sure it is answered seing it goes vpon your fals explication of the Doctors words 71. Your proceding N. 69. puts me vpon a necessity of intreating the Reader to peruse the N. 23. of Charity Maintayned which evidently demonstrates that it was wholy impertinent for you to answer the places which He saieth are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of Gods
House of God a Gate of Heaven why may he not say of the Church that it is a House of God a Pillar of Truth What greater repugnance is there betwene a House and a Pillar than betwene a House and a Gate If men may take the liberty to interpret holy Scripture by such light subtilityes what certainty can ever be gathered from any Text What difficulty is there to conceiue that the Church should be the House wherein Gods resides and raignes by infallibly assisting it and yet be a Pillar of Truth to teach others Especially seing God assists the Church to the end she may teach others Passiuè taught Actiuè teaches as yourself avouch heere N. 78. that it is the essence of the Church to be alwayes the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But yourself profess not to relie vpon this interpretation and therefore 88. Secondly you put vs in mynd that the Church which S. Paul heere speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and not the Roman and such we will not haue to be vniversally infallible 89. Answer Although S. Paul spoke to Timothy who conversed in the particular Church of Ephesus whereof he was Bishop yet he puts him in mynd of his duty by a Motiue and Reason more vniversall and certaine as Proofes are wont to be than could be taken from that particular Church alone that is he gaue a Reason which did concerne it as a member of the vniversall Church which being the Pillar and Ground of Truth could not but exact of Him and every Bishop a zeale to imitate with care and vprightness their mother the Church in conserving for their parte that Truth which the Church teaches and from which she cannot swarue To which very purpose Cornelius à Lapide vpon these words Quae est columna firmamentum veritatis saieth Addit hoc Apostolus vt innuat Timotheo magno cum studio ad haereses errores devitandos refellendos purae veritati intelligendae praedicandae in Ecclesia sibi incumbendum esse adeoue se non judaizantium aliorumue Novantium sed Ecclesiae fidem sequi praedicare debere vtpote quae sit basis veritatis And so I may retort your Argument and say S. paul speakes of a Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth but Protestants teach that no particular Church is such a Pillar even for things necessary to salvation as they saie the vniversall Church is Therefore S. Paul speaks not of a particular but the vniversall Church And by this I confute what you answer 90. Thirdly N. 77. That many Attributes in Scripture are not notes of performance but of duty and teach vs not what the thing or Person is of necessity but what it should be Ye are the salt of the Earth said our Saviour to his Disciples Not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue bene so of necessity and could not haue bene otherwise in vaine had he put them in seare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground that is the Teacher of Truth of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet she may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 91. Answer Even now it hath bene saied that Potter and other Protestants commonly teach that the vniversall Church cannot erre in Fundamantall Articles as a particular Church may and yet every particular Church by duty is a teacher of all Necessary Points Therefore the vniversall Church must be more a teacher by duty and performance Your Proofe that to be the salt of the earth which was spoken to the Apostles signifyes only that it was infallibly certaine they should be so tends plainly to Atheisme if the denyall of Scripture and all Christianity must bring to Atheisme as certainly it must For take away infallibility from the Apostles what certainty can you haue that in fact they haue not neglected and violated their duty as you say the Church may You still fall into the same mistake that God cānot effectually moue vs to the performance of a thing without necessitating our will Neither doth it follow that in vaine our Saviour put them in feare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour c For when God doth promise a thing he doth not exclude meanes or our endeavour to the application of which he can also moue vs effectually without prejudice to the freedom of our will The Apostles in the Councell which they held at Hierusalem were certaine not to determine any Errour and yet they vsed great diligence examination and dispute Act 15.7 I suppose you will not deny that S. John was infallibly assisted in writting his Gospell and yet S. Hierom in praef in Evangel Matth saieth that he could not be intreated to set on that holy Work but vpon condition that indicto jejunio in commune omnes Deum deprecarentur the Christians should haue a fett fast and all should joyne in prayer to God Do you not belieue that God did so assist the Writers of Canonicall Scripture that they were infallible in their writings and yet that they might exercise an act of obedience and freely though infallibly follow the Direction of the Holy Ghost It is cleare that you must either deny freedom of will to the Writers or infallibility to their writings or grant that free will and infallibility are not incompatible I might add to all this that men may loose themselves not only by error in Faith but also by an ill life whereby Preachers destroy by deeds what they pretended to build in words Which Answer would evacuate the force of your Argument but I haue saied enough of this matter 92. Fourthly N. 78. you answer that we must proue that by Truth in the saied Text is meant all Truth both Fundamentall and profitable and that you grant it to be the Essence of the Church to be a maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But this evasion hath bene confuted already out of your owne assertion that we cannot belieue the Church in Fundamentall Articles vnless she be infallible in all and this vrges most clearely in your opinyon who profess it impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall And I beseech you cōsider that S. Paul speaks of the primitiue Church of those tymes which you will not deny to haue bene infallible ād therefore if he speak of the vniversall Church as in this Fourth Answer you suppose he doth you must grant that Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points And so this Text cannot be restrayned to Fundamentall Truths 93. Your N. 79.80 Pretends to answer the Argument taken out of S. Paul Ephes 4. He gaue some Apostles and some prophets and
from the sayings of ancient Fathers and moderne Divines can only in the opinion of him and all other Protestants be probable and so cannot oblige every one to know the Creed but men may keepe their liberty Melior est conditio possidentis And Potter himselfe confesses it to be only probable that the Creed containes all fundamentall points and so he cannot oblige men to know the Creed because it only probably containes all necessary Articles If then you cannot proue that any is obliged to know the Creed in vaine doe you say belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall but you must say the direct contrary Men are not in the Principles of Protestants obliged to belieue the Creed Therefore they are not obliged to belieue by it any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall You say Dr. Potter sayes no where that all the Articles of the Creed are fundamentall Neither doth Ch. Ma. ever affirme that he sayes so but the thing being of it self true and you expressly confess it to be true He had reason joyning it with other principles of the Doctor to frame such a Dialague as he did betwene Potter and some desirous to find the Truth And now I hope it appeares that you had no reason to accuse Ch Ma. of vn-ingenious dealing sit for a Faire or Comedy of sirang immodesty of adding to the Doctors words of injustice of blind zeale transporting him beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion and making him careless of speaking either truth or sense That he is a prevaricating Proxy That he patches together a most ridiculous answer That it appeares to his shame c and finally you say certainly if Dr. Potter doth Answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very foole But if he does not then But. I for beare you These be your modest epethitons You say that we Catholiques interpret those divine prescriptions Matth 5. to be no more than Counsells But I pray what Catholique ever taught that our Saviour delivered only a Counsell when he saied whosoever shall say to his brother thou foole shall be guilty of hell fire But all the rest of your acerbity is nothing to that fearefull denunciation which you vtter against Ch. Ma. that our errours as you call them you feare will be certainly destructiue to such as he is that is to all those who haue eyes to see and will not see 52. In your N. 64. you cavill that Ch. Ma. promises to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which he Ch. Ma. said before But presently forgetting himself in stead of answering the Doctors Arguments falls a confuting his Answers to the Argument of Ch. Ma. 53. Answer Ch. ma. N. 20. promises to answer not the Arguments as you say but the Objections of Dr. Potter against that which we had said before which be doth performe N. 21.22.27 and N. 23. he begins to answer the Doctors positive Arguments alledged to proue that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of Faith And the Confutations of the Doctors objections are so strong that you abandon your Client and tell vs that he rather glances at then builds vpon thē that they were said ex abundanti and therefore that you conceiue it superfluous to examine the exceptions of Ch. Ma. against them This is an excellent answer if it could be as satisfactory as it is easy I must intreate the Reader to peruse the N. 21.22.27 of Ch. Ma. and he will finde that Dr. Potter needed a Defence which will be suspected you did not giue because indeed you could not and therefore you fly to an other Answer which you will not find in Dr. Potter That Scripture is not a point necessary to be explicitely believed And How ought Protestants to accept this answer who teach that wee can belieue nothing belonging to Christian Faith but by Scripture alone which if they belieue not Actually nor are bound to belieue it how can they Actually believe or be obliged to belieue the contents thereof If the Church in your opinyon be not infallible and that mē are not obliged to belieue the Scripture to be the word of God and infallible which to them who belieue is not it all one as if it were not what certainty can Protestants haue either that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of simple beliefe or that those which it containes are true you say Gregory of Ualentia seemes to confess the Creeds being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it But Ualentia 2.2 Disp 1. Quest 1. Punct 4. saied only that the Creed containes those things which are in different places contayned in Scripture which is evidently true but he saieth not the Creed was collected out of Scripture which was written after the Creed was composed one thinghe saieth which had bene more for your purpose to obserue that in believing the Creed we are to regard the sence Non enim saieth he sufficit haerere in cortice verborum 54. Subtract from your N. 65. what hath bene answered already or may be answered by a meere denyall or which implies a begging of the Question there will remaine only your saying which yet I cannot say deserves any answer that Ch. Ma. speakes that which is hardly sense in calling the Creed an abridgment of some Articles of Faith For I demand say you 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 therfore it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfore is not an abridgment of them If you would call it now an abridgment of the Faith this would be sense and signifie thus much That all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith are comprized in it For it is the proper duty of abridgments to leaue out nothing necessary and to take in nothing vnnecessary 55. Answer this your subtility is so farr from being of any solidity that it overthrowes all abridgments contradicts Dr. Potter and yourselfe and proves that the Creed performes not the proper dury of an abridgment as you say it is and therfor you are injurious to it and the composers therof First your objection may be made against every Abredgment by demanding whether it be an abridgment of those points that are out of it or of those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therfor it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfor it is not an abridgment of them Secondly you contradict Dr. Potter who saieth Pag 234. The Creed is an abstract or Abridgment of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Seripture or collected ous of it And Charity Maintay saieth it is an abridgment of some articles and so the words of the Doctor are more restrained and limited than
he call his Faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who haue translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet further Ibid. Lib. 3. know thou that the Roman Faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receyue these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise than it hath once bene preached 24. To these words of S. Hierom you answer First that he writing to Damasus a Pope might be apt to write over-over-truths An answer not deserving a confutation Secondly you say S. Hierom chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall vpon the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon vpon the Authority of the Roman But this hath bene answered heretofore neither was there ever any decree of the Roman Church Pope or Councell excluding that Epistle from the Canon or rejecting any Book of the old or New Testament which was afterward admitted Thirdly you ask How was it possible that S. Hierom should ever belieue that Liberius Bispop of Rome either was or could haue bene wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileiae and brought after two yeares banishment to subscribe Heresy Sr. It is a signe you want solid Objections when you fly to so farre fetched evasions and your proceeding is inexcusable in dissembling the Answer which Ch. Ma. Part. 2. Chap. 3 N. 30. gives out of Baronius Ann. 357. and Bellarmine De Roman Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 9. who affirme that Liberius never subscribed to Arianisme or any error against Faith but only to a Point which concerned matter of fact and even greater Protestants than you doubt of that which you will needs haue to be vndoubted But indeed this old Objection is directly nothing to the purpose of proving that Liberius did ever define ex cathedra any errour against Faith but only that de facto by force of feare theates banishment and other sufferings he did subscribe against S. Athanasius as S. Peter denied our Saviour without forfeit of his Faith though he failed in the profession thereof our Saviour having saied Oravi pro te Petre vtnon deficiat Fides tua or as the same Apostle was reprehended by S. Paul even after the comming of the holy Ghost and yet I hope you will not denie but that one might haue saied I am in the coÌ„munio of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built vpoÌ„ tkat Rock whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth and the same I say S. Hierom might haue saied of and to Liberius defining as Pope not as failing in fact as a man and we see that both before and after that forced act he was constaÌ„t not only in the true faith which he never lost but also in the profession thereof and what he did by force and feare must no more be imputed to him as Pope than a confession extorted by torture can be of force without a voluntary ratification Our Saviour saied men were to obey the words of the Scribes aÌ„d Pharisees not their deeds Is it not a doctrine of your owne Pag. 144 N. 31. that the doctrine of the Apostles was either fals or vncertain in no part of that which they delivered â—onstantly And certaine it is that Liberius did not make good his subscription if ever he subscribed to an errour but revoked it assoone as he was at liberty and as I may say taken of the Torture as alwaies before he had defended the Catholique truth If Marcellinus sacrificed to Idolls who will therefore say that he believed or defined Idolary to be Lawfull And vniversally if you will judg mens Faith by their Actions whosoever committs theft murther or any other sinne against the commandements must be condemned for an Heretique as believing theft to be Lawfull Finally if you will haue the strength of of S. Hieroms ArgumeÌ„t to cosist in this that Damasus was in the right only actually and accidentally the Saint had begged the Question and proved his owne Doctrine to be true because Damasus held with him and that which Damasus held de facto was true though Damasus might erre as other Bishops might whereas it is cleare that S. Hierom as his words express grounds himself vpon that firme and stable Rock of which our Saviour saied Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock c. And this last overthrowes the evasion to which you â—llie N. 24. for interpreting the words of S. Ambros. 25. For your N. 25.26.27 I wonder how you could dissemble what Ch. Ma. hath Part. 2. Chap. 2. N. 31. whereof see also Bellarm in De Rom. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 7. where this matter is handled at large And who will not make a difference betwene S. Cyprian being disinterressed and delivering a generall Doctrine and prescriptions against all Heretiques and S. Cyprian speaking in a particular point wherein he was ingaged and which Protestants confess to haue bene an errour condemned by the whole Church against the Donatists namely the rebaptization of such as had bene baptized by Heretiques and by those very Bishops who once adhered to S. Cyprian as Charity Maint in the place cited even now shewes out of S. Hierom. And you do but deceiue your Reader in not making a difference betwene a Decree of Pope Stephen and a Definition of Faith which difference you might haue learned in that very place which you cite out of Bellarmine and we haue now alledged In fine all must answer the difficulty about S. Cyprian seing he was in an errour against Faith and therefore could be excused only by ignorance or pardoned by repentance In vaine N. 26. you tax the translation of Ch. Ma. as if he should not haue saied out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. ad Cornel. They are hold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath spruing Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose Faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot haue accesse but should haue sayd to whom perfidiousness cannot haue accesse But this you say without proofe against the scope and connection of S. Cyprians words which speak of Faith commended by S. Paul not of Fidelity and consequently of falshood or perfidiousness or errour contrarie to Faith not of perfidiousness contrarie to the Morall vertue of fidelity For what congruity is there in this speach The Faith of the Romans is commended by the Apostle therefore perfidiousness or perfidious dealing cannot haue access to them as if all who belieue aright must also besincere and vpright honest men Wheras the consequence is very good and cleare that if their Faith be true errour against Faith or falshood cannot be approved by them You would proue that in vaine S. Cyprian had exhorted Cornelius to take heed of those Heretiques if he had conceived the Bishop of Rome to be infallible for matters of Faith
denieth him in all seing there is one only Christ the same in all The Magdeburgians in Praefat Centur 6. They are Anti-Christs and divels Beza de puniendis haereticis They are infidels and Apostates Mort Lib 1. Apolog. Cap 7. Either you must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants or we must deny them the name of Christians Yourself Pag 23. N 27. speaking of Uerityes contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture say He that doth not belieue all can hardly belieue any neither haue we reason to belieue he doth so Which is more than Catholique Divines teach who affirme that an heretique may belieue some articles of Faith by an humane opinion not purelie for Divine Revelation and so you also must vnderstand that he who doth not belieue all that is contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any for the Authority of Scripture but if he belieue them it must be with mixture of some other reason and so fall farre short of Divine supernaturall Faith Wittenbergenses in Refutat Ortodox Consensus As he who keepeth all the Law but offendeth in one is witness saint Iames guilty of all So who believeth not one word of Christ though he seemes to belieue the other articles of the Creed yet believeth nothing and is damned and incredulous Schlusselburgh Lib. 1. Theolog. Calvin Art 1. Most truly wrote S. Chrisostom in 1. Gallat He corupteth the whole doctrin who subuerteth it in the least Article Most truly saied Ambrose E pist ad demetriadem he is out of the number of the Faithfull and lot of Saints who dissenteth in any point from the Catholike Truth Calvin Ephes 4. V. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he had saied Christ cannot be divided Faith cannot not be parted Perkins in Explicat Symboli Colum 512 Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in all Wherevpon Faith is termed an entire copulatiue As I saied of your words so I say of these that they containe more than Catholiques affirme and to giue them a true sense they must be vnderstood that he faileth and erreth in as much as he believes not with a divine but only with an humane Faith Spalatensis contra Suarem C. 1. N. 7 Divine Faith perisheth wholy by the least detraction and consequently it is no true Church no not visible in which entire Faith is not kept in publik profession 44. The same is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers Tertullian de praescrip Cap 2. saieth Heresies are to destroy Faith and bring everlasting death And Cap 37. If they be heretiks they can be no Christians S. Cyprian Epist 73. saieth that both by the testimonie of the Gospell and Apostle Heretiks are called Anti-christs S. Austine Enchirid Cap 5. Christ in name only is found with any Heretiks S. Chrysostom cited by Ch Ma N. 33. in Galat 17. saieth that the least error in matter of Faith destroieth Faith Let them heare sayth this holy Father what S. Paul sayth Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrowne the Ghospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he sayd that the Ghospell was subverted For as he who clips a litle of the stamp from the kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound Faith is wholy corrupted But enough of this You do but cavill and yourself know you doe so in saying to Ch Ma that there is not one Catholique Divine who delivers for true Doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set downe That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine Faith For you cannot be ignorant that when this Question is propounded by Divines it is necessarily vnderstood of culpable error otherwise it could be no Question And whereas you say There is not one Catholique Divine who delivers c. Your self did reade in Ch Ma S. Thomas delivering that Doctrine in the same manner 2. 2. Q. 5. à 3. For having propounded the Question Whether he who denieth one Article of Faith may retaine Faith of other Articles in his Conclusion he saieth It is impossible that Faith even informed or Faith without Charity remaine in him who doth not belieue some one Article of Faith although he confess all the rest to be true What say you to this Is not S. Thomas one Catholique Divine or is he not one instar omnium And yet he both proposes and answers this Question supposing not expressing that he speakes of culpable errour and afterward he speaks expresly of Heretiques as also Ch Ma in this very Number expresly specifies Protestants whom you know we belieue to erre culpably against many revealed Truths You goe forward and speak to Ch Ma in this manner They Catholique Divines all require not yourself excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring party to be one of those which God vnder pain of damnation commands all men to belieue But you are more bold than well advised in taking vpon you to know what all Catholique Divines hold and you are even ridiculous in telling Ch Ma what his opinion is I beseech you produce any one Catholique Divine teaching that all Divines hold that the errour which destroyes all divine Faith must be revealed publiquely Who is ignorant that many great Divines teach that he were properly an Heretique who should reject or disbelieue a private Divine Revelation sufficiently knowne to be such by never so secret meanes Do not yourself heere cite Estius whom you stile one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of our Church saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime verity For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob receyved the Faith by speciall Revelation Do you not remember that Zacharie was punished for his slowness in believing a revelation made privately to him and of a particular object You speak very confusedly when you say They Catholique Divines require that this Truth be one of those which God vnder pain of Damnation commands all men to belieue For all Catholique Divines agree that it is Heresie to deny any revealed truth proposed by the Church though other wise it be not comāded to be believed ād you do not only teach through your whole Book that it is damnable to disbelieue any Truth sufficiciently propounded as revealed by God but you saie further that whatsoever one is obliged not to disbelieue at any time at the same tyme he is oblged to belieue it which latter part though it be false as I haue shewed heretofore yet it shewes that you must affirme that God vnder paine of damnation commands all men to belieue positively and explicitely all truths sufficiently propounded as revealed by God so that this
sinne of Protestants who do not only erre but also communicate with others who erre from which Communion we haue heard him confess that Charity Maintayned hath some probability to disswade men In the eyes of vulgar people this mixture of different Sects vnder one name of Protestancy may seeme a kind of good thing as bearing a shew of Charity yet indeed to wise men such communicants must appeare to be as litle zealous constant and firme in their owne Religion as they affect to be esteemed charitable to others And to every such Protestant doe fully agree those excellent words of glorious S. Austine de Civit Dei Lib 21. Cap 17. He doth erre so much the more absurdly and against the word of God more perversly by how much he seemeth to himself to Judge more charitably 12. Neither in this Discourse doe we relie vpon his wordsonly but on his Tenets and Grounds and such Truths as both hee often delivers and must be granted by all Christians namely that it is damnable to deny any least Truth sufficiently propounded to a man as revealed by God and therefore seing Protestants disagree about such Truths some of them must of necessity erre damnably And so he ought to alter the Title of his Book into the direct contradictorie and saie The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation For bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu and as we cannot affirme that Action to be vertuous which failes in any one morall circumstance so Protestants being confessedly guilty of damnable errours he must giue this Title to his Booke Protestancy not a safe way to salvation but vnrepented a certaine way to damnation 13. Or if he be resolved not to chang his Title vpon this Ground That albeit Protestants erre damnably yet they may be saved because they erre not in Fundamentall Articles absolutely and indispensably necessary to constitute one a member of the Church and in that regard may be either excused by Ignorance or pardoned by Repentance Then 14. I proue my second Proposition That for the verie same reason he must say and might haue put for the Title of his Book The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe waie to salvation seing he expresly and purposely teaches through his whole Book that we erre not in fundamentall points and that we may be saved by ignorance or Repentance That our Errors be not Fundamentall he declares in plaine termes For Ch Ma in his preface to the Reader N. 13. having saied Since he will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it doe not follow that she hath not erred fundamentally because everie such errour destroyes the nature and being of the Church and so our Saviour should haue had no visible Church on earth To which demand Mr. Chillingworth answers in these words Pag 16. N. 20. I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was a part of the Whole which we grant And if she were a true part of the Church then she retained those Truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constiture any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sence therefore of the word Fundamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally but in your sense of the word I feare she did That is she held something to be Divine Revelation which was not something not to be which was Behold how he frees vs from all Fundamentall errors though he feares we are guilty of errours which he calls damnable that is repugnant to some Divine Revelation whereas he professes as a thing evident that some Protestants must erre fundamentally in that sense because they hold Contradictories of which both partes cannot be true And so even this for consideration he must say The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safer way to salvation than Protestancy seing he can not proue that we erre by Reason of any contradiction among ourselves in matters of Faith as it is manifest that one Protestant is contrarie to an other especially if we reflect that not onlie one particular or single person contradicts an other but whole Sects are at variance and contrariety as Lutherans Calvinists Anabaptists new Arians Socinians c The first point then it is cleare he confesses I meane that our supposed errours are not Fundamentall which is so true that whereas in severall occasions he writes or rather declaimes against vs for denying the cup to laymen and officiating in an vnknown toung as being in his opinion points directly contrarie to evident Revelation yet Pag 137. N. 21. he hopes that the deniall of them shall not be laid to our charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the foundations not overthrowing the foundation itself 15. But for the second doth he hold that we may be excused by ignorance or saved by Repentance as he saieth Protestants may Heare what he speakes to Catholiques Pag 34. N. 5. I can very hardly perswade myself so much as in my most secret consideration to devest you of these so needfull qualifications of ignorancce and Repentance But whensoever your errors come into my minde my only comfort is amidest these agoriâ—s that the Doctrine and practise too of Repantance is yet remaining in your Church And this hee teaches through all his Book together with Dr. Potter and they vniversally affirme that those Catholiques may be saved who in simplicity of hart believe what they profess as they may be sure English Catholiques doe who might be begged for fooles or sent to Bedlam if they did not belieue that Faith and Religion be be true for the truth whereof they haue indured so long and grievous persecution Besides it being evident that many learned Protestants in the chiefest points controverted betwene them and vs agree with vs against their pretended Brethren as is specified and proved hereafter and is manifest by evidence of fact the Religion of Protestants cannot be safe or free from damnable Opinions vnless our Religion be also such For I hope they will not say that the selfe same Assertions taken in the same sense are true in the mouth of Protestants and false in ours We must therefore conclude that if he will make good his title The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation he must say the same of vs Catholiques whoâ— he acknowledges not to erre in fundamentall points and to be capable of inculpable Ignorance or Repentance for which selfsame respects he pretends The
Christian Faith is only a probable assent he must affirme that it doth not necessarily require the peculiar supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost But why do J vse any proofe since we haue his owne express words in the same Pag. 37. n 9. Some experience makes me feare that considering and discoursing men being possessed vvith this false principle that it is in vaine to belieue the Gospell of Christ vvith such a kind or degree of assent as they yeeld to other matters of tradition And finding that their faith of it is to them vndiscernable from the beliefe they giue to the truth of other storyes are in danger not to belieue at all or else to cast themselues into wretched agonyes and perplexityes as fearing they haue not that without which it is impossible to please God and obtaine eternall happiness Do not these words declare that faith sufficient to please God and obtain eternall happiness is of the same kind and degree of assent as men yeeld to other matters of Tradïtion and truth of other storyes for the beliefe of which no man did euer say that a speciall motion or grace of the Holy Ghost was always necessary And it is to be obserued that he speakes of considering and discoursing mē as still reducing Faith to Reason wheras contralily experience teacheth that oftentymes simple persons belieue with humility and deuotion when the wisest mè of the world turne fooles in matters belonging to God or if they embrace the Faith of Christ they doe it not always with such strength of beliefe as many vnlearned people doe which shewes that Faith relies on some more high and diuine foundation then the only forces of naturall Reason XVIII To this we may add what he teacheth Pag. 62. n. 24. That our assurance that the Scripture hath bene preserued from any materiall alteration and that any other booke is incorrupted is of the same kind and condition both morall assurances And Pag. 141. No 27. For the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rationall assurance we can have of it then such as we haue of the incorruption of otherr ancient bookes such I meane for the kind though it be far greater for the degree of it And if the spirit of God giue any mā any othe assurāce here of this is not rationall and discoursiue but supernaturall and infused Marke how still he requires as necessary only a rationall discourse for the incorruption and preseruation of Scripture from any materiall alteration and yet Protestants acknowledging Scripture to be the only rule of Faith and beliefe of all Christian Mysteryes can be no more certaine of such mysteryes then they are assured of Scripture it selfe and still speakes of supernaturall infusea assurance as of an extraordinary thing And yet further Pag. 116 N o 159. he sayth We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate I suppose he will not say that a speciall grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight Therfor he will and must say the same of the Article of our Faith that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate since he saith there is as much reason for the one as the other Which yet is made more apparent by what he sayth Pag. 327. N o 5. in these words Men may talke their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty but did they generally belieue that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternall felicity but as much as Caesars Commentaryes or the History of Salust I belieue the liues of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better then they are By which words it is cleare that either most Papists and Protestants want true Faith necessary to saluation or that Faith sufficiēt to saluation need be no greater concerning the Mysteryes of Christiā Faith then the belief we yeld to profane Hystoryes and certainly this requires no speciall Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost To conclude since he professes that Christiā Faith is of the same kind with rationall discourse and belief of other matters of Tradition and humane Historyes it clearly followes that it is in its essence naturall and in kinde different from supernaturall and therfor cannot vniuersally require the particular motion and assistance of diuine Grace XIX But les vs confute this proud Heresie by Holy Scripture S. Ihon. C. 6. V. 29. saith This is the worke of God that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent V. 44. No man cā come vnto me except the Father that sent me draw him and afterward he expourds what it is to come vnto him namely to belieue V. 64.65 There be certaine of you that beleeue not Therfor did I say that no man can come vnto me vnles it be giuen him of my Father V. 45. Euery one that hath heard of the Father and hath learned commeth to me Mat. 11.25.26 Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast reuealed them to little ones Yea Father for so hath it well pleased thee And C. 16. V. 17. Blessed art thou Simon Barjona because flesh and bloud hath not revealed it to thee but my Father which is in Heauē Which Text must be vnderstood of internall Grace and not only of the externall Reuelation or Proposition of the Object which was made to the wise and prudēt as well as to little ones and to many other beside S. Peter who yet were not therfor blessed as S. Peter was declared to be Isai 54.12 All thy children taught of our Lord. Act. 13.48 There belieued as many as were preordinated to life euerlasting And Act. 16.14.15 A certain woman called Lidia a seller of purple of the citty of the Thyatirians one that worshipped God did heare whose hart our Lord opened to atted to those thinghs which were sayd of Paul And when she was babtized c. Rom. 5.2 By whom Christ also we haue access through faith into the grace wherin we stand and glorie in the hope of the glorie of the sonnes of God If by faith we haue access to the hope of glory which is supernaturall Faith it selfe must also be supernaturall and require the speciall motion of the Holy Ghost Rom. 8.26 The spirit helpeth our infirmity For what we should pray as we ought we know not but the spirit himselfe requesteth for vs with groanings vnspeakeable Rom. 12.3 To euery one as God hath diuided the measure of faith 1. Cor. 12.3 No man can say our Lord Iesus but in the Holy Ghost V. 9. To anoter faith in the same spirit 2. Cor. 3. Not that we be sufficiēt to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues but our sufficiency is of God 2. Cor. 4.6 Because God that hath cōmanded light to shine of darknes he hath shined in our harts to the illumination of the knowledge of the
Charitie vvhich by the Apostle is preferrd before those other two vertues 1. Cor. 13.13 Now there remayne Faith Hope Charity these three but the greater of these is Charity Besides Charity being the fulfilling of the law if we cannot keepe the commandements without grace as we will proue in the next Section it followes that without grace we cannot Loue as we ought for attaining saluation But yet let vs alledge some places of Scripture wherin this truth is set downe 1. Ioan 4.7 Charity is of God and euery one that loueth is borne of God aÌ„d knoweth God Ioan. 14.23.24 If any loue me he will keepe my word and my Father will loue him and vve vvill come to him and will make aboad with him He that loueth me not keepeth not my words Who dare ascribe to a loue acquired by humane forces these priuiledges of keeping Gods word in so supernaturall a way as that the B. Trinitie will come and remaine vvith him Rom. 5.5 The charity of God is powred forth in our harts by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. Rom. 13.8 He that loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv V. 10. Loue therfor is the fulness of the lavv Galat. 5.22 The fruite of the spirit is charitie Ephes 6.23.24 Peace to the brethreÌ„ and charitie vvith faith from God the father and our Lord Iesus Christ Grace with all that loue our Lord Iesus Christ in incorruption XXIV Euen Chilling Pag. 20. saith what can hinder but that the consideration of Gods most infinite Goodness to them Protestants and their owne almost infinite wickedness against him Gods spirit cooperating with them may raise them to a true and syncere and a cordiall loue of God In vvhich vvords he may seeme to require the particular grace of the holy Ghost for exercising an Act of loue or charitie I say he may seeme because it is no nevves for him to dissemble or disguise his true meaning vnder some shew of words vsed by good Christians though it cost him a contradiction vvith himselfe and his ovvne Grounds Hovvsoeuer it be at least his manner of speach shevves hovv christians must not deny this truth SECTION V. The Necessity of Grace for keeping the Commandements and ouercoming temptations XXV THis point giues me againe iust occasion to obserue how they who deny a liuing jnfallible iudge of controuersies cannot auoyd running into pernitious extremes Some hold that Christians are not bound in conscience to keepe the Commandements a Vide Bellarm de justificatione l. 4. Cap. 1. in somuch as Luther is not afraid nor ashamed to say b In Commentario ad Cap 2 ad Galatas When it is taught that indeed faith in Christ iustifies but yet so as we ought to keepe the commandements because it is writteÌ„ if thou wilt enter into life keepe the coÌ„mandemeÌ„ts there Christ is instantly denyed aÌ„d faith abolished And elswhere c In Sermone de nouo Testamento siâ—e de Mâ—ssa Let vs take heed of sinnes but much more of lawes and good works Let vs attend only to the promise of God and faith I wonder how a man can take heed of sinne and ioyntly take heed of good workes Shall he be still doing and yet doe neither good nor badd Some teach that it is impossible to keepe the commandements euen with the assistance of diuine grace Others that they may be kept by the force of nature and that the assistance of Gods grace is not necessary except only to keepe them with greater ease or facility XXVI The true Catholike doctrine is that we may keepe the commandements and ouercome temptations by the grace of God not by our owne naturall forces which is manifestly declared in Holy Scripture EZechiel 36.26 I will giue you a new hart and put a new spirit in middest of you and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh aÌ„d will giue you a fleshie hart And I will put my spirit in the middest of you and I will make that you walk in my precepts and keepe my iudgments and doe them 1. Ioan. 5.3 This is the charity of God that we keepe his commandements Ioan. 14.23.24 If any loue me he will keepe my word and my father will loue him and we will come to him and will make abode with him He that loueth me not keepeth not my words Behold louing or not louing keeping or not keeping the commandements goe togeather But we haue proued that Grace is necessary to loue God it is therfor necessary to keepe his commandements Rom. 8.3 For that which was impossible to the law in that it was weakned by the flesh God sending his son in the flesh of sinne euen of sinne damnes sinne in the flesh That the iustification of the Law might be fulfilled in vs. 1. Cor. 7.7 The Apostle teaches that not only the continency of virgins and widdowes but maried people also is the gift of God saying Euery one hath a proper guift of God one so and another so Sap. 8.21 And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent vnless God gaue it this very thing also was wisdom to know whose this gift was I went to our Lord and besought him Rom. 2.13 Not the hearers of the Law are iust with God but the doers of the Law shall be iustifyed And yet the same Apostle sayth Galat 2 21. If iustice by the Law then Christ dyed in vaine And we may say in the same manner If iustice by nature and not by Grace Christ died in vaine S. Iames 3.8 The tong no man can tame Rom. 5.20.21 The Law entered in that sinne might abound and where sinne abounded grace did more abound that as sinne raigned to death so also grace may raigne by iustice to life euerlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord. Which words declare that grace is so necessary for fulfilling the Law that without it the Law was occasion of death by reason of humane frailty and corruption Rom. 4.15 The Law worketh wrath Rom. 7. V. 23.24.25 I see another Law in my members repugning to the law of my mynd and captiuing me in the law of sinne that is in my members Vnhappy man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. 1. Cor. 15.56 57. The power of sinne is the law But thankes be to God that hath giuen vs victory by our Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 10.13 God is faithfull who will not suffer you to be tempted aboue that which you are able but will make also with teÌ„ptation issue that you may be able to sustaine Psalm 17.30 In thee I shall be deliuered from teÌ„ptation Psa 26.9 Be thou my helper forsake me not Psalm 29.7.8 I sayd in my aboundance I will not be moued for euer Thou hast turned away thy face from me and I became troubled Psalm 117.13 Being thrust I was ouerturned to fall and our Lord receyued me 1. Pet. 5. V. 8.9 Be sober
nor of the will of man but of God are borne Ephes 1.4 As he chose vs in him before the constitution of the world that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight in charity and V. 13.14 In whom you also when you had heard the word of truth the Gospel of your saluation in which also belieuing you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise which is the pledge of our inheritance This promise is made to vs and so we being the Creditours the pledge must remaine with vs and signed signifyeth a thing both permanent and intrinsecall Like to this we reade Ephes 4.23.24 Be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holyness of the truth and V. 30. contristate not the holy spirit of God in which you are signed vnto the day of redemption And 2. Cor 1.21 He that annoynted vs God who also hath sealed vs given the pledge of spirit in our harts Rom. 6.23 The stipends of sinne death but the grace of God life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our Lord. Rom. 8.14 Whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God are the sonnes of God 1. Cor 3.16.17 Know you not that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwelleth in you The temple of God is holy which you are 2. Cor 6.16 You are the temple of the liuing God as God sayth because I will dwell and walke in them Ephes 2.21.22 In whom all building framed togeather groweth into a holy Temple in our Lord in whom you also are built togeather into an habitation of God in the Holy Ghost 2. Timoth 1.14 Keepe the good depositum by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in vs. Ioan 6.57 As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue by the Father and he that eateth me the same shall liue by me Who can deny but that life signifyes an intrinsecall permanent thing XLIV To these authorityes of holy Scripture which clearly proue that just men are such by a gift inherent and not due to nature but supernaturall we might add conuincing Reasons grounded in principles of faith if it were my purpose to treat this matter at large But I will content my selfe with one taken from the many Texts of holy Scripture which we haue alledged and many more might be brought in this manner God concurres to certaine Actions v. g. Belieuing hoping c. with a particular influence aboue the naturall exigence of humane nature therfore such Actions are both Good and Supernaturall Good because it were impiety to say that God doth or can by speciall motion produce an ill and sinfull Action Supernaturall because no naturall cause alone can produce them nor hath any naturall exigence that they be produced by some more high and powerfull cause as though our soule cannot be produced by any naturall Cause or Agent yet there is an exigence in nature that it be created by God when sufficient dispositions are preexistent in the Body Now it being once granted that there are good and supernaturall Actions it followes that there must be in our soule some supernaturall powers or facultyes as connaturall Principles or Causes of such Actions therfor such Powers must be grāted as in thēselues are supernaturall and absolutely good without any tincture or staine or inclination to sinfulness Which sequeles are so cleare that protestants not deny them but grant at least the supernaturall Habits of the three Theologicall Vertues Faith Hope and Charity which is sufficient for our present purpose though I know not any generall ground or doctrine of theirs for which they doe or must deny the supernaturall infused Habits of Morall Vertues but they denie that either by these or any other quality or Gift we are just in such manner as that we do not still remayne stayned with habituall deadly sinne which heresy is clearly confuted by the Elogiums of the Fathers and Texts of Scripture alledged in this and the former Sections XLV For if deadly sinne still remaine how doth Grace take away the rust of sinne make the soule resplendent whiten it enlighten and make vs like to God is it the beauty and brightnesse of our mynd the picture and image of God the garment of heauenly beauty purity derived from Christ the first stole the riches of the diuine essence the marke of God since deadly sinne is of a direct opposite nature and produces contrary effects XLVI How shall holy Scripture be verifyed in saying that as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made just if we remaine truly sinners by the disobedience of Adam but not truly just by the obedience of Christ who merited for vs iustice and grace How is it true that if in the offence of one Death raigned by one much more they that receiue the aboundance of grace and of donation and of justice shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ For if sinne remaine Death also remaines with which Life cannot raigne How can the holy Ghost be giuē vs while we persist in sinne How can he abide in God and God in him in whom sinne and satan abides How can Faith worke by charity in him who is voluntarily possesd by deadly sinne than which nothing is more repugnant to charity whose inseparable effect is effectually to detest all mortall sinne how is he a new creature who is in state of sinne which alone makes one a child of Adam or the old man not of Christ How doth he cleaue to God and is one spirit with him who cleaueth to sinne and is one spirit with it vnles men haue a mynd to blaspheme and say that the spirit of sinne and the spirit of God is all one how can he who abides in God and God in him beare much fruite if ioyntly he abide in sinne and sinne in him Yea for this very cause that sinne still abides in man these heretikes teach that all our workes or fruites are deadly sinnes so farr are they from being fruites of Gods abiding in vs And how doth this agree with that saying 1. Ioan. 3.9 Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne because his seed abideth in him seing sinne the seed of the serpent abides in him Or how doth the continuall breach of Gods commandements agree with what is sayd V. 24. He that keepeth his commandements abideth in him How can regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost powred vpon vs aboundantly stand with deadly sinne which is directy opposite to regeneration and renouation How is the seale and pledge of spirit in our harts togeather with the seale and pledge of the diuell How can the vnction which we haue receiued from him abide in vs in company of deadly sinne How are men partakers of the Diuine nature while they remayne in sinne which is most opposite to God and all the Diuine perfections How cā we be called frendes being deadly
of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks Pagās and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light ād knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writtē or vnwrittē word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their
N. 4. he endeauours to proue that Faith cannot be absolutely certaine because if it were so any least doubting would destroy it which shewes that doubting may well consist with his kind of probable faith which is that very absurdity which we inferrd as impious against true Religion of which we must resolue neuer to doubt though per jmpossible an Apostle or Angel should moue vs therto as we haue heard out of S. Paule and yet the Authority of an Apostle or perswasion of an Angell should in all reason be preferrd before Faith if it be only probable 24. This inconstancy in Religion appeares further by what he confesses of himselfe Pag. 389. N. 7. where speaking of a command of obedience to the Roman Church he hath these words sure I am for my part that I haue done my true endeauour to find it true and am still willing to doe so but the more I seeke the further I am from findinge c. Behold how after so long tyme so much deliberation so many changes of Religion euen after the writing of his Booke he is still willing to find and embrace a Religion different and contrary to that which he professed Also P. 184. N. 90. he sayth Shew vs any way and do not say but proue it to haue come frrm Christ and his Apostles down to vs and we are ready to followit Neither do we expect Demonstration herof but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary Agreable to this is his professing Preface N. 2. that he had a trauellers indifferency most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way or from it And N. 5. he professes that his constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heauen which for the present seemed to him the most probable A poore comfort and miserable faith only probable and of no longer continuance than for the tyme present I willingly omitt that his deeds were agreeable to his words changing first from Protestants to Catholike then from Catholike to Protestant and about againe to Catholike till at last he became neyther Precisian nor Subscriber to the 39. Articles nor confessed Socinian nor any thing vnless that mhich S. Bernard sayth of Abailardus Ep 193. Homo sibi dissimilis est totus ambiguus He is a man who disagrees euen from himselfe wholy compounded of doubts I willingly leaue out his middle words Intus Herodes for is Ioannes inwatdly a Herode outwardly a Iohn If the Apostles be to be belieued only in that which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth as he teaches Pag. 144. N. 31. surely this man and his fellow Socinians ought not to be belieued in any thing seing according to their doctrine that faith is fallible and but probable they neither are nor can be constant in any poynt they deliuer and so we cannot say so much of them as of the Scribes and Pharisees Matt 23.2 whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you doe but according to their works doe not but doe neither what they shall say nor according to their works And heere I beseech and euen begg of the Reader if he haue any care to saue his soule that he will consider how far the faith of this man and his Associates is from true Christian Faith of which we haue heard S. Paule saying Although we or an Angell from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized be he an Anathema 25. But this is not all that strongly offers it selfe in this poynt For not only his Faith cannot affoard any rest or satisfaction wherby a man may cease from further inquiry but leaues him with a strict obligation to be incessantly examining his Religion and seeking whether he can fynd some more probable and better grounded This sequele seems cleare Because the true Faith and Religion being absolutely necessary to saluation charity towards ones self obliges euery man to seeke the safer way and the most certaine Religion And seeing he is not certaine that the Religion or way to Heauen which for the present seemes to him most probable as we haue heard him speake is indeed the right way what remaynes but that men are obliged to be continually busied and perplexed in the search of the true Faith necessary to saluation This my inference seemes to be acknowledged by him For beside what hath beene already cited he sayes of himselfe P. 278. N. 61. If I did not put away idleness and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of diuine matters being prepard in mynd to fellow God and God only which way sceuer he shall lead me if I did not hope that I eyther doe or endeauour to dâ—e these things certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining saluation Loe heere little hope of saluation vnless a man be still examining to the bottome his opinions and be prepard in mynd to follow c. But in Vaine it is to seeke that rest which will neuer be found except in a Faith and Religion acknowledged to be absolutely certaine and infallible which alone can put an end to all further inquiry Finally Pag. 376. N. 57. he sayth This is the Religion which I haue chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I haue chosen wisely Ponder verily perswaded And were not you verily perswaded in those your changes which you acknowledg Pag. 303. N. 103. from a moderate Protestant to a Papist from a doubting Papist to a confirmed Protestant were you not I say verily perswaded that you did choose wisely Yea you expresly tell vs in the same Pag. 303. that of a moderate Protestant you turned a Papist and that the day that you did so you were conuicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion that is Protestantisme was an errour By all which appeares how inconstant you were and must be in matters of Faith and Religion till you acknowledg an infallible Faith taken from an infallible liuing Guide which is Gods true Church 26. From this liberty of Belief what can follow but liberty of life Seing his belief of Heauen and Hell is but an opinion concerning things of an other world wheras worldly pleasures are in present possession and certaine If the absolute certainty wherwith all Christians hitherto haue belieued their Faith to abound hath not bene able to stop the course of mens licentiousness what can we now expect but that they who before did runne will now fly after the Idols of whatsoeuer may appeare to their soules or bodyes objects of profit or delight Pag. 326. N. 4. he teaches that if faith be infallible no Christian could committ any deliberate sinne yea and must be perfect in Charity because Faith is the victorie which ouercomes the world and Charity is the effect of Faith If this be so we may say on thecontrary side that if faith be weake or only probable what victory what perfection in Charity can be hoped from it But let
particular motion of Grace which irresistably drawes it Therfor from certainty of Faith we cannot inferr a necessary cooperation of the will or perfection of Charity You preâ—â—â—d to belieue or know wit◠〈…〉 to be obayed in all things and coâ—â—â—equently that the woâ—â—d 〈…〉 ouercome you may know with certainty that the morall 〈…〉 â—ments forbidding Actions repugnant to the light and law of naturaâ—â—eason are to be kept You cannot but know certainly in generall that all sinne is to be auoyded You teach that men euen by euidence of reason are to belieue with infallible certainty that they are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian Religion and consequently that all the commands of that Religion are to be obserued These things I say you belieue or know with certainty and yet I hope you will not grant that you cannot but obey God in all things and so ouercome the world that you cannot but keepe all the morall commandements that you cannot but auoyde all sinne that you cannot but obserue what is commanded in Christian Religion Therfore you must yield that certainty in the vnderstanding doth not inferr a necessity in the will and so still be forced to answer your owne argument 65. In the meane tyme I cannot but note how many damnable Heresyes you here ioyne togeather though contrary one to an other and euen to your selfe For example of Pelagianisme that the will may performe whatsoeuer the vnderstanding certainly iudgeth ought to be done which takes away the necessity of Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost I sayd that the will may performe but wheras you teach further that it must of necessity do so you fall from Pelagianisme to a contrary extreme by taking away Freewill which the very Socinians defend so farr that to make men free they make themselues sacrilegious in denying that God can see the future free Acts of our will 〈◊〉 you take it away in a worse manner than Caluinists doe who conceaue it to be taken away by supernaturall efficacious Grace or by infused justifying Faith but your doctrine must take it away by euery certaine knowledg though it be but naturall or by Historicall fallible Faith and historicall Faith according to Caluinists is common to all Christians And yet in another respect you fall into the very quintessence of Caluinisme and puritanisme that Faith once had can neuer be lost which is against moderate Protestants and yourselfe with Socinians For if Faith necessarily giue vs perfect Charity and the victory ouer the world and sinne Faith it selfe which cannot be lost without sinne is absolutely secured 66. Neither can you answer that your Objection goes not against all Faith but only impugneth an infallible Faith For you grant certainty of faith to diuerse as we haue obserued aboue concerning them who are aduanced to certainty and spirit of obsignation or Confirmation which are as many according to you who liue as they belieue as also 〈…〉 â—postles and those who heard our Sauiour preaching or 〈…〉 miracles yea whosoeuer only belieues or knowes with certainty that there is a God and that he is to be obeyed must of necessity worke according to his knowledg which if he doe he cannot loose the belief of God nor euer become an Atheist which I feare is too much against experieÌ„ce You must also agree with Calvinists in their Doctrine that only Faith justifyes seing as they so you teach that it necessarily brings with it charity and good works And to this same purpose I still vrge your owne assertio concerning those to whom you granta Certainty in Faith and I suppose you will not grant that such men are justifyed by faith only and other Christians by some other meanes V. g. justifyng inherent Grace or with Faith Hope and Charity and therfor you must deny that perfect Charity must necessarily flow from an fallible Faith 67. Sixtly you speake very imperfectly in saying Charing is the effect of Faith if therfor the cause Were terfect the effect would be perfect For the Habit of Charity being infused immediatly by the Holy Ghost is not the effect of Faith or of any Acts of our will no nor of the Acts of Charity it selfe But if you speake of the Acts of Charity they proceede from the Habit of Charity from the particular helpe and assistance of the Holy Ghost and from our will eleuated by such assistance which is freely offered by God and freely accepted by the will but in no wise proceeds necessarily from Faith whose office is only to direct and shew the object without any necessitating influence S. Paule sayth 1. Cor 13.13 The greater of these is Charity and who euer heard that the effect can be more perfect than the cause Or if you say that Faith is not the totall but only a partiall cause of Charity which therfor may be more noble than Faith it selfe then by what logike can you infer that Charity must be perfect because it is the effect of a partiall cause lesse perfect than it selfe Rather according to your discourse joyned with the words of S. Paule that Faith is less perfect than Chatity we must say thus Charity is the effect of Faith and therfor feing the cause is imperfect the effect must be imperfect which is directly opposite to your inference and intent Besides from what Philosophy can you learne that when some cause or condition concurrs to the production of an effect not by it selfe but necessarily requires the company and cooperation of other causes that such a cause or condition can by it selfe alone produce such an effect But let vs suppose Faith to be the cause of Charity and by it selfe alone sufficient for mouing our will to Acts of Charity doth it follow that it must do so irresistibly and in such manner as that it remaine not in the power of our will either to exercise no act at all or to produce a more or lesse perfect one Remember your owne distinction and words to Char Maintayned in your Pag 172. N. 71. That a man mâ—y fall into some errour euen contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irr-sistibly so that he may learne it if be will not so that he must and shall vhâ—ther he will or no. Nâ—w who can a sertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you poâ—â—â—y 〈…〉 it with your dâ—â—trâ—ne of free wâ—ll in betiâ—uing if it be â—ot of 〈◊〉 nature And you hauing endeauoured to proue this out of diuerse places of Scripture conclude God may teach and the Church not learne God may lead and the Church be resrachry and not follow 68. Now I retort this Argument and aske why a man may not fall into some errour contrary to the truth which he was taught and which once he belieued and committ some sinne which Faith dictates not to be committed if Faith teach him only sufficiently and not irresistibly and who can
the vnderstanding dres all and the will nothing And yet that it is Necessitated is a cleare truth since you professe to believe with no more certainty than is evidently deduced from evident Premises and the vnderstanding is no less necessitated to give assent to a probable conclusion draweÌ„ evideÌ„tly from knowen probable Premises than it is forced to an assent of a certaine Conclusion deduced from demonstratiue Premises Pag 331. N. 8. having sett downe some Principles which you judg to be evident and certaine you conclude thus From all these Premises this Conclusion evidently follows that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion And in the same Pag. 331. N. 9. There is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity I say so credible that though they cannot make vs evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit and ought so be accepted as things revealed by God therfor there is convincing evidence for the truth of Christian Articles as farr as you believe them And Pag 36. N. 9. you affirme that God requires of all that their Faith should be proportionable to the motiues and Reasons enforcing to it If the Reasons enforce to the Conclusion how is it not necessitated Therfor your Faith is both free according to your owne words and necessitated according to truth in your grounds which is also convinced by your saying that certainty cannot be without evidence And therfor the Faith of your choise elevated people which you say is certaine must be evident and consequently not free But our Faith raysing vs above the evident Arguments of Credibility remaines free and is in no sense necessitated 86. II. For your epithetons of being certaine and vncertaine we profess and believe nothing more certainly than that our Faith is certaine and not capable either of falshood or vncertainty But your Booke is Chiefly imployed to prove your Faith not to be certaine and we are well content it be so Yet if you remember what you say of your choysest persons and best Believers that they have a certainty beyond evidence and yet expressly teach that certainty cannot be greater than the evidence of the Object as I shewed above it followes clearly that you give them a certainty which your self hold impossible fot any to have and so you give them certainty and not certainty that is a meere contradiction or nothing 87. III. For the denominations of Evident Obscure They agree not to our Faith which we believe to be Obscure not evident as I have explicated elswhere But for your Faith according to your grounds it must be both evident and obscure Evident because you believe with no greater assent than you receyve by evident Arguments and accordingly you say Pag 329. N. 7. Nothing is more repugnant than that a man should be required to give most certaine credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare most certainly credible And if it appeare to him to be so then it is not obscure that it is so According to which we must say that nothing is more vnreasonable than that a man should be required to give probable credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare probably credible and if it appeare to him to be so then it is not obscure that it is so Therfore in your grounds you must believe nothing to be true but according to the evidence which you have therof And therfor Pag. 330. N. 7. you say in express termes That I should believe the truth of any thing the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is vnjust and vnreasonable because to do it is impossible Therfor your Faith is evident in respect of the truth which you believe according to the measure of your belief therof If you did believe with certainty a truth for which you haue only probable arguments such a truth I grant were not evident in proportion to your assent but since you believe the truth of Christian Religion only with a probable assent and that you have evidence of those Reasons which cause your assent to such a truth it is cleare that your Faith is evident to you as farr as your belief goes And yet you must hold it to be obscure otherwise it could not be capable of obedience as you pretend it to be because you say there can be no obedience where the vnderstanding doe all and the will nothing 88 Fourthly You say our Faith is prudent and foolish That our Faith is prudent and yours imprudent Charity Maintayned hath proved Chap. 6. and yet since you will say that yours is prudent it will remayne imprudent indeed and prudent in your words And indeed none but an enemy to Christianity can affirme our Faith and Religion to be imprudent if he consider well what a deadly wound he gives to Christian Religion by saying so For take from vs the Marks of a true Religion which are conspicuous in our Church only you deprivâ— Christianity of Motives or Arguments of Credibility sufficient to move or oblige men to embrace it where I pray except in our Church can be found Antiquity perpetuall Existence and Visibility Vniversality of Tyme and Place Succession of Pastours Vnity and effectuall meanes to conserve it Sanctity Miracles Efficacy in the conversion of Gentils which the Ancient Fathers vrge as a strong argument to prove the truth of Christian Religion against the Iewes Amplitude and Glory of Christs Kingdome fortold by the Prophets The very name Catholike with other Notes of the true Church which evidently agree to Our Church and are manifestly wanting to Protestants vnless they begg or vsurpe them from vs as the carefull Reader must confesse if he do but severally reflect on them While therfor you blaspheme the Faith of our Church to be foolish you do in fact lay the same imputation on Christian Religion Seing then you cannot without prejudice to Christian Religion affirme our Faith to be imprudent and foolish you must in good consequence be content that your owne beare that denomination Besides Pag. 331. N. 10. you say Charity maintayned was mistaken in making prudence not only a commendation of a believer and a justification of his Faith but also essentiall to it and part of the definition of it and did as if one being to say what a man is should define him a reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy For as all Astronomers are men but all men are not Astrâ—nomers and therfor Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men where nothing should have place but what agrees to all men So though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may beleeve aright which are not wise By which words you give vs to
vnderstand that it would not be very much prejudicall to your Faith to be imprudeÌ„t as it is nothing against the difinition of a man that he is not an Astronomer And who would be of that Religion and Faith which confessedly may be imprudent and foolish wheras true Christian Faith must needs be prudent And you were too forward to say no worse in saying so freely that Charit Maintayned was mistaken therin For if Prudence be required to every true act of morall vertue shall we say that true Faith may be imprudent But you speake according to your skill in SociniaÌ„ and Pelagian Heresy which denyes that every act of true Faith is essentially supernaturall and requires the supernaturall motion of the Holy Ghost for the production therof For how can an act supernaturall in essence be imprudent since this is alwayes a defect only of man and can never be a speciall effect of God as all things supernaturall in essence are Or how can the Holy Ghost particularly move and inspire vs to an inprudence and lightnesâ— of hâ—rt the Holy Scripture saying Eccles. 19.4 He who soone believes is light of hurt We may I grant think that to proceed from the Holy Ghost and to be a true act of Faith which is not such but that a belief all things considered imprudent should be indeed a true act of Faith produced by the Habit of Faith and particular impulsion of the Holy Ghost you have not prooved notwithstanding your confident avouching that questionless your Adversary was mistaken wheras yourself was much mistaken in your example of having skill in Astronomy which is a quality wholy impertinent and vnnecessary to a man as prudence is not to the acts of our Faith Though yet indeed you will find that Char Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 6. N. 8. Where he gives the Definition of Faith doth not so much as mention Prudence 89. But what do you answer to the argument of Char Maintained Chap .6 N. 32. That the Faith of Protestants being imprudent and rash cannot proceed from Divine motion and grace Nothing but that by this reason all they that believe our Religion and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it must be condemned to have no supernaturall Faith Thus you Pag 381. N. 74. which is nothing to our purpose For we speak not of ability to explicate or declare to others the reason of our belief which belongs to gratias gratis datas but of gratia gratum faciente or prudence in order to the accepting Faith for ourselves which hath a great latitude and that which to one may be prudent would not be so to another indued with more knowledg naturall or supernaturall God judging of every one according to his particular disposition and readiness to embrace the object of Faith in the measure of vnderstanding communicated to him But if indeed all thing considered we suppose him to proceed imprudently his assent shall not be a true Act of Faith for the reasons I aâ—â—edgd though such an assent wherby the ice is as it were broken in order to such an object may Facilitate towards a true act of Faith when circumstances being altered a prudent judgment may take vp the place of the former imprudent perswasion and so God concurr with his Grace to a true assent of Faith Neither doth it import that he who proceeds imprudently cannot discover in himself any difference between a prudent and imprudent assent because in these hidden intellectuall acts we must proceed by Reason not by experience as when a Pastor or Prelate proposes to his subject two objects as matters of Faith wherof one is indeed revealed the other not the subject with equall prudence assents to both without experiencing any difference in those assents and yet that which respects the object not truly revealed cannot be an act of Faith but the other may be such And by this is answerd what you have Pag 331. N. 10. of this same poynt 90. But now that the Faith even of your most select believers is imprudent appeares by your owne Principle that certainty in assent cannot be without proportionable evidence in the Object and yet you say they have certainty beyond evidence Therfor they have a Faith in an impossible manner and so are imprudent in an eminent degree 91. Your common probable Faith to be imprudent I have proved hertofore because it being only probable yet you preteÌ„d to preferr it be fore any reason to the contrary though seeming never so certain and convincinge which certaine is against all reason Therfor your Faith is imprudent and seing you hold it to be prudent the conclusion must be that it is prudent imprudent 92. Before I leave this poynt I must aske you two little questions or Doubts First what you meane in these words Though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may believe aright which are not wise If they be truly wise who are wise for eternity and whosoever believe aright are wise for eternity for as much as concernes their belief we must conclude that all who believe aright are truly wise How say you then that many who believe aright are not wise Secondly I reflect a little on your words Pag 381. N. 74. I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certaine and as prudent as the Faith of Papists and therfore if these be certain groundes of supernaturality our Faith may have it as well as yours But I beseech you where did Cha Maintayned say that certainty and prudence are grounds of supernaturality He sayd only that if Faith be imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine Motion and grace Is it all one to say if an Action be prudent it must be supernaturall which if it be taken in generall is false since an action may be prudent and not supernaturall and it cannot be supernaturall if it be not prudent What Logick teaches an vniversall Affirmative Proposition to be simply converted and from this All supernaturall Acts are prudent to inferr Therfor all prudent Acts are supernaturall just as we have heard you saying Pag 331. N. 10. All Astronomers are men but all men are not Astronomers But it is more than tyme that I goe forward 93. Fiftly you calumniate our Faith as a naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall Assent I answer Our Faith is supernaturall not naturall or vnnaturall though I wish you had explicated what you meane by vnnaturall because we acknowledg it to be Donum Dei the Gift of God But your faith is indeed naturall being but a probable Conclusion evidently deduced from evident probable Premises as I have declared hertofore and yet in words you pretend that it is supernaturall Pag. 409. § And though where you seeke to vindicate yourself from being guilty of taking away supernaturall Faith and Pag 325. N. 2. where you will seeme to admitt the necessity of a supernaturall belief though in truth you do not but with Socinians deny that
bloud Act 20.28 a Church on earth indued with all things necessary for the whole Community or mysticall Body For every State or Degree For every single Person or Member therof And therfor to maintayne that Scripture alone contaynes all poynts necessary to be believed must imply that in or from Scripture alone we may evidently learne what is necessary to be believed of all according to the triple mentioned consideration or distinction of Persons which Distinction we will here only touch cursarily and precisely as farr as is necessary for our present purpose 3. The Church as it signifyes one Community or mysticall Body necessarily requires some kind of Governours or Pastours Meanes and Manner to provide for a Succession of them Power to enact lawes and to punish offenders by spirituall Censures some vndoubtedly lawfull Liturgy or publike worship of God Sacraments and to omitt other thinges in particular some certaine infallible Meanes to know this very Poynt whether Scripture alone contayne evidently all thinges necessary to Salvation without certayne knowledg wherof there can be no certainty in the Faith of Protestants 4. But now for different Degrees or Officers in the Church more or lesse knowledg is necessary according to their severall obligations ād Dutyes as for Bishops Pastours Priests c who for example are obliged to teach others Ordaine Priests conficere and administer Sacraments c 5. Lastly for every particular Person or member of the Church some things are absolutely necessary in the judgment both of Catholikes and Protestants as v. g. Faith True and Divine for essence and sufficient for Extension for all points absolutely necessary to be expressly believed and Repentance after deadly sin committed and according to Catholiks Baptisme in Re for children and in Re or Voto for Adulti as also the Sacrament of Pennance after the committing of Actuall sinne if it be deadly and finally the keeping and consequently knowing of the Commandements 6. For explication of the word evident I note that to be contayned evidently in Scripture may be vnderstood in three manner of wayes First that some Poynt be contayned in particular and so evidently that no man who vnderstands the language can doubt what it signifyes according to the vsuall signification of the word and that in such a Text it is taken in such a common signification and not in some figurative or mysticall or morall sense as divers tymes it happens For if it be capable of such a sense I must haue some certainty that it is not taken so before I can ground vpon it an infallible Assent of Faith and therfor I must haue more than only probable that is some certaine and infallible meanes to know whether it be taken in the common signification or if it haue more vsuall or common significations than one in which of them it is taken Which depending on the Free will of God can be knowne only by Revelation that is according to Protestants by some other evident Text of Scripture and so without end vnless they can find some Text necessarily determined to one only sense 7. Secondly evident may signify that some poynt be indeed contayned in Scripture in it selfe or in particular but not so as to be vnderstood clearly and certainly by Vertue of the words taken alone without the help of some interpreter to whom if antecedently we giue credit that will become evident to vs by his interpretation which before was obscure as the words of the Prophet Isay became evident to the Eunuch by the Declaration of S. Philip whom he tooke for a true interpreter Act. 8. V. 35. 8. Thirdly A thing may be evident in Holy Scripture not in particular or in it selfe but in some generall Meanes or Authority expressly and clearly delivered and recommended to vs by Scripture which being once believed and accepted with a firme Assent whatsoever such a Meanes or Authority doth evidently propose may be sayd to be evidently contayned in Scripture not in it selfe but in that generall Meanes expressly recommended by Scripture In this manner S. Augustine speaking of Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques sayth De vnitate Eccle Cap 22. This is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me Yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church And a little after whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church And Lib 1. cont Crescon Cap 32. 33. We follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of Canonicall Scriptures yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by vs while we do that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth demonstrate to vs. 9. In one of these two latter senses Catholike Authors may truly affirme all things necessary to be evidently contaynd in Scripture But Protestants who reject the infallibility of the Church must vnderstand it in the first sense only according to which they remayne obliged to a very hard taske of proving First in generall out of evident Scripture that all things necessary to be believed are evident in Scripture 2. of proving every particular Point of Faith out of Scripture immediatly or by certaine and cleare deductions from it and not by topicall Arguments of their owne fancy which they will needs be calling or rather miscalling Reason 3. of proving every Point out of evident Scripture and so evident that it be certaine the words de facto are not taken in some sense of which they are capable different from their vsuall common obvious and as I may say most litterall signification as Protestants interpret the words This is my Body For since the words concerning which the Question arises are still the same their meaning must be taken from some other evident Text as I sayd aboue and so without end vnlesse they can alledge some words which certainly cannot be taken in any sense but one though of themselves they be capable of more and though even divers chief learned Protestants teach that one Text of Scripture may haue diverse litterall senses Nay here is not an end of their labours For since the word Evident may be fitly taken in three senses of which that only which I put in the first place is accepted by Protestants they must proue by some Evident Text that all things
evident he might perhaps haue fayled in some necessary poynt if the text had proved to be evident and yet vnknown to him for want of such examination Neither can it be answered that if a text be evident it will appeare to be such For a thing vpon due examination and study may appeare evident or obscure which at first sight did not seeme to be such And for this same reason every one must learne to reade the bible or at least procure that every text therof be read to him that so he may be sure to know all evident and consequently all necessary texts of scripture it being cleare that he cannot haue sufficient assurance that he knowes every particular text only by hearing sermons or ordinary casvall discourses or the like And this care every one shall be obliged to vse even for those books of scripture which are receyved by some Protestants and rejected by others least if indeed they be Canonicall and he remayne ignorant of any one poynt evidently contayned in them he put himself in danger of wanting the knowledg of some thing necessary to be believed You teach Pag 23. N. 27. that to make a catalogue of fundamentall points had been to no purpose there being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture which are not fundamentall as thâ—se that are But it is necessary for every one learned or vnlearned to know explicitly all fundamentall truths Therfor it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths though not fundamentall Now who sees not that these are ridiculous vnreasonable and intolerable precepts and burthens imposed vpon mens consciences without any ground except an obstinate resolution to defend your opinion that all things necessary are evident in scripture And yet I do not perceiue how Protestants can avoyd these sequeles if they will stand to those principles For whosoeuer is obliged to attaine an End is obliged to vse that meanes which is necessary for that End Your self Pag 194. N. 4. hold it for an absurdity that it should be a damnable sin in any learned man and I may say much more in any vnlearned person actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture or to belieue the contradiction of it though be know it not to be there conâ—â—â—ed Now I say according to this your Doctrine every one must know every truth in scripture and not only not contradict it but he must explicitly know it least otherwise he may chance to omitt the belief of some poynt necessary to be expressiy believed Which is a greater absurdity than only to say every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contayned in scripture though he know it not to be there contayned And as for our present purpose you clearly suppose that every man though he be learned is not obliged to know every truth contayned in Scripture and therfor your Doctrine which necessarily infers this obligation must be absurd and contradictory to yourself 27. Fourthly in Holy scripture two things are to be considered The words and sense or meaning of them The words are cleare in scripture as in other bookes to such as vnderstand the language But for the sense it may be affirmed with much truth that abstracting from extrinsecall helpe or autority euen in matters of greatest moment proper to Christian religion it is hard to fynd any one poynt so cleare of it self as to convince that it must needs be vnderstood in this or thar determinate sense For though the words may seeme clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our naturall reason yet the hardness and height of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our vnderstanding from yeilding a firme assent to points which truly are aboue and in shew seeme to be against reason For this I will alledg your selfe who Pag 215. N. 46. speake thus They which doe captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconsiable Contradictions may as well believe reall contraditions Since then no man can belieue reall contradictions appearing such it followes according to your owne assertion that none can belieue those poynts which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification may seeme in his way of vnderstanding to imply contradiction Which yet appeares more clearly out of other words of yours Pag 216.217 N. 46. where having sett downe divers contradictions as you vntruly apprehend in our catholique doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist you conclude that if Char Maintayned cannot compose their repugnance and that after an intelligible manner then we must giue him leaue to belieue that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of contradictions Which words declare how willing a mans vnderstanding or reason is to be at peace with it self and to belieue nothing wherin it cannot Compose all repugnance and that after an intelligible manner Seing then all Christians must belieue the words of scripture to be true and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner they are easily drawne to entertayne some interpretation agreeable to their vnderstanding though contrary to the signifitation which the words of themselves do clearly import and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost 28. From this fountaine arise so many and so different and contrary heresies concerning the chiefest articles of Christian Faith the difficulty of the objects and disproportion to our naturall reason first diverting and then averting our vnderstanding from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner and the loss of the first evidence and vsuall signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuite of the true sense of them For this cause the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue as we ought insomuch as Fulk against Rhem Testam in 2 Petr 3. Pag 821. saith As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scripture we confess that for the most and chiefest matters it is not only hard but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man Besides which difficulty arising from the Objects or Mysteryes in themselves there is another proceeding from the subject or Believer when one hath already taken a Point for true and for that cause will be willing to seeke and glad to fynd some sense of Scripture agreeable to his foreconceyved opinion though not without violence to the letter or words 29. And yet to these dissicultyes flowing from the Object and Sabject we may add another ex Adjunctis when one place of Scripture seeming cleare enough of it self growes to be hard by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text as we haue heard out of Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. that Scripture may with so great
it is sayd It was seemly that we should haue such a high Priest holy innocent impolluted separated from sinners Heb 7. V. 26. O blasphemy against Christ our Lord as if he had bene truly a sinner as just men are truly just of whom we reade evident texts that they are renewed in the spirit of their mynd and haue put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holiness of the truth Ephes 4.23.24 not of a falshood or disguise of truth that they are regenerated and Renewed of the Holy Ghost Tit 3.3 that their sins are taken away 1. Paral 21.8 that cleare water is powred vpon them and they clensed from all their contaminations Ezech 36.25 that they shal be sprinkled with hyssope clensed washed and made whyter than snow Psalm 50 9. that their sins shal be sought and shall not be found Psalm 9.5 that their sins are purged Prov. 19.27 that they are all fayre and there is not a spot in them Cant. 4.7 If thy sins shal be as scarlet they shal be made whyte as snow and if they be red as vermelion they shal be whyte as wooll Isay 1.18 they haue washed their robes and haue made them whyte in the bloud of the lamb Apoc. 7.14 With sundry other evident texts which I cited in the Introduction Sect. 9. And yet our Sectaryes will haue just men and Saints to be still in sinne and so Calvinian saints are eternally stayned with that which is the most detestable thing in the very Divells namely deadly sinne The Apostle sayth Rom. 5.18 As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so also by the Obedience of one many shal be made just Will Calvin say that we were made sinners only by imputation and not by true sin inexistent in our soule And how then can he deny but that men are just by true inherent Justice And if it be so how dare he blaspheme that Christ was a sinner as just men are just which is to say that he was a sinner by inherent sinne or injustice as other sinners are But this is the fruite of relying on scripture alone that is indeed of following their owne fancy What can be more evident and in more express words delivered in scripture than that without the speciall Grace of God merited by our Saviours Life and Death we cannot doe any worke or speak any words or think any thought avayling towards eternall salvation and yet Pelagians taught the contrary and Socinians hold that we merit all for our selves and Christ nothing for vs as contrarily Protestants commonly say that Christ merited all for vs and we nothing for our selves So contrary Heresyes arise when once men despise the Authority of Gods Church What Poynt more cleare in scripture and more purposely and carefully proved by S. Paule than that Article of our Creed the Resurrection from Death and yet the Socinians teach that in Heaven we shall haue I know not what celestiall body essentially different from that which was buryed in the graue (a) Vid Volkel de vera Relig Lib 3. Cap 35. Besides do not those Lutherans who defend the Vbiquity of our Sauiours Humanity vnderstand evident words or do they want skill in lang uages And yet it is manifest that they destroy all the Mysteryes of the Nativity Ascension c of our Saviour Christ For who can come or goe or ascend or descend from one place to another who is presupposed to be in all places no less then God is according to his Deity who therfor cannot be mooved from one place to another 32. Sixtly These things considered the Reader may justly wonder at Chilling who expressly specifyes the sayd Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ for instances that the Scripture is evident concerning them His words Pag 101. N. 127 are If any one should deny that God is Omnipotent Omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seeke him a punisher of those that obstinately offend him that Iesus Christ is the senne of God and Saviour of the world that it is he by Obedience to whom men must looke to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Paâ—sion or Resurrection or Ascension 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 judg of the quick and the dead that all men shall rise againe at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be saved That they which do not belieue or repent shal 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 obstinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one who believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoyd that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide Thus he But by his leaue who does not see both by Reason and Experience the contrary of that of which he sayth who does not see And how hard is it to distinguish and judg what is or is not plainly delivered in Scripture if we respect the sense and not the words only And if we consider not one text alone but coâ—â— are it with other passages which seeme to signify a different or even contrary thing especially if he add the great disserence and contrariety of opinions amongst his Brethren the Protestants concerning such poynts some of them judging that to be plaine and evident in scripture which others belieue not only to be obscure but the contrary to be true and all this out of evident scripture as they apprehend as appeares by these very examples which he picks out for Truths plainly delivered in scripture as we haue alredy demonstrated For Gods Omniptency the scripture saith plainly Matth 3.9 God is able of these stones to raise vp children to Abraham And Matth 20.53 Thinkest thou that I cannot aske my Father and he will giue me presently more then twelue legions of Angels Luc 1.36 there shall not be impossible with God any word And yet Calvin in severall occasions impugnes the distinction of Catholique Divines of Potentia Dei ordinaria absoluta of Gods ordinary Power and his absolute power and rejects that which they call Potentia absoluta We haue shewed already that Gods Omniscience is denyed by the Socinians whom Chilling highly esteemes for learning and piety also as appeares in what he sayes in his Answer to the Direction to N.N. N. 29. and yet they did wel vnderstand the learned languages and the words of scripture for the Grammaticall signification 33. With what modesty can Hee say that it is evident in scripture that Iesus Christ is the son of God Saviour of the world and sitteth at the right haÌ„d of God and hath all power giveÌ„ him in heaveÌ„ aÌ„d
a Gentile wherby one would apprehend that S. Paule judged it necessary at least per accidens because all knew that his father was a gentil that Timothy should be circumcised and yet contrarily Gal. 2. N. 3. it is sayd but neither Titus wheras he was a Gentil was compelled to be circumcised It is therfor very cleare that this Poynt which you alledg as clearly expressed in Scripture ought rather to be numbred amongst difficult and obscure places and directly against your inference that there is no need of an infallible guide shewes the necessity of such a guide because this determination about the Mosaicall Law was a Definition of a Counsell ād must be declared by the practise of Gods church as being concerning some things not to be alwayes observed but intended to be ordered by the sayd Church without whose authority how should we know when and in what manner the keeping of the Mosaicall Law became both vnnecessary and damnable mortua and mortifera dead and deadly since we see some part therof observed by the Apostles after our Sauiours ascension and sending the Holy Ghost 36. But at least though you haue erred in the first part of your example concerning the evidence of Scripture that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary to salvation yet you haue vndoubtedly proved your purpose in the other part That good works are necessary to salvation 37. To this I answer It is strang you should hold this point of the necessity of good works to salvation to be so evident in Scripture that every one who believes the Scripture hath sufficient meanes to discover and condemne the contrary heresie seing you know the common Tenet of Protestants that it is impossible to keep the commandements and the doctrine of many of them that all our actions are sinnes Can the breach of the commandements be a good worke Or can sinfull works be necessary to salvation That is can it be necessary to doe that which is necessary for vs not to doe as every one is obliged not to sinne How then can you say the Scripture is cleare in this poynt since so many of your chiefest brethren must mayntayne the contrary and divers of them do in express termes deny good works to be necessary yea and call it a Papisticall errour yea worse than is the Papists Doctrine as is exactly sett downe in Brierly Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 4. And see in the same Author Tract 3. Sect. 7. N. 7. The necessity of good works contradicted for new Papistry as pernicious as the old by Illyricus in Praefat. ad Rom. and many others And all this they pretend to doe vpon the warrant of evident scripture 37. And heer I am to obserue that Pag 157. N. 50. you having alledged some poynts as clearly contayned in scripture and in particular concerning Faith Repentance and Resurrection of the body which we haue demonstrated not to be clear without assistance from Gods Church and to be controverted even amongst Protestants add these remarkable words These we conceyue both true because the Scripture sayes so and Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell wherof our Sauiour sayes Qui non crediderit damnabitur Therfor say I scripture alone is not cleare even in Fundamentall points which directly overthrowes the whole Foundation of Protestants religion And because heer you name expressly the Resurrection of the Body and not only that all men shall rise againe at the last day as you spoake Pag. 101. N. 127. I would gladly know how it is a Resurrection of the Body which never rises againe but another celestiall body is created to succeed it And what reckoning do you make of the 39. Articles of the English Church since Art 4. it is sayd Christ did truly rise rgaine from death and tooke againe his body with flesh bones and all things appertaining to the perfection of mans nature wher with he ascended into Heaven and there sitteth vntill he returne to judg all men at the last day 38. You see then that he hath produced Fundamentall poynts as cleare in scripture which are proved not to be so Of poynts not Foundamentall he chuseth in the same place one example so pregnant and certaine in his conceypt that he hopes we will grant it to be such namely that Abraham begat Isaac But this text is not so cleare as he supposes For how will he be sure if we take those words alone that Abraham was Isaacs Father and not grandfather or yet higher We reade in S. Matthew 1.8 Ioram begat Ozias three Kings being left out For Ioram immediatly begat Ochozias Ochozias begat Ioas Ioas begat Amazias Amazias begat Azarias or Ozias for he had two names as is manifest 1. Paral. 3.11 and 12. and 2. Paral. 22.9 seqq he therfor left out three to wit Ochosias Ioas and Amazias as also Matth. 1.12 frequently in the Latin copy one generation is left out for with S. Epiphanius and others it is thus to be supplyed and read Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren and Jeconias begat Jechonias in the transmigration of Babilon For now we haue only Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon On the contrary where Genes 11. V. 12. it is sayd Arphaxad begat Sale as the Hebrew and Caldaean text haue both in this place and also 1. Paral. 1.18 24. the Septuaginta both heer and there put Cainan between For they saye Arphaxad begat Cainan and Cainan begat Sale S. Luke rollowes the Septuagint Chap. 36. saying Who was of Sale who was of Cainan who was of Arphaxad Besides all this what will he vnderstand by genuit he begat or fuit Filius he was the Son which may haue divers significations as Luc. 3.38 Who was of Henos who was of Seth who was of Adam who was of God Where we see Filius a son must be taken in a different sense as it is referred to Henos Seth and Adam and as it is referred to God vvhose naturall son Adam vvas not But I may seeme to haue sayd too much of such a matter as this vnless it did shevv clearly the difficulty of scripture even in texts vvhich scarcely seeme capable of difficulty 39. Sixtly vvhatsoever effect Protestants yield to Sacraments at least it is necessary they be maintayned and not quite abolished and taken from the true Church of vvhich Protestants teach the right administration of Sacraments to be an Essentiall Note Yea seing there vvant not learned Protestants vvho hold Baptisme to be necessary to salvation if the scripture be not cleare in vvhat concernes this Sacrament it is not cleare in a necessary poynt as I sayd Novv the very vvord Sacrament taken in this sense according to Protestants is not found in scripture yea Socinians teach that it is an abuse of the vvord Sacrament to apply it to holy rites (a) Volkelius Lib. 4 Cap. 22. And in the definition therof Protestants cannot agree
not for poynts only profitable and if you answer affirmatively then you wil be obliged to informe vs how we may be able to distinguish so evidently between very profitable and only profitable things as that we may certainly know what must be clearly contayned in scripture what not But it is impossible for you to giue any such intelligible solid practicall distinction and therfore you cannot affirme that all very profitable poynts are evident in scripture but not things only profitable Since then you cannot say that al profitable things are evident in scripture for that were to affirme that all scripture is cleare there being nothing revealed by God which is not profitable and yet who will deny but that the scripture is obscure in some poynts you must be content to conclude that all very profitable things are not evidently contayned in scripture And further wheras you joyne togeather things necessary and things very profitable and assigne the selfsame meanes for ending all controversies concerning those two kinds of things which is really and sincerely to submitt their judgments to scripture and that only seing this means will not serue for ending all controversies in things very profitable as I haue shewed it followes that it is not sufficient to end all controversies concerning things necessary And if in things profitable and very profitable that may seeme evident to one which to another may seeme obscure or even vntrue the same also may happen in things necessary in regard that all the Rules and industryes which Protestants assigne for finding the true sense of scripture are no less fallible in things necessary than in things very profitable But whatsoever your opinion be concerning things very profitable or profitable I take thence a strong argument and say 73. 13 Not only for things necessary but for things profitable also there cannot be wanting in Gods Church some meanes to end controversies touching them by declaring them with certainty and infallibility For although if things profitable be taken in particular and severally every one is no more than profitable yet speaking of a Community or a great Misticall body especially such a body as the Church of Christ is instituted by an infinite wisdome and ordayned to the sublime End of Eternall Happyness toward the attayning wherof every little advantage and help is not to be litle esteemed and the privation and want therof or euery errour therin is to be in like proportion avoyded things profitable taken as it were in generall ought in morall consideration to be judged necessary in such a body which otherwise would looke like a man conceyved with his Essence only devested of all accidents and integrant parts or like to his body indued with necessary parts only for example hart and braine without feete hāds eares eyes and other senses And therfor it cannot be imagined but that God hath left meanes in his Church for declaring truths and determining Controversyes in profitable poynts as occasion shall require The scripture of it self is most sacred and effectuall to the conversion of sinners and convincing of Heretikes if it be redd with sobriety and interpreted with submission of our vnderstanding to Gods Church Otherwise Experience shewes that men from it by the fault of men not of it take occasion of implacable and endless contentions without any possibility of remedy till they submitt their judgments and will to some infallible Living Guide For this cause also their Faith and Religion is sterill and barren as being deprived of Gods blessing for the conversion of nations to Christ fortold by the Prophets as a Priviledge of the true Church Thus the very name of Christ preached by some who were out of the Church was not efficacious to the casting out of divells Act. 19.15 yea contrarily the divell so prevayled against them that they fled out of that house naked and wounded V. 16. Even so the scripture out of the Church is neither effectuall for concord among Christians nor for the conversion of Infidels to Christ 74. 14. What I haue sayd about the necessity of profitable things considered as it were in generall and consequently of some meanes to determine controversyes concerning them may be confirmed by a discourse of yours Pag. 9. N. 6. where you say VVe are bound by the loue of God and loue of Truth to be Zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable Mark any way and not only Very profitable though not simply necessary to salvation Or as if any good man could satisfy his conscience without being so affected and resolved Our Saviour himself having assured vs Matth. 5.19 That he that shall break one of his least Commandements some wherof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation and shall so teach men shal be called the least in the kingdome of Heaven And Pag 277. N. 61. you teach that God hath promised such an assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very profitable Truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours Which words are directly against yourself whom we haue heard saying That if controversyes touching things not necessary or not very profitable were continued or increased it were no matter Wheras here you say of things any way profitable that by the loue of God and loue of Truth and obligation of conscience and vnder payne of being the least in the kingdome of Heaven that is of being excluded from the kingdome of Heauen according to S. Chrysostome and Theophylact who interpret minimus the least to signify nullus none at all we are bound to be zealous in the defence of them A great zeale indeed to maintayne that if debates concerning them could not be ended but continued or increased it were no matter Do you not through your whole Booke teach that all errours against revealed truths are breaches of Gods command and are in themselves damnable and will effectually proue such if ignorance do not excuse or a generall Repentance do not obtaine pardon for them How then is it no matter if they remayne vndecided or that there be no meanes to decide them Is it no matter whether one by breaking one of Gods commandements be least in the kingdome of Heaven As for your Parenthesis that we pretend some of the commandements to be concerning veniall sins the keeping wherof is not necessary to salvation I say it is either vntrue or impertinent For if you meane that we pretend some errour against any least revealed Truth sufficiently proposed to be a veniall sin it is very vntrue You know that Cha Ma doth teach the contrary through his whole work and theron grounds the maine scope of his Booke That of two disagreeing in Poynts of Faith or Objects revealed by God and sufficiently propounded one committs a deadly sin and without repentance cannot be saved If you meane
in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be āy Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes ād then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither cā you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehād the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequētly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all Protestāts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue
Having set downe these words of S. Irenaeus you vrge them thus Pag 211. N. 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretikes that pretended as you know who do now a dayes that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour It is plaine therfor that be must meane as I pretend that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell which was preached by S. Peter was written by S. Mark Now you will not deny I persume that S. Peter preached all therfor you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all In your Margent you cite S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. 162. Answer you set nor downe the Booke or Chapter for the first place which you cite out of S. Irenaeus I haue found it and find that your ill dealing is so very exorbitant and manifold that I scarcely know where to beginne the discovery or how to exaggerate sufficiently your fraude 163 First In those words which you cite they are Lib. 3. Cap. 1. adversus Haereses it is only sayd that the foure Evangelists wrote their severall Gospells but it is not so much as insinuated that every one or all of them wrote all things necessary to salvation nor any least thing that may seeme to looke that way or to be for your purpose in āy other respect as shall appeare anone But your misery is that still you suppose that all necessary things must be expressed in scripture and in vertue of that begging supposition you extend indefinite Propositions as if they were vniversall and yet did signify not absolutely all as vniversalls are wont to doe but determinately for your purpose all things necessary for salvation wheras S. Irenaeus hath neither the word all nor the words necessary Articles Your chief or only care should haue bene to proue positively a necessity that all things necessary should haue bene written in every one of the Gospells and then you might with some more shew of reason turne indefinite into vniversall propositions but your negatiue way or only asking questions what reason can be imagined that any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary c will not satisfy S. Irenaeus teaches that S. Marke delivered to vs in writing those things which had been preached by Peter but doth he say all those things which had bene preached by Peter He neither did nor could say so the thing being in it self manifestly vntrue For S. Peter delivered many things by word of mouth which neither S. Mark nor any other of the Evangelists haue written as we may learne from S. John Chap. 21. and S. Mark omitts divers things which the other Evangelists and canonicall Writers haue written and can you affirme that S. Peter delivered none of those points And in particular could he be silent of the Incarnation and birth and other Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ till his baptisme which yet S. Mark omitts as we noted aboue It is therfor evident that S. Irenaeus could not meane that S. Mark wrote whatsoever S. Peter delivered and therfor he wrote only some and not all This then must be your Argument S. Peter preached all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and much more but S. Mark wrote only some and not all that S. Peter preached therfor S. Mark wrote all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell and more An Argument like to this God knowes all things Mr Chillingworth knowes some but not all things that God knowes therfor Mr. Chillingworth knowes all things Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 8. cites S. Irenaeus thus Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter committed to writing those things which he had receaved from him where we see no vniversall but only an indefinite proposition Neither did it make any thing to S. Irenaeus his purpose to treate whether or no the Evangelists or other Canonical VVriters did set downe all necessary points For he wrote against certaine absurd Heretiques whe denyed that God created Heaven and earth or breached some other such pernicious fooleryes which might be confuted out of scripture though it do not containe all other necessary points of Faith And it is too much boldness another would call it impudency in you to say that in the words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must meane sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not tradition and for this you cite S. Irenaeus Lib 3. Cap 2. and Pag 346. N. 30 you say Irenaeus had to do with Heretiques who somwhat like those who would be the only Catholiques declining a tryall by Scripture as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fitt to decide Controversyes without recourse to Tradition c But in this your fraud is intolerable For those Heretiks of whom S. Irenaeus speakes when Catholikes did alledge scripture excepted not against it because it did not contayne all necessary truths or not the truth of Christ perfectly which exception could nothing availe them it being sufficient for confutation of their particular heresy if the scripture did containe as much as was contradictory to their errours supposing they did believe it to be the word of God but their exception was that it was not well written was false and not agreeing with it self as may be seene in that very third Booke and second Chapter which you alledg against vs in the words which now I haue cited out of you and therfor you cannot pretend ignorance for excuse of your want of sincerity Thus then S. Irenaeus in that Lib 3. Cap. 2. the title of which Chapter is Quod neque scripturis neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici That Heretiks obey neither Scripture nor Traditions beginns that Chapter with these words When they are convinced out of Scripture they fall vpon accusing the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor of sufficient authority and that they did varie from themselves and that truth could not be gathered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition These very words yourself Pag 361. N 40. alledg out of S. Irenaeus and say The Fathers vrged tradition against them who when they were confuted out of Scripture fell to accuse Scriptures themselves as if they were not right and came not from good authority as if they were various one from another and as if truth could not be found out of them by those who know not Tradition for that it was not delivered in writing they did meane say
certaine things by writing and certaine by tradition with vvhom agrees S. Basile de spiritui sancto Cap. 27. saying some things we haue from scripture other things from the Apostles tradition c both which haue like force vnto godlines that Dr. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference 1. conclus Pag. 689. ansvvering to these sayings of S. Epiphanius and S. Basil sayth I took not vpon me to control them but let the Church judge if they considered with advise enough c And for other Fathers both Greek and Latine they are so plaine for tradition against the sufficiency of scripture taken alone that as may be seene in Brierley Tract 1. sect 3. subdivis 12. wheras S. Chrysostome saith in 2. ad Thessal Hom 4. The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing but many things without and these be as worthy of credit as the other Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura Pag 678. in answer therto sayth I answer This is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father And wheras Eusebius Lib 1. Demonstrat Evangel Cap 8. is objected to say That the Apostles published their doctrine partly without writing as it were by a certaine vnwritten law Whitaker Pag 668. saith therto I answer that this testimony is plaine enough but of no force to be receyved because it is against the Scripture And of S. Austine Cartwright saith in Mr. Whitgifts Defence Pag 103. If S. Austines judgment be a good judgment then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures Yea not to insist vpon every particular Father Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Pag 87.89.90 reproves for their like testimony of vnwritten Traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascen c Fulk also confesses as much of Chrysostome Tertullian Cyprian Austine Hierome c And Whitaker acknowledgeth the like of Chrysost Epiphanius Tertullian Austine Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascene c. Now sir are not these Fathers and Ancient Doctours who teach that the Apostles haue not delivered all things in writing directly opposite to your contrary Assertion so often repeated but without any proofe which you know is but to begg the Question Of people without succession of Pastours which is the ground of Tradition we may truly say as Optatus saith of the Donatists Lib. 2. cont Parm. Sunt sine Patribus filii c. They are children without Fathers disciples without maisters and in a prodigious manner begotten and borne of themselves 166. I will make an end of this matter if first I haue noted that it is a false glosse of yours like to that which I haue noted aboue and directly against S. Irenaeus that when he sayth those Heretiks taught that truth cannot be found by those who know not Tradition he must meane sufficient truth as if those heretiks had agreed with Catholikes that all truth is not sufficiently contayned in scripture alone wheras S. Irenaeus expressly declares the doctrine of those Heretiks to haue been that the scriptures were not right and came not from good authority but were various one from another as I haue shewed and yourself affirme in those very words which you translate out of S. Irenaeus and so not only sufficient truth could not be learned in the scriptures but they could not assure vs of any truth at all Wheras you say to haue sayd against those Heretiks that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some necessary parts of it omitted had been to speake impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour I must say that your consequence is no less impertinent than your supposition is false because no body did ever go about to confute those Heretiks by saying that part of the Gospell was written and some part omitted but by proving that the scriptures were true and of infallible authority which they denyed and also that beside scripture there are true Catholique Traditions opposite to the foolish traditions of those Heretiks from which truth may be learned both which Points S. Irenaeus proves and so confutes the double errour of those heretiks that truth could be found neither by the scriptures nor by the Traditions of Catholiques and therby expressly makes good such Traditions and that both out of scripture and Tradition we may learne some Points of Christian Faith which is directly against that very thing for which you alledge him and proves my chief intent that scripture is not the only Rule of Faith To which purpose I beseech you heare your owne words Pag 345. N. 29. where you bring S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. speaking thus to those Heretiks Your calumnyes against Scripture are most vnjust but yet moreover assure yourselves that if you will be tryed by Tradition even by that also you will be overthrowne For our Tradition is farr more famous more constant and in all respects more credible than that which you pretend to It were easy for me to muster vp against you the vninterrupted Successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles all conspiring in their testimonyes against you But because it were too long to number vp the Successions of all Churches I will content my self with the Tradition of the most Ancient and most glorious Church of Rome which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine c Thus you And though you render very imperfectly both the words and meaning of S. Irenaeus and in some words following those which I haue sett downe falsify his sense And therfor I beseech the Reader to examine the place yet this is sufficient to shew by your owne confession what was the judgment of this glorious Saint and Martyr concerning Traditions and the no-necessity that all Poynts of Faith should haue bene written since we may receyue them from the Church 167. By the way For what mystery do you goe about to proue that S. Mark hath written all things necessary because S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 1. saith Mark S. Peters disciple delivered to vs in writing those things which S. Peter had preached and yet do not apply the same proof to S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus in the same place saith Luke a follower of Paul wrote downe the Gospell which had bene preached by him S. Paul To what purpose would you goe the further way about first proving that S. Mark hath all necessary points and from the nce inferring that S. Luke whose Gospell is larger than that of S. Mark must needs haue written all such things When as you might haue immediatly proved the same thing of S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus speaks in the very same manner as he speaks of S. Mark 168. From S. Mark you passe to S. John whom Pag. 211. N. 42. you would proue to haue written all necessary points because he saith Many other signes also did Iesus in the sight of his disciples which are not written in this Booke But these
alledging some passages of the Old and by alledging them to a certaine purpose they interpret and declare them to signify that for which they alledge them are not alwayes so cleare in every respect as that they may not require some Interpretation or Explication as we see performed by Holy Fathers and Interpreters of scripture who somtyme find difficulty even in fynding in the Old Testament what is cited out of it and we have heard out of a Protestant Doctour that The Apostles and divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes which shewes that every interpretation doth not adequate the sense yea since some Protestants hold that the same Text of Scripture cannot admit severall true and different senses as Fulk in his Confutation of Purgatory Pag 151. and Willet in his Synopsis Pag 26. they must aknowledg great difficulty in the interpretation of the same places to â—â—vers purposes as Divine Writers haue done and will be forced to giue some interpretation or declaration of those very different interpretations which Canonicall Writers gaue of those Texts of the Old Testament Thus your Arguments being clearly confuted I must put you in mynd of some Points on which I belieue you did not reflect and which will proue that it is not Char Main but yourself who giue a thing with one hand and take it away with the other 186. In your first Answer to an Objection which you make against yourself Pag 55 N. 8. you say God might giue a writing the attestation of perpetuall Miracles that it is a Rule of Faith and the word of God This you giue heer and yet you take it away in your Answer to your Third Motiue to be a Roman Catholike where you say the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and divine Meracies which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and add It seemes to me no strang thing that God in his Iustice should permit sometrue Miracles to be wrought to delude them who haue forged so many as apparently the professours of the Roman Doctrine haue to abuse the world The same you expressly deliver Pag 379. N. 69 Now if even true Miracles may be wrought to delude any sort of people certainly they might haue been wrought to delude the Jewes who despised and impugned the Miracles of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and denyed Christ to be the true Messias and forged false witnesses to put Him to death and discredit his Doctrine Nay what People or what single Person can be sure that their sinnes haue not deserved such a punishment Every deadly sinne vnrepented will certainly be punished with eternall torments which is the greatest evill that can be imagined or rather so great that it cannot be imagined by any mortall man and therfor much more may every such sinne be justly punished by permitting true Miracles to be wrought to delude the sinner if once that be granted which you affirme How then could our Saviour say John 10.38 If you will not belieue me belieue the workes Or doth not this open a way to affirme that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles haue beene wrought to delude men And finally to come close to our purpose how could God giue any certaine attestation by any Miracle that Scripture is the word of God if true Miracles may be done to delude men And how do you say in your Answer to your sayd Third Motiue to be a Roman Catholike The Bible de facto hath bene confirmed with those Supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Is not this with one hand to giue Scripture the prerogatiue of being the word of God and with the other to take it away In the meane tyme I challeng all the enemyes of the Roman Church to shew any one Miracle-forged and approved by Her and yourself know that she censures with excommunication broachers of false Miracles as Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 9. shewes and you in your Answer deny it not it being notorious to the whole world that such forgers are most severely punished in Catholique contryes 187. In another respect also you giue and take away Here you tell vs that God might giue scripture the Attestation of perpetuall Miracles that it is the word of God and in your Answer to your third Motiue as I sayd even now you say that the scripture hath bene confirmed with those innumerous supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles If this be so we must inferr that as the particular contents of scripture for example the Incarnation Life Death Resurtection and Ascension of our Saviour Christ c being confirmed by Miracles became materiall Objects of our Faith so seing you confesse this Truth The Bible is the word of God to be proved by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles it followes evidently that it is a materiall Object of Faith no less then the particular Truths which it contaynes Andthis your selfe affirme in this very place in your Second Answer where you say by Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the Book called Scripture is the word of God Is not this to say that one of the things which cannot be proved by Scripture and yet are to be believed is that Scripture is the word of God Therfor we are to belieue that Scripture is the word of God and what is this but to be a materiall Object of our Faith This I say you teach here But in other places you affirme and take care to proue that Scripture is not one of the materiall Objects of our Faith as shall appeare in my next Chapter 188. You do also overthrow what we haue heard you say that Miracles may be wrought to delude men by the contrary doctrine delivered Pag 144. N. 31. in these words It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the Confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine But how is this true if the Apostles might haue bene permitted to worke even true Miracles to delude men or how is not their Doctrine vncertaine if you cannot be certaine but that their Miracles were wrought to such an end of deluding men How many wayes are you fallen into that which you objected to your Adversary as direct Boyes-play Giving taking away saying vnsaying and in a vvord contradicting yourself not in any by-point or incident speech as that was which without reason you taxed in Charity Mâ—â—tayned but in a matter of greatest moment as is the certainty and belief of Holy Scripture one of the prime Objects of Christian Faith 189. I knovv not
which is cleare by his words Quod horum sit faciendum Which of those things ought be done as also because he speakes vpon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe somthing and you will not deny but in that case we were obliged to belieue not only that it was or was not practised but also that the thing in it self was lawfull and then he sayth that beside scripture we ought to imbrace and not to dispute against the vniversall practise of the church The same Holy Father teaches that the custome of baptizing childrē cannot be proved by scriptute alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he Lib 10. de Gen ad Lit Cap 23. in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed vnless it were an Apostolicall Tradition 201. Ponder first how the baptizing of infants is not to be contemned or accounted a vaine or vnprofitable thing and not only that we are to belieue there is such a practise 2. That seing what the Church practises is to be believed and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved vnless it were an Apostolicall tradition it followes that what the vniversall Church practises is an Apostolicall Tradition and consequently certaine and infallible though it be not written in scripture And Serm 14. de Verbis Apostoli Chap 18. speaking of the same Point of baptizing children he sayth This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in peeces Which place is so cleare for vs that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could giue no answer but this Nos ab Augustine hac in parte libere dissentimus In this we freely disagree from Augustine But of this answer you take no notice though you redd it in Charity Maintayned and seeke to answer this very place of S Austine alledged by Him And of the Quesstion of not rebaptizing c Lib. 1. Cont Crescon Cap. 32. 33. He sayth we follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of canonicall scriptures But how Doth he meane that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture In no wise How then Heare his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonicall scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same scripture is held by vs while we do that which the authority of scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question must haue recourse to the same church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to vs. Consider that we are sayd to follow scripture while we follow the church even in a thing not expressed in scripture and that he speakes not only of examples not found in scripture but of that Question Doctrine and truth it selfe affirming that the truth of scripture is held while we follow the church and that because the scripture cannot deceiue vs the way not to be deceyved is to haue recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends which certainly were no good advise or direction if the church might be deceived neither could S. Austine referr vs to the church in stead of the scripture or as if the Question were defined by the scripture it self vnless the church be infallible as scripture is And de Baptismo cont Donat. Lib 5. C. 23. he hath these remarkable words The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this about not rebaptizing c but this custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as are many things which the vniversall church observeth which are therfor with good reason believed to haue bene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written Could any thing haue bene spoken more clearly to shew that the vniversall church is an infallible Proposer not only of examples matters of fact or practise but also of Precepts Commands and Doctrine And the same glorious Saint saith vniversally Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53. It is safe for vs to avouch with confident and secure words that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthned by the consent of the vniversall church 202. By what we haue sayd in confutation of this your fift answer the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answeres Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44 to these and other places alledged out of S. Austine by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16. as also out of S. Chrysostome who treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our epistle saith Homil. 4. Hence it is manifest that they delivered delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let vs therfor account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief It is a Tradition seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker de sacra scrip Pag 678. is as plaine with S. Chrisostome and sayes I Answer that this is an inconsiderate speech vnworthy so great a Father These words of Whitaker were alledged in the same place by Charity Maintayned but are dissembled by you who Pag. 153. N. 45.46 giue two slight answers to the sayd words of S. Chrisostome the first is like to that which in the first place you gaue to the words of S. Austine that I was to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes Which answer I haue confuted already and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome who not only sayth that we are to belieue the church affirming such or such a thing to haue bene delivered but also that the things so delivered are worthy of belief as he sayd of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing and to be believed in such manner as we are to seek no more Therfor we are to rely on the churches Tradition as vpon a sure and certaine ground or Rule of Faith It was not without cause that Whitaker a man of so great note in England was so angry with S. Chrisosstome 203. Your second Answer is That the things Which the Apostles delivered without writing are worthy of belief if we know what they were Which is not to answer but to deride S. Chrysostome as if he spoke of a Chimera and not of any thing of vse or existent and applicable to practise and in stead of saying as he doth It is a Tradition seeke no more it is worthy of belief He should haue sayd There is no such thing as Tradition seeke it not nor belieue it Besides in this very conditionall grant that we were to belieue Tradition of
vnless we belieue it finally and for itself divers verityes contained in scripture shall not be materiall objects of our Faith and in particular all those of which S. John speakes Cap 20. V. 30.31 Many other signes also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Booke And these are written that you may belieue that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that belieuing you may haue life in his name Those Miracles then were written not for themselves but as a meanes to attayne the knowledg of this Truth Jesus is Christ the Son of God and even the belief of this Truth is referred to a further end that believing you may haue life in his name And 1. Pet. 1.9 we read more vniversally that the end of our Faith is the salvation of our soules Besides this Pag 217. and 218. N. 49. you say Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this tyme. can without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture 4. Sir Are you a Christian of any profession If you be then it must be manifest to all the world that you must agree with others in the belief of scripture Therfor scripture is one part or Object of your belief and this as you profess vnder paine of damnation and consequently it is not only an object but a necessary object to be believed and you cannot without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must doe so that is belieue scripture seing you can haue no reason to in Christ but you must haue the same to believe the Scripture If then you teach as you doe that one is not bound to belieue Scripture but may reject it you must grant that by the same reason he may not belieue yea may reject Christ himself And now heare what you say Pag 116. N. 159. If a man should belieue Chistian Religion wholly and entirely and liue according to it such a man though he should not know or not belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinyon is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we belieue the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vnderstanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved Therfor men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had beene proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder paine of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherin they are contayned In some of these words you may perhaps seeme to speake ambiguously That the Scriptures are not so much the Objects of our Faith as the instruments of conveying it to our vndersting For not so much seemes to signify that they are the objects of our Faith in some degree but this very mincing of things shewes the absurdity of that wherin you are afrayd to declare your mynd plainly or if you belieue as your words seeme most to signify we must say that you hold scripture not to be a materiall Object of our Faith which must consist in indivisibili For if this truth scripture is the word of God be revealed it is no lesse absolutely and rigorously a materiall object of Faith then the verityes contayned in it If it be not revealed it is not only not so much but not at all an object of Faith But your other words neither doubt I but if the Books of Scripture had bene proposed to those barbarous people by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by them but still by bet bare belief and practise of Christanity they might be saved do either directly signify that scripture is absolutely no materiall Object of our faith nor a thing revealed by God or els cōtaine a most wicked doctrine or rather blasphemy that a truth revealed by God may be rejected which you cōfess is to giue God the ly And that finally this is your opinion scripture is not a materiall object of Faith appeares by your next N. 160 Pag. 117. Where you say This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submitt to better judgment For you speake of the discourse which I haue now sett downe out of your N. 159. Neither can you avoide this absurdity by saying one may reject scripture if it be not sufficiently propounded For you put the very case that it should be proposed by the other parts of the church where they had bene before receyved As also you expressly put a difference between the verityes contained in scripture ād scripture which contaynes them saying God requires of vs vnderpayne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherin they are contayned and yet it is a thing granted by all and evident of it self that none cā be obliged to belieue the verityes contayned in scripture or any other verityes vnless they be sufficiently proposed and therfor if you will make good the difference you put between scripture and the contents therof and not contradict yourself you must confess that one is not obliged to belieue scripture or the divine Authority therof but may reject it although it be sufficiently proposed yea it will also follow that the contents therof may be rejected the first and last and totall knowledge wherof Protestants pretend to receyue only from the written word For they cannot possibly conceaue any obligation to belieue the contents of scripture if first they be perswaded that they haue no obligation to belieue scripture it self from which alone they can come to know any such obligation And so protestant ministers
which I am bound to belieue the belief of both is necessary the one for it selfe the other for that other which is supposed to be necessary of it self as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents Secondly if the reason for which I belieue a thing be not only true but also by the nature therof necessarily obliges me to belieue that thing which it proves in that event whersoever I find that reason I shall remaine obliged to belieue that Object which it proves This is our case For no Christian yea no man indued with reason can deny but that if I belieue an Object as testifyed by God I am obliged to belieue all other Truths so testifyed Now I pray you tell vs the reason for which at this tyme you hold yourself obliged to belieue the contents of scripture You must answer because they are revealed by God testifying the truth of them by many and great miracles Then I aske for what reason do you belieue Scripture to be the word of God If you answer because God hath testifyed it to be such by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to proue their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost then I inferr that as you are bound to belieue the contents of Scripture so you are also obliged to belieue Scripture it self seing you haue the same reason to belieue that God hath testifyed both the Scripture and the contents therof If you belieue Scripture to be the word of God not for the Divine Testimony for which you belieue the contents but for some other Reason then your saying There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall Reason was impertinent because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you belieue the verityes therin contained and your other saying Pag. 218. N. 49 must be false that no man at this tyme can haue reason to belieue in Christ but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture if it be true that you belieue not scripture for the same reason for which you belieue Christ and other mysteryes contained in it But let vs know indeed for what reasoÌ„ you belieue Scripture to be the word of God It seemes one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you teach that the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and the Apostles And Pag. 379. N. 69. you say following the Scripture I shall belieue that which vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God confirmed to be the word of God If this be true how are not men obliged to belieue that which hath bene so confirmed Or for what other reason do you belieue the Truths contayned in Scripture as our Saviour His Incarnation Life Death Resurrection and other Mysteryes of Christian Faith but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernaturall workes of God wherby you expressly grant Scripture to haue bene confirmed to be the word of God You must therfor either grant that there is a necessity to belieue Scripture to be the word of God or deny that there is a necessity to belieue the contents therof And then further for our present Question you must either grant that Scripture is a materiall Object of Faith or deny that the verityes therin contayned are such an Object vnless you will confess yourself to be a very strang and vnreasonable man to belieue the matter of the bookes of Scripture and not the Authority of the bookes and therfor since you profess not to be obliged to belieue these may not one haue reason to vse your owne words to feare that you do not thinke yourself obliged to belieue that Nay is it not apparent still I vse your owne words that you at this tyme cannot without hypocrisy pretend an obligation to belieue in Christ but of necessity you must acknowledg an obligation to belieue the Bookes of scripture seing you can haue no reason to thinke you are obliged to belieue in Christ but must haue the same to belieue the scripture and if your belief of the contents of scripture or of obligation to belieue them be vnreasonable it cannot proceed from the particular motion of the Holy Ghost nor be an Act of divine Faith And I beseech you reflect that here there is not only the same reason for the truth of things in themselves but also for our obligation to belieue them namely the divine Testimony which Point if you obserue you cannot but see how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry which you say one is not bound to belieue and that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate which is a Truth set downe in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God and consequently to deny the Mysteryes contained in that booke were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God And is not a man obliged to belieue whatsoever he knowes to be witnessed by God I sayd your example is impertinent but I must add that it is also false vnchristian and blasphemous to say as you doe We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Haue you as great reason to belieue the Chronicles of England and the Testimony of men as to belieue the word of God 10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question whether or no you speake true in saying there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is an equall reason yet perhaps you will not easily make it good if there be perfectly and entirely the same reason and of the same kind for both of them For if I conceaue the same reason for both if I belieue the one I may belieue the other nay I haue a necessity to belieue it so far as I cannot belieue the contrary as it is impossible from the same premises belieued to be the same to inferr contrary or contradictory conclusions If perhaps you answer that when one believes a thing for a reason which he sees to be the self same for another he cannot dissent from that other yet he may suspend his vnderstanding from any positiue assent to it which he cannot doe when there is a command to belieue it This answer will not serue your turne but first it is against your self who Pag. 195. N. 11. say to Cha Ma your distinction between Points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is a distinction without a difference there being no point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be dâ—sbelieved but it is to the same man at
the same tyme in thâ— same circumstances necessary to be belieyed Out of which words it followeth that seing one can at no tyme disbelieue or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason in vertue wherof he belieues another thing he must necessarily belieue it according to your doctrine Secondly If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason you will not I belieue be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing and are not obliged to belieue another for which we haue the same reason For if the command be only this that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equall the necessity of believing must be equall But if the command of believing be supernaturall or some Positiue Divine Precept then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation and so there will not be the same reason for both but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation and therfore Thirdly If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation and so your subtilty That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof c is against reason against yourself aÌ„d against all divinity 11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying If any man should doubt or disbelieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight king of England it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor sin at all God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue Yet perhaps some wold aske whether you suppose that he who in the example you giue so doubts or disbelieves doth it vincibly or invincibly If invincibly then in him it is not vnreasonable because he in such circumstances could judg no otherwise and so in him it is reasonable For it falls out often that a true judgment may be imprudent and vnreasonable if it be framed lightly and for insufficient reasons and contrarily one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self and yet judg prudently if he be moved by probable reasons and so a true judgment may be rash and a false one prudent But if he who so doubts be supposed to erre vincibly you will not easily excuse him from all fault for example of pertinacy and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men or precipitation or imprudency or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant vnreasonable false and foolish belief which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others or for the glory of God and you know our B. Saviour hath revealed that every idle word is a sin But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue yet I leaue it to be considered whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous for if it be no sin at all to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples of Kings Princes Commonwealths and Magistrats some perhaps will infer That if your Doctrine were true it could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours seing no body can succeed to a Chimera or to a No-Body or a Non-Entity as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene 12 But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly and to the purpose in your other reason or example That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieue that Parchment to be his written will which indeed is so So I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity aÌ„d lives according to theÌ„ should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists nor the Epistles by the Apostles Yet in this also you either erre against truth or overthrow your owne maine cause For if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will he should neither satisfy the law which gives him no power but in vertue of the dead mans will nor his owne conscience but should vsurpe the office without any Authority and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning and depriving of their right those to whom for ought he knowes they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased Now apply this your case to our present Question and the result will be that seing according to Protestants de facto we know the contents of Scripture and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin only by Scripture it selfe aÌ„d by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture he cannot be obliged to belieue all or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation 13. And here I must not omitt your saying that a man may be saued though he should not know or not belâ—â—ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith and being the word of God wheras it is cleare that nothing caÌ„ be a Rule of ChristiaÌ„ Faith except it be the word of God because Christian Faith as I sayd hath for its Formall Object the Divine RevelatioÌ„ or word of God aÌ„d nothing which is not such caÌ„ be a Rule of our Faith D. Potter Pag 143. saith The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but thâ—s caÌ„ erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine In which words although he erre against truth in saying that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest must be made in scripture seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written or vnwritten yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour that one may belieue or reject scripture in which alone divine revelation is made according to him aÌ„d so take away scriptures or the belief of them all Revelations and Faith must be taken away and he declares
that nothing but Gods word or Revelation can erect or qualify an Act of Faith and consequently only Gods infallible Word can be a Rule of Faith 14. But it is tyme that we come to the matter it self aÌ„d coÌ„fute this errour which in effect I haue done already by occasion of examining some sayings of yours 15 First then I oppose yourself to yourself And beside the places which I haue alledged aboue out of your Answer to your Third Motiue where you confess scripture to haue bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and out of your Pag 55. N. 8. That By Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proued which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to againsayer that there is a God or that the Booke called Scripture is the word of God c In which words you ranke scriptures among those things which are to be believed which is to be a materiall Object of Faith as the existence of God is such an object besides I say the places which I haue produced already I must not omit what you say Pag 141. N. 28. where you suppose that the Apostles revealed what Books are Canonicall and that what they delivered in that kind is an Article of Faith and if an Article of Faith then it is a materiall object of Faith and Pag 142. N. 29. where you expressly say of some Bookes that if they were approâ—ed by the Apostles this 〈◊〉 hope was a sufficient definition and I hope that the definition of the Apostles is sufficient to make a thing an Object of Faith and induce an obligation for vs to belieue it Also Pag 90. N. 101. speaking in the person of an English Protestant you say Scripture evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our Faith If scripture be the sole and adequate object of Faith certainly it is an object of Faith or a thing believed by Faith How then do you teach that it is not an object of Faith Besides into what extremes do you fall teaching on the one syde that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith and yet affirme that it aÌ„d it only is the Object of Faith by being the sole aÌ„d adequate object therof And thus as somtyme you teach that not scripture it self but only the contents therof are the object of Faith so now you must say that not the contents but only scripture it self is the object thereof because having begun to say that scripture containeth the objects of Faith by way of correcting that speach you say it is rather the sole aÌ„d adequate object of it giving to vnderstaÌ„d that at least rather scripture then the contents therof are the object of Faith and that you had spoken more truly or more exactly if you had sayd scripture is the sole and adequate object of Faith theÌ„ in saying it containeth the objects of Faith To this I add what you write Pag 115. N. 156. Nothing can challeng our belief but what hath desceÌ„ded to vs from Christ by originall and vniversall Tradition now nothing but Scripture hath thus dâ—sceÌ„ded to vs therfore nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief Doth not this clearly declare that scripture challenges our belief You say also Pag 377. N. 58. All Christians in the world those I meane that in truth deserue this name do now aÌ„d alwayes haue believed the Scripture to be the word of God Therfor say I the belief of all Christians that in truth deserue that name is that scripture is the word of God or an object of their belief which since you deny how will men say do you deserue the name of Christian Also if meÌ„ may be saved by believing the mysteryes of ChristiaÌ„ religion though they be ignoraÌ„t of scripture yea and deny it how can you say they deserue not the name of Christians Or if they do not deserue that name surely they caÌ„not be saved And how caÌ„ you say all Christians in the world do now and aâ—wâ—yes haue believed Scripture to be the word of God since P. 116. N. 159. you affirme out of S. Irenaeus that some barbarous nations believed the doctâ—inâ— of Christ and yet belieued not the Scripture and you say expresly these barbarous people might be saved How theÌ„ is it true that all Christians haue alwayes believed scripture to be the word of God Lastly you speake home wheÌ„ P. 337. N. 19. you say The Church may yet moâ—e truly be said to perish when she Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her heresies may be reformed as if she should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the word of God If the Church must perish by denying Scripture to be the word of God you must grant that the contrary Truth Scripture is the word of God must be a matter of Faith as it is a matter of Faith that Jesus is the Christ But because it is no newes for you to cotradict your self I coÌ„fute your doctrine by other argumeÌ„ts 16. Secondly it is impossible to belieue the matters contayned in Scripture to be revealed by God vpon the Authority of Scripture vnless we belieue the Authority of Scripture it self to be revealed For how can I belieue a thing because such a man affirmes it vnless I belieue both that he affirmes it and that his word deserves credit But Protestants belieue the contents of scripture for the Authority of scripture or as we haue heard Potter speaking Pag. 143. For divine revelation made in scripture Therfor they must belieue the Authority of scripture and so scripture it self is no less a materiall Object of Faith than the contents of it which are confessed to be a materiall object of Faith because they are believed 17. Thirdly If Trismegistus Plato or any other of fallible Authority had casvally delivered the same Mysteryes which Christians belieue he who should haue taken them only vpon such Authority could not haue believed by a firme infallible Divine Faith Therfor it is not sufficient to belieue the Matters contayned in scripture vnless they be believed for some firme and infallible Authority Therfor if we belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith for scripture we must beliue scripture itself to be of infallible Authority And Protestants in particular can haue no Faith at all who pretend to belieue all the Mysteryes of our Faith for the Authority of scripture alone if scriptur be not believed to be infallible 18. Fourtly I take an Argument from your reason to the contrary For those people of whom S. Irenaeus speakes had not bene obliged to belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith vnless they had bene confirmed aÌ„d made credible by Arguments which proved them to proceed from God but you graÌ„t that the scripture is proved to proceed froÌ„ God by those very Miracles which were wrought by Christ aÌ„d
his Apostles therfor if these people were thē obliged to belieue the cōtēts of scripture christiās now are for the same reasō obliged to belieue scripture it self 19. Fiftly Not vnlike to this Reason is that which I tooke from your owne words Pag 115. N. 156. where you teach that nothing can chalenge our belief but what hath descended to vs by originall and vniversall Tradition and that scripture alone is such therfor scripture doth chaleng our belief and is an object of Christian Faith 20 From these two last Arguments I deduce that this Truth Sctipture is the word of God is an object to be believed by Faith though we should suppose that it were proposed to one whom God would not oblige to know the particular Mysteryes contained therin because independently of any such obligation it is sufficiētly proposed as a thing revealed by God and consequently as an Article of Faith abstracting from any relation to a further end Which consideration overthrowes the ground of your assertion that the belief of scripture is referred to the end of believing the contents of it and therfore itself is not an object of Faith 21. Sixtly If we be not obliged to belieue the scripture Protestants are not bound to belieue the contents therof as I haue often sayd vpon severall occasions because they haue no notice of the contents but by scripture it self Neither can you answer that we are obliged to belieue scripture as a meanes to lead vs to the verityes contayned in it For this answer supposes that I haue some notice and belief of being obliged to belieue the matter of scripture before I belieue the scripture wheras Protestants must say the direct contrary to wit that all their belief or any apprehension of the particular Truth of scripture proceeds from and is grounded in scripture which therfor must be believed before we can be obliged to the belief of those particular Truths So that if we haue no antecedent obligation to belieue scripture we cannot possibly in the grounds of Protestants be obliged to belieue the contents therof Besides this Answer overthrowes your owne Assertion and grants that we are obliged to belieue the scripture at least as a meanes de facto necessary to attayne the belief of the contents therof it being cleare that if I be obliged to attayne an End I am necessarily obliged to vse the Meanes which is necessary to attaine that End and consequently this Answer doth not excuse you but strongly proves that you haue a strict obligation to belieue scripture since you are obliged to compasse that End of the belief of those Divine Truths which it containes Neither is our Question whether scripture be a materiall Object believed for itself alone as I sayd aboue but whether it be an Object which I am obliged to belieue which this very Answer is forced to grant This discourse is clearly confirmed by your words Pag. 86. N. 93. It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserve the scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of cōtinuing the knowledg of thē heing perished Much more you must say it is apparēt it had not bene Gods will that the contēts of scripture should be knowne if we need not knowe yea if we may reject the only meanes of begetting or continuing the knowledg of them which you in this very particular acknowledg to be scripture and thence you inferr that God could not but preserue it from any vndiscernable corruption 22. Seventhly They who believed these Articles of Christian Faith because the Apostles and Apostolicall men did preach them believed not only the Mysteryes or Matters which they preached but also the Authority of those Preachers as of persons worthy of credit so that it was a materiall object of Faith that the Apostles spoke in the name of God and inspired by him yea the matters proposed were believed for the Authority of the proposers which therfor must be believed at least as much as the things believed yourself saying Pag 377. N. 59. VVe must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proof◠Therfor as their words so their writings must be believed as an object of faith at least as much as the truths which they spoke or wrote neither doth speaking or writing make any difference at all in this point And as you say their writings were referred to the belief of the things which they wrote or were taken as Meanes for that End so their speaking or preaching was ordained to beget a belief of the things which they spoke and so there is a most exact parity neither cā you exclude the authority of scripture from being a materiall Object of Faith but you must likewise say that mē were not bound to belieue the Authority of the Apostles when they preached and consequently that they were not obliged to belieue the Truths which they preached and which they could belieue only in vertue of the belief of such an authority And further although it were supposed that some one or more believed the Articles of Christian Faith by an extraordinary Motion and light of the Holy Ghost without the Preaching or writing of the Apostles and lived according to their belief and were saved In that case although those men could not be obliged to belieue the preaching or writing of the Apostles precisely as a meanes for attaining the belief of those Articles which they believed already yet they would remayne obliged to belieue the authority of the Apostles if at any tyme it came to be sufficiētly propounded and proved by miracles or other argumēts of credibility and could no more reject it thē they could disbelieue the articles of Christian Faith sufficiently proposed Therfor the authority of the Apostles and the infallibility of their preaching ād writing is sufficient to terminate an act of faith that is to be a materiall object therof even of it self or takē alone because so taken it may be proved to be revealed by God which is the formall motiue for which we belieue all the materiall object of faith Since therfor you teach as I haue often put you in mynd that scripture had bene confirmed by Miracles you cānot deny it to be a materiall object of Faith And this argument is stronger against you thē the case I put doth declare wherin it was supposed that the articles of our faith were knowne by some other meanes then by the preaching or writing of the Apostles wheras de facto you profess to know those articles only by scripture which therfor you are obliged to belieue vpō a double title or account that is both as it is credible in itself by divine argumēts abstracting frō any further end ād also as a meanes to attaine the sayd end of believing the articles therin contayned 23. Eightly You confess
also transmitted to posterity by being recorded by S. Luke whom you alledg and so if your false assertion were true we are as sure that they held an errour as that they delivered any truth because we belieue both by the same Authority of scripture yea according to your doctrine related aboue we are not obliged to belieue that scripture it self is the word of God and yet are bound to belieue the truths delivered therin one of which you affirme to be that the Apostles did erre and therfor we must belieue that they erred and yet may deny the Authority of scripture which relates that errour God I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself and oblige vs to belieue with certainty the writing of those whom we belieue to haue erred and yet for whose Infallibility we belieue those very writings to be infallible For the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture but we belieue Scripture to be infallible because it was written by the Apostles who by Divine Meanes even before they wrote any Scripture immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit and so mediate those same Meanes proved their writings to be Divine and infallible We could not belieue any Booke to be Canonicall if we did thinke it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture and how can we certainly belieue the Apostles in other Matters of Faith if we once yeld them to haue erred and contradicted truth in any one 32. The second condition required by you for assuring vs that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false nor vncertaine is that it be delivered by them as a certaine Divine Truth This also is a source of vncertaintyes For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly or as I may say in actu signato whether the Writers therof intended to deliver this or that as a certaine Divine Truth and though they had done so yet if their infallibility be not Vniversall we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration And if their infallibility be Vniversall we must belieue them though they vse no such expression of a certaine Divine Truth Hitherto it hath bene believed that Scripture is the word of God and that all the Verityes contained in it though otherwise they be but naturall truths are revealed or testifyed by God and by that Meanes growe to be both certaine and Divine as invested with the supernaturall Divine Testimony Now if some things be delivered in Scripture as certaine Divine Truths others not you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths without being able to giue any infallible certaine generall Rule and not only some probable conjecture of your owne to know positively and certainly when the Scripture speakes of one kind and when of another which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving vs assurance whether the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true and in no part false or vncertaine For if that condition of delivering a certaine Divine Truth do not subsist we haue not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Diuine Faith and so we cannot be obliged to believe the contents of Scripture 33. The third condition which you require for our assurance that the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true is that it haue the attestation of Divine Miracles which either discredits the writings of the Apostles and most of the Uerityes contayned in them or els confutes your onwe Doctrine that the Apostles might erre in Matters belonging to Religion For if you meane that every particular Truth which they preached must be confirmed by Miracles you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture for which we haue no proofe that they were so particularly confirmed yea we haue no proofe from Scripture that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirme by Miracles that it is the word of God and yet vpon this ground all the pretended Religion of Protestants that is the whole Bible and Truths conteyned therin depends If your meaning be only that it was sufficient for the belief of every particular Truth which the Apostles spoke or wrote that by Miracles Sanctity of life and other vndoubted arguments they approoved themselves as it were in generall that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion then you cannot maintayne that S. Peter who wrought many Miracles to proue himself a man sent from ād approved by God did erre in that particular mayne article about preaching the Gospell to Gentils or if he could erre in that we cannot believe his words or writing in many other Points not confirmed in particular by Miracles The same I say of the other Apostles Preachers and Canonicall Writers Lastly I confute these your errours by your owne words Pag. 290. N. 88. To speak properly not any set knowne company of men is secured that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of Faith But you say Pag. 114. N. 155. The Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of controversies And Pag. 60. N. 17. That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible Therfore according to you we must inferr that the Apostles were secured not to erre though they were supposed to neglect the meanes of avoiding error and consequently they neither did nor could erre by inadvertence or prejudice or by any neglect of the meanes to avoide error Beside Pag. 146. N. 34. you say The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truths by the Apostles writings sufficienter How then could the Apostles actually fall into any error seing they were efficaciter led into all truths And yet againe you contradict yourself and say Pag 177. N. 77. Ye are the salt of the earth said our Saviour to his Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was theyr office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity and could not haue been otherwise in vain had he put them in feare of that which followes if the salt haue lost his Savour c. If this be so what certainty can we haue that de facto the Apostles did not erre seing they may erre 34. Your Objection is easily answered S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospell were to be preached to the Gentils Neither can any such thing be proved out of the 11. and 12. of the acts as you pretend Pag. 137. N. 21. The Vision recorded in those Chapters as exhibited to S. Peter was ordayned to the satisfaction not of all Christians but of converted Jewes who were offended with him for conversing with Gentiles as is evident Chap. 11. V. 2.3 They that were of the Circumcision that is Jewes made Christians reasoned against him saying why didst thou enter into men vncircumcised
I confute as I haue done your other errours For if the Apostles somtyme deliver things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence we cannot belieue with certainty any thing they deliver vnless you con giue vs a certaine Rule how to discerne when they vtter such things and when they deliver Divine Revelations Yea according to your Principles who must proue all by Scripture alone you must giue vs such a certaine Rule out of some evident Text of Scripture As you teach that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men much more may you say that he may permit the Apostles to write their owne dictamen and judgment without declaring whether they write only such dictamens or els deliver divine Revelations 38. S. Paul in this seaventh Chapter which you cite V. 39 40. even according to the Protestant English Translation Anni 1622. sayth the wife is bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be marryed to whom she will only in the Lord. But she i◠happyer if she so abide after my judgment and I think also that I haue the spirit of God Now consider I pray you that S. Paul in these words advises a thing for widdowes which God hath not commanded and so might haue sayd in this place I speake not our Lord and then when he adds I thinke also that I haue the spirit of God I aske whether he speake these words out of humane prudence or by divine Revelation and inspiration If he speake by divine Revelation you haue no reason to say that he delivers not a divine Revelation whē 12. he sayes To the rest speake I not our Lord. But if S. Paul in these words I think also that I haue the spirit of God speake not out of divine inspiration but only out of a probable hope or perswasion that he had the spirit of God how can we belieue by divine infallible Faith that his writings are true in any Point Especially if you consider that he teaches widdowes would be more blessed if they remayned so for this very Reason that he advises it and that he thinks himself to haue the spirit of God which proofe supposes that he was indued with an vniversall infallibility and that therfor his counsell in this particular matter was best And this word I thinke might with greater shew of reason make men belieue that S. Paul was not certaine that he had the spirit of God then the reason which you alledg that he spoke out of humane prudence For what consequence is this Our Lord hath commanded nothing in this particular but I giue this advise or Counsell as the best Therfor S. Paul speakes not by divine inspiration Or thus by inspiration I say God hath not commanded therfore I speake not by inspiration in that which I Counsell as if God could not inspire both parts of this speach that is both his saying that God did command and yet that the thing not commanded was better than the contrary seing both those Propositions are true and so one excluds not the other but both may be inspired by the author of Truth Nay if you say he spoke by inspiration for one part that there was no command it is very inconsequent to affirme that be spoke not by the like inspiration in the other I judge it the better and if he spoke by inspiration in both he spoke only out of humane prudence in neither In those words I haue not a Command of our Lord for Virgins but I giue Counsell doth S. Paul say any more than that virginity is not commanded or necessary to salvation which I hope you will say is a revealed Truth but only I counsell it And by what art can you persvvade men that he spoke the first I haue not a command of our Lord by Revelation and not the second considering that S. Paul makes no such difference in his act of belief or as I may say ex parte subjecti but only in the Object for not being commanded but only counselled both vvhich as I sayd being true both might be vtterd by divine inspiration as indeed they vvere And those other vvords speake I not our Lord shevv only that our B. Saviour left povver to the Apostles and their Successours to advise Counsell ordaine or command some things as severall occasions might require vvhich he himself had not commanded in particular Which is a most certaine Truth and the ground of Obedience and subordination to Lavvfull Pastors in Gods Church and cannot be denyed by protestants themselves and therfor it is not only a dictate of humane prudence 39. All this will appeare more manifest if we ponder S. Paules words as they lye He sayth V. 5. Defraud not one another except perhaps by consent for a tyme that you may giue yourselves to prayer and returne againe togeather least Satan tempt you for your incontinency Where we may consider how in the first part of this Verse there is a command of God defraud not one another except perhaps by consent for a tyme that you may giue yourselves to prayer in the greeke and to fasting which is not a command but a counsell ād thirdly returne againe togeather which is neither a command nor a counsell but a permissiō or indulgēce to avoyd ā evill ād not as a thing which he judged to be best which he declares in the next Uerse 6. But I say this by indulgence not by commandement and then V. 7. declaring what he judged to be the best he sayth For I would all men to be as my self and V. 8. But I say to the vnmarryed and to widdowes it is good for them if they so abide even as I also Behold then a Command a Counsell a Permission Now I aske whether in all these S. Paul spoke by Revelation or only out of humane prudence Or how can you without any least reason imagine that in some of them he spoke one way in others another And if you say so you will only clearly confirme what I sayd that we can haue no certainty when he vtters things revealed or only his owne judgment For although in the words rehearsed he say not expressly not I but our Lord nor not our Lord but I yet he might haue sayd so seing he declared both a Commandement of God and so might haue saied not I but our Lord and a Conunsell and might haue saied not our Lord but I And therfor when he sayth V. 10. and 11. But to them that be joyned in matrimony not I giue commandment but our Lord that the wife depart not from her husband and if she depart to remayne vnmarryed or to be reconciled to her husband And let not the husband put away his wife And V. 12. For to the rest I say and not our Lord you cannot infer that he speakes by another spirit or motion then in the precedent verses where he might haue vsed
a confused aggregatum per accidens of truths different in nature and kind and as I may say to incorporate with Gods word Apocryphall Writings which are so called not because they may not be true but because they are not Divine as the dictates of humane prudence are not and do you not cosen people who belieue that all is scripture which is contayned in S. Paules Epistles You say the Bible hath bene confirmed by Miracles I aske whether all truths coÌ„tayned in it haue beene so coÌ„firmed or no If they haue seing you say here N. 31. it is impossible God should set his hand and seaâ—e to the confirmation of a falshood at least now all the words of S. Paul are attested by God and growne to be matters of Faith though we should falfly suppose they were not such in vertue of his teaching theÌ„ as our Saviour sayd If yee will not belieue me beleeue the workes Joa 10.38 If you say all Truths in scripture were not confirmed by Miracles it is as good in order to vs as if none had bene so confirmed since the Miracles themselves do not specify what in particular they confirme and what not and so we can only belieue in generall that some Points contayned in the Bible are Truths but this is not enough to belieue with certainty any one in particular Besides all this S. Paul in counselling virginity counsells the same which our B. Saviour had done before as is recorded Matth 12.12 and therfor he delivers a Divine Revelation which he knew to be such and spoke not out of humane prudence as you would haue him If it be objected how then doth he say I speak not but our Lord Ianswer It cannot be sayd I speak not by inspiration but our Lord for what an incongruous speach were that But I speak signifyes I counsell advise command or permit by antithesis to those other words V 10. Not I giue command but our Lord. You know Catholiques are wont to alledg this Chapter of S. Paul to proue as a Point of Faith the counsell of perperuall virginity and yet never any of our Adversaryes haue excepted against this Argument by saying S. Paul professes to deliver that matter only as a dictate of humane reason and not as a Divine Revelation which had been a cleare and vnanswerable reply that we could not proue by that place perpetuall virginity to be more perfect as a Point of Faith if they had bene of your mynd and they might easily haue told vs that we could not proue an Article of Faith by words which the Apostle himself professes to containe but a humane dictamen But so it is They who once forsake Gods Church learne only and practise and teach others this lesson Evill men and seduce â—s shall prosper to the worse erring and driving into errours 2 â—â—noth 3. V. 32. 42. I would gladly make an end of this matter But first I must aske how you can say N. 32. If we will pretend that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul speakes and that his judgment was Gods commandment shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul and that spirit by which he wrote For who ever pretended that S. Paules judgment was Gods command Contrarily when his judgment is that such a thing is no command of God we do most firmely belieue that it is no command because we are sure that he was no less assisted by Inspiration in saying V. 12. it was no command speake I not our Lord than when V. 10. he declared a command not I but our Lord. 43. Now vpon the whole matter it followes out of this your Errour that although all things necessary to be believed were contayned in scripture yet that were not enough to make it a sufficient Rule or any Rule at all for Christian Faith seing we cannot be absolutely certaine when the writers therof set downe divine Revelations or only dictates of humane reason yea and as you say S. Paul was not inspired by God when he Counselled virginity and consequently might haue erred therin so we cannot be sure that indeed he gaue any such judgment or counsell but that as in counselling so in writing and setting downe that counsell he was no more assisted by Inspiration thaÌ„ in giving it And I will end with these words of Christanity Maintayned about the sayd Texts of S. Paul Chap 4. N. 9. Pag 44. Certainly if the Apostles did sometymes write out of their owne private judgment or spirit though it were granted that themselves could discerne the diversity of those motions or spirits which one may easily deny if their vniversall infallibility be once impeached yet it is cleare that others to whom they spake or wrote could not discerne the diversity of those spirits in the Apostles For which cause learned Protestants acknowledge that although each mans private spirit were admitted for direction of himself yet it were not vse full for teaching others Thus you say P. â—41 N. 27 A supernaturall assurance of the incorruption of scriptures may be an assurance to ones selfe but no argument to another And as you affirme Pag. 62. N. 25 that Bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it so we cannot be assured that the Apostles deliver Divine Revelations though they should say they doe nor that they deliver not such Revelations though they say nothing therof if once we deny their vniversall infallibility A fourth Errour is set downe in your Pag 62. N. 24. and Pag 141. N. 27. where you profess to know no other meanes to be assured of the scriptures incorruption then you haue that any other Booke is incorrupted and that your assurance of both is of the same kind and condition though this for scripture be farre greater for the degree both Morall assurances and neither physicall or Matematicall 44. If this Doctrine may pass for true it will necessarily follow that the assurance which we haue of scripture must not only be of the same kind but be farr less for the degree of it seing the bookes of prophane Authors haue a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men Atheists Pagans Jewes Turkes and Christians wheras the Bible was either vnknowen or impugned or not much regarded by all except Christians and by some also who pretended to the name of Christian Tymes stood so with the Jewes that the Old scripture was once lost as some say or at least lay hid and Christians had not those commodityes to transcribe faithfully Copyes of the new Testament which pagans had for publishing their Bookes Whence it comes to pass that we find not so many divers readings in Cicero Virgill and other prophane bookes as vve find in scripture To which if we add the many vulgar Translations and Editions to what vncertainty shall we be brought if we proceed only by humane morall assurance of scripture without any living visible Guide the Church so directed by
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
thither If then we may learne all things necessary to salvation without a writing or Scripture as you grant we may and as all Christians must grant for the tyme before Scripture was written we must say therfor it is not necessary for that end and though it were necessary yet it is not necessary that it be so plaine as every man may vnderstand it by himself seing that end of vnderstanding may be compassed by another meanes which is the Declaration of Gods Church And here I beseech you reflect on your owne words Pag 79. N. 68. That it is altogether abhorrent from the goodnesse of God to suffer an ignorant Laymans soule to perish meercly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had Reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other Therfore say I we are to belieue that the Church on which we must relie ought to be infallible that so we may trust her without danger For if her Authority be fallible vncertaine and doubtfull yea if de facto she erred she is liable to your censure Pag 37. N. 20. A doubtfull and Questionable Guide is for mens direction as good as non◠at all 10. But here againe Pag 93. and Pag 94. N. 108. which is put to two § § You object how shall an vnlearned man amongst vs know which is the true Church or what that Church hath decreed seing the Church hath not bene so carefull in keeping of her Decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted and that even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning diverse things whether they be de fide or not Or how shall the vnlearned be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of the Decrees of the Church than of plaine Texts of Scripture especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceyved so obscurely that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them and are all written in languages which the ignorant vnderstand not and therfor must of necessity rely herein vpon the vncertaine and fallible Authority of fome particular men who informe them that there is such a Decree And if they were translated into vulgar languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translatours of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine And N. 109. you say How shall an vnlearned man or indeed any man be assured of the certainty of any Decree seing a Councell depends on a true Pope which he cannot be if he came in by Simony or were not babtized which depends on the due Intention of the Minister or were not rightly ordayned Priest and this againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret Intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character 11. This is the summe of what not only you but other Protestants are wont to object and it is the vtmost of your endeavours But will be easily answered by laying this ground That both in this and other Poynts we must distinguish between the certainty of a generall ground or foundation and the certainty of that particular meanes by which we actuate or apply to particular occasions that Generall ground which vnless it be first belieued with certainty cannot haue strength to moue vs to vndertake with resolution and perseverance mattters of great difficulty You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edisice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a sever thing that the foundition shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation 12. This Truth will better be vnderstood by Examples That we may prudently yield Obedience Piety and Observance and be obliged to doe so towards Magistrates Parents and Superious it is sufficient that we haue a morall and prudent practicall judgment that they are such because that judgment is sufficient to apply the generall ground that Obedience Piety c are due to Magistrates Parents c But if that Generall ground were not certaine as an evident dictamen of Reason but only probable men would not thinke themselves obliged to such dutyes but rather would stand for their liberty by pleading possession and following that other dictamen of Reason Equity and Justice Meliorest conditio possidentis To Hope for the reward promised to the just after this life it is sufficient that we haue good Reason though not certainty that we are just or in the state of Grace But if this generall Principle The just shall be eternally rewarded were not certaine few I feare would be perswaded to preferr a future vncertainty before that which they enjoy certainly and for the present You say Pag 172. N. 71. The Spirit of Truth may teach a man Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly But if one were not certaine of this generall ground That God of his part teaches every one sufficiently men would not easily thinke themselves obliged or would be induced to vse their best endeavours to learne things which they belieue cannot be learned vnless God alone teach them sufficiently if they had no certainty that they can hope for any such teaching And to come neerer to our purpose If one do verely belieue some particular Poynt to be evidently contained in Scripture who can oblige him to belieue that Point with absolute certainty vnless he first belieue Scripture itself to be the infallible word of God Neither is this enough to make his Assent really infallible though it were supposed to be casually true vnless Scripture were not only believed to be the word of God but that indeed it be so For Infallibility of Assent signifyes two things the one that de facto the thing for the present is true the other that it depends on such constant Causes or Priciples as cannot in any possible case or occasion consist with falshood or vncertainty which could not be verifyed vnless Scripture in truth and reality and not only in opinion or belief be the word of God For though in some one occasion it might chance to speake truth yet in some other it might faile and cause vs to fall into some errour But if we make another kind of supposition That one is told by his Pastour or Prelate whom he might prudently belieue that some Point is contained in Scripture which indeed is so contayned ād he beleeue it as cōtayned in that booke which he believes to be the word of God ād in itself is such and consequently infallible in that case he of whom I spoke may exercise an infallible act of faith though his immediate instructour or proposer be not Infallible because he believes vpon a ground which both is believed to be Infallible and is such indeed
7. that the Points which we belieue should not be so evidently certaine as to necessitate our vnderstanding to an Assent that so there might be some Obedience in Faith which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not when the vnderstanding does all and the will nothing Now the Religion of protestants though it be much more credible than yours yet is not pretended to haue the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration Behold a confessed difference between one who knowes a way by evidence of sense and an other who believes a way or Rule only by Faith The former needs no command of the will nor any guide but the latter needs a guide and you confess he needs the command of the will which were not needfull if the way which is Holy Scripture were so plaine as you pretend and if the vnderstanding must depend on the will for believing Points which seeme evident in Scripture that there might be some place for obedience how shall the weakness and mutability of the will it self be established except by some other infallible Living Authority And therfore your Argument proves nothing because it proves too much that as one who knowes and sees his way neeeds no helpe of his will or of Guide or any other particular assistance so for attaining the true meaning of Scripture we need no interpreter no diligence even such as Protestants prescribe as skill in languages conferring of places c though 2 Pet 1.21 it be saied Not by mans will was prophecie brought at any time But the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost Which sequeles being very false you must acknowledg a great disparity between the evident knowing of a way and vnderstanding Scripture To which purpose I may well alledg your owne words Pag 137. N. 19. If we consider the strang power that education and prejudices instilled by it haue over even excellent vnderstandings we may well imagine that many Truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough are yet to such or such a man prepossest with contrary opinions not revealed plainly I pray you tell vs what education or prejudices could hinder a man from finding that way which he is supposed perfectly to know and which it is not in his power to misse by ignorance though as I fayd he may voluntary goe out of it You must therfore acknowledg that your similitude or parity is nothing but a disparate and disparity 94. Fiftly Let a man be never so perfect in the knowledg of his way he shall never come to his journeyes end if he want strength to walke that way Now Faith being the gift of God and requiring the assistance of Grace exceeds the strength of humane wit or will and this Grace being not given but by the Ministery of the Church as I haue declared and as we haue heard Calvin saying God inspires Faith but by the instrument of the Gospell as Paul teacheth that Faith comes by hearing It followes that none can in the ordinary course receiue strength to vnderstand and know the way which you say is Scripture without the Ministery of the Church or a Living Guide and so it appeares many wayes that your Argument or similitude proves nothing against vs but very much against yourself 95. Tenthly and lastly I proue the vniversall infallibility of the Church by answering an Argument or removing an impediment which Potter objects as if some Catholique Doctours held not the Church to be vniversally infallible This the Doctour Pag 149. pretends to proue out of Dr. Stapleton in particular as if he did deny the Church to be infallible in Poynts not Fundamentall to which purpose he cites him Princip Doctrinal Lib 8. Contr 4. Cap 15. But this is clearly confuted by Charity Maintayned Part 2. Chap 5. Pag 127.128.129.130 shewing that Dr. Stapleton doth not oppose Poynts Fundamentall to other revealed Truths or Points of Faith not Fundamentall as if the infallibility of the Church did extend itself only to Fundamentall Articles but he distinguishes between Points revealed and belonging to Faith and Points not revealed nor belonging to Faith but to Philosophy or curious disputes either not called in Question amongst Catholikes as if they were matters belonging to Religion or if they chance to be such yet are not defined by the Church For if once they be controverted and the Church giue her sentence he expressly teaches in the same place that the infallibility of the Church hath place in those Points which are called in Question or are publikely practised by the Church As also Rel Cont 1. Q. 3. Art 6. He expressly saith that certaine Doctrines are either primary Principles of Faith or els though not primary yet defined by the Church and so as if they were primary Others are Conclusions deduced from those Principles but yet not desined Of the first kind are the Articles of Faith and whatsoever is defined in Councels against Heretiques c Of the second are questions which either belong to the hidden workes of God or to certaine most obscure places of Scripture which are beside the Faith and of which we may be ignorant without losse of Faith yet they may be modestly and fruitfully disputed of And afterward he teaches that whatsoever the Church doth vniversally hold either in doctrnie or manners belongs to the foundation of Faith And proves it out of S. Austine Serm 14. de verb Domini Ep 28.89.96 who calls the custome of the Church Ecclesiae morem fundatissimum Fidem fundatissimam consuetudinem Ecclesiae fundatissimam Authoritatem stabilissimam fundatissimae Ecclesiae The most grounded practise of the Church and most grounded Faith the most grounded custome of the Church the most firme Authority of the most grounded Church Could any thing be more cleere to shew that according to Dr. Stapleton the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those Points which you call Fundamentall and that it belongs to the very foundation of Faith that we belieue whatsoever the Church holds And that it is not lawfull for any to dispute against such determinations of the Church Which doth overthrow your distinction of Poynts Fundmentall and not Fundamentall though you alledg the Authority of S. Thomas 2.2 Q. 2. Art 5. and Stapleton in favour therof For S. Thomas in the very place you cited after he had sayd that there are some objects of Faith which we are bound explicitely to belieue addeth that we are bound to belieue all other Poynts when they are sufficiently propounded to vs as belonging to Faith Thus far Charity Maintaynâ—d Wherby it is manifest that according to Stapleton the Church cannot erre in defining any point to be revealed which is not so or that it is not revealed if indeed it be so and consequently that she is vniversally infallible in all points belonging to Faith whether they be of them selves Fundamentall or not Fundamentall I say of themselves for in sensu
composito as I may say That is vpon supposition that once they be desined he expressly declares as we haue seene that that belongs to the Fundation of Faith whatsoever the Church vniversally holds either in Doctrine or worship When therfore he sayth Princip Doctrin Controv 4. Lib 8. Chap 15. for God as also nature as he is not wanting in things necessary so is he not lavish in superflnityes He speakes not of points of Faith not Fundamentall which being once defined he professes to belong to the Fundation of Faith but in the next precedent words he expressly declares that when he saith the Church is not infallible he vnderstands only that infallibility was not granted to her Propter aut invtiles curiositates explendas aut subtilitates non necessarias investigandas Either for satisfying idle curiosityes or finding out vnnecessary subtiltyes and proves it because God and nature as they are not wanting in things necessary so are they not lavish in superfluityes And therfore Potter did wrong the learned Stapleton alledging those his words as if he had ever dreamed that the Church is not vniversally infallible in all Points of Faith whether the matters of themselves be great or small 96. And you also wrong Charity Maintayned in saying Pag 144. N. 32. That he wrongs Dr. Potter when Part 1. Pag 91. he writes thus Dr. Potter Sect 5. Pag 150. speakes very dangerously toward this purpose of limiting the infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture to necessary Points only as he restraines the Promises made by Christ to his Church where he endeavoureth to proue that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamentall because as nature so God is neither defectiue in necessaryes nor lavish in superfluityes Which Reason doth likewise proue that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation that so God be not accused as defective in necessaryes or lavish in superfluityes In which words you say Charity Maintayned wrongs Dr. Potter Because it is not he but Dr. Stapleton in him that speakes the words Charity Maintayned cavills at Answer If Charity Maintayned had absolutely assirmed those to be the very words of Dr. Potter the Doctour might blame himself only who having first cited the immediatly precedent words of Dr. Stapleton in a different or cursiue letter declaring that they were Dr. Stapletons and not his owne the words immediatly following for as nature so God is neither defectiue c. he sets downe in the ordinary letter of his Booke both in his first and second Edition 2. Seing Potter accepts and approves those words he must be answerable for all consequences that are truly deduced from them as if they were his owne 3. The truth is Dr. Stapleton brings those words for a purpose not only different but contrary to that for which Dr. Potter alledges them and therfore not Stapleton but Potter must be lyable to all bad consequences which follow out of them For Potter would proue out of them that infallibility was given to the Church not for all but only for Fundamentall points of Faith which we haue seene to be directly contrary to the Doctrine of Stapleton who out of the sayd words proves only that infallibility was not granted for deciding idle curiosityes or vnprofitable subtiltyes And therfor 4. seing the life and essence of words is their signification this being wholy different in those words as they are spoken by Stapleton and vnderstood misapplyed and misalledged by Potter Charity Maintayned did not wrong him but he did wrong Dr. Stapleton in applying the sound and as I may say carcasse of his words against the true meaning and life of them intended and fully declared by Stapleton as you also do wrong Stapleton in approving Potters allegation of those words and Charity Maintayned as if he had wronged Potter Who can deny this to be a good consequence God is neither defectiue in necessaryes nor lavish in superfluityes Therfor he hath not induced the Church with infallibility for deciding of vnprofitable questions which is Stapletons Argument As contrarily this other is of no force God is not lavish in superfluityes Therfore he hath not conferred infallibility vpon his Church for any other Points of Faith and revealed Truths except such as are of themselves necessary to salvation as if all points which are not Fundamentall were curious or vnprofitable matters Which Potter doth inferr directly against the consequence which Stapleton drawes from those very same words affirming that every thing defined by the Church belongs to the Foundation of Faith Besides since Potter alledgeth those words to proue that the promises of our Saviour made to his Church must be restrained to Points Fundamentall least he might seeme lavish in superfluityes Charity Maintayned had reason to inferr that for the same Reason of not being lavish in superfluityes the Doctour might limite the infallibility of the Apostles to necessary and Fundamentall Points Neither is it sufficient for you to say Pag 143. N. 30. that we read in Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired and therfore All Scripture whether it deliver Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points is true For Charity Maintayned in this very place and about this very Text of Scripture which you cite out of him and endeavour to answer by way of prevention had confuted this your instance in these words If it be vrged That All Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c Dr. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer to say That Scripture is inspired c Only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall points Thus Charity Maintayned But you thought safest to dissemble these words And I pray if those vnlimited words concerning the Church that the gates of hell shall not privaile against her Matth 16.18 and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c which texts are alledged by Potter must be limited to Fundamentall points why may not those other words all scripture is divinely inspired signify only that all scripture is inspired for what belongs to points fundamentall or necessary to salvation as Cha Ma doth vrge in the same place 97. Now then vpon the whole matter it is manifest that the learned Dr. Stapleton teaches neither more nor lesse concerning the Infallibility of the Church than all other Catholikes doe For besides that which we haue sayd already Relect Controv 4. Quest 2. He expressly declares That she is infallible in the Conclusion or Doctrine and definition though it be not necessary that she be Infallible in the Arguments or proofes or manner of teaching Est saith he in ipsa Doctrina infalliblis etsi in forma ratione docendi non ita and therfore he puts no difference between the certainty of her Definitions though the Reasons or proofes which she vse chance to haue of themselves more or less certainty whether they be taken from Scripture or Tradition or otherwise
pretended Bishop I meane for the consequence which he makes that if Episcopacie be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugne it and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor of Episcopacy teaching § 46. That to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatike and § 47. That it is also Heresy And in his Liberty of Prophesying Epist Dedic Pag 32.33 having sayd that the Lutheran Churches the Zuinglians and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy he adds which the Primitive Church would haue made no doubt to haue called Heresy More of this and of the Notes of the Church may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 9. this not being a place to treat at large of these matters It is sufficient for our present purpose to demonstrate that we are no way guilty of walking in a Circle Only it will be necessary to note here two Points 5. First That the Arguments of credibility fall primarily vpon the Church not vpon Scripture which confirmes what I sayd that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote but their writings deserue credit because the writers were Infallible Thus in the Old Law Moyses gained authority by working Miracles and by other Arguments of credibility wherby the people accepted him as a Man sent by God to declare his word and will and in such manner as they were sure to belieue God by giving credit to Moyses They believed our Lord and Moyses his servant Exod 14.31 and 19.9 and ther vpon they belieâ—ed the Scripture which he wrote and proposed as the Infallible word of God and by it other particulars even concerning Moyses himself In the New Law the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons before their writings could be prudently receaved as Diuine or the Word of God The Reason therof is because the Motives or Arguments of credibility immediatly make that credible of which they are effects which immediatly manifest their cause Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediatly to the Church or Persons and not to writings and so Marc Vlt it is sayd These signes shall follow those who belieue And therfore though there were no Scriptures if the Church did still remaine these motives would also remaine for example Sanctity of life Miracles conversion of Nations Martirdomes Victory over all enemyes the name Catholique c Which could not agree to Scripture though we did falsely suppose that it did remayne and the Church perish For no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life Succession of Bishops c yea the Scripture can haue no efficacy vnless it be first believed to be the word of God and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony and therfor whatsoever perfections or attributes may seeme to belong immediatly to the Scripture must depend on the Church as the Scripture itself doth in order to our believing it to be the word of God But contrarily the Perfections or priviledges of the Church are independent of Scripture as the Church itself is which was before Scripture And here it is also to be considered that we haue no absolute certainty that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle to proue immediatly that Scripture is the word of God but we are sure they did it mediatè by gaining Authority to their Persons and then to their writings And thus you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 43. That the Bible hath bene confirmed with those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and the Apostles But now if we be obliged to believe the Scripture in all things by reason of Arguments which bind vs to belieue it to be the word of God we must also be obliged to belieue the Church in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediatly proue the true Church than they proue Scripture 6. The second thing to be observed is That when we are obliged to receave some Persons as messengers of God appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths as the Apostles were we are bound to belieue them in all things which they propound for such Truths For as I haue often sayd if they might erre in some things of this nature we could not belieue theÌ„ in any other thing for their sole Authority as all coÌ„fess of Scripture that being once delivered by meÌ„ of the forsayd Authority as the word of God it must be receyved as vniversally true in all and every least passage though the Apostles did not confirme by seve rall Miracles the matter of every particular Text and yet every one is an object of Faith nor of every particular Truth which they spoke but it was sufficient that people did and were obliged to receaue them as men who by commission from God taught the true way to eternall Happynes and therfore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose 7. Out of this true Ground I inferr That it cannot be sayed without injury to Gods Church to the Apostles and God himself that when men of our Church worke Miracles and produce other Reasons to proue that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentils Jewes Turks or Heritikes those Miracles are not sufficient Proofes of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth but of some particular Points for example not of Purgatory Prayer to Saints Reall Presence c. but of such Christian verityes as Protestants belieue with vs. This cannot be sayd For it is evident that the same might haue bene objected against the Apostles to wit that God intended to proue by their Miracles only some verityes believed by Jewes or Heretikes and not every one of the particular Mysteryes of Christian Religion Neither can it be sayd that the Preachers of our Catholique Church when they convert Nations doe worke Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in generall or in abstracto or an Idea Platonica but to the Catholique Roman Religion which if it were false God in his Goodness could never permitt so many and great Miracles to be wrought and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced that people must be obliged to receiue such Preachers as Teachers of the true way to Heaven as he could not permit the Apostles to worke Miracles intending that they should be trusted in some not in all Points For this generall Reason taken from Gods Goodness and providence is the same in all who bring the like Arguments of Credibility as our Church never wants Arguments like to those whereby the Apostles made good their Authority Besides if the sayd Objection were of force men de facto can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contayned therin because it will be sayd that although Miracles were wrought to proue that the Bible is the word of God they might be vnderstood not to confirme every passage or Text but only some Truths contayned therin And likewise according to
this Objection or invention no certainty can be had what the Apostles or other Preachers teach or teach not with infallibility Nor will there remaine any meanes to convert men to Christianity For every one may say that not the Poynt which he apprehends to be false was confirmed by Miracles but those other Articles which he conceaves to be true And so no Heretike can be convinced by Scripture which he will say is not the word of God except for his opinions and so nothing will be proved out of Scripture even for those things which are contayned in it Neither will anie thing remayne certaine except a generall vnprofitable impracticable Notion that the Apostles taught and the Scripture contaynes some things revealed by God without knowing what they are in particular which would be nothing to the purpose and therfore as good as nothing 8. But yet dato non concesso That the Apostles and the Church are to be believed only in such particular Points as are proved by Miracles c we say that innumerable Miracles haue bene wrought in consirmation of those particular Points wherin we disagree from Protestants as may be seene in Brierly Tract 2. Chap 3 Sect 7. subdiv 1. For example of Prayer to Saints out of S. Austine Civit L. 22. C. 8. Worship of Reliques out of S. Gregory Nazian S. Austine S. Hierom S. Basil Greg Turonen Theodoret the Image of Christ Reall presence Sacrifice of Christs Body Purgatory Prayer for the Dead The great vertue of the signe of the Crosse Holy water Lights in the Church Reservation of the Sacrament Holy Chrisme Adoration of the crosse Confession of sins to a Priest and extreme Vnction which miracles Brierly proves by irrefragable Testimonyes of most creditable Authors and Holy Fathers wherof if any Protestant doubt he can do no lesse for the salvation of his soule than examine the matter either by the 〈◊〉 of this Authour or of other Catholique Writers and not only by 〈…〉 clamours and calumnyes of Protestant Preachers in their Ser 〈…〉 Writers in their Bookes And let him take with him for his 〈…〉 thefe considerations 1. That these Miracles were wrought and testifyed before any Protestant appeared in the world And therfore could not be fayned or recorded vpon any particular designe against them and their Heresyes 2. That even Protestants acknowledg the Truths of such Miracles Whitaker cont Duraeum Lib 10. sayth I do not thinke those Miracles vaine which are reported to haue bene done at the monuments of Saints as also Fox and Godwin acknowledg Miracles wrought by S. Austine the Monke sent by S. Gregory Pope to convert England through Gods hand as may be seene in Brierly Tract 1. Sect 5. and yet it is confessed by Protestants and is evident of itself that he converted vs to the Roman Faith But not to be long I referr the Reader to Brierly in the Index of whose Booke in the word Miracles he will find full satisfaction if he examine his allegations that in every Age since our Saviour Christ there haue bene wrought many ad great Miracles both by the Professors of the Roman Faith and expressly in confirmation of it This I say and avouch for a certaine truth that whatsoever Heretikes can object against Miracles wrought by Professors of our Religion and in proofe if it may be in the same manner objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour and his Apostles and that they cannot impugne vs but joyntly they must vndermine all Christianity 9. To these two considerations let this Third be added that it is evidently delivered in Scripture Miracles to be certaine Proofes of the true Faith and Religion as being appointed by God for that end Exod 4.1 when Moyses sayd They will not belieue me nor heare my voice God gaue him the Gift of Miracles that they might belieue God had spoken to him 3. Reg 17. Vers 24. That woman whose sonne Elias had raised to life sayd Now in this I haue knowen that thou art a man of God and the word of our Lord in thy mouth is true Christ Matt 11. V. 3.4.5 being asked whether he was the Messias proved himself to be such by the Miracle which he wrought The blind see the lame walke the lepers are made cleane the deafe heare the dead rise againe Which words signify that Miracles are not only effectuall but necessary to proue the truth of a Doctrine contrary to what was receyved before Yea Joan 5.36 Miracles are called a greater testimony thē John Marc vlt they preached every where our Lord working withall and consirming the Word with signes that followed 2. Cor 12. V. 12. The signes of my Apostleship haue beene done vpon you in all patience and wonders and mighty deeds Hebr. 2.4 God withall testifying by signes and wonders and divers Miracles But why do I vrge this Point You clearly confess it Pag 144. N. 31. in these words If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Aposiles doctrine was thus confirmed therfore it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine 10. Now put these Truths togeather Many and great Miracles haue bene wrought by professours of the Roman Religion and particularly in confirmation of it Miracles are vndoubted Proofes of the true Church Faith and Religion What will follow but that the Roman Faith and Religion is entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine Wherfore men desirous of their Eternall salvation may say confidently with B. S. Austine Lib de Vtilit credendi Cap 17. Dubitabimus nos ejus Ecclesiae c. Shall we doubt to rest in the bosome of that Church which with the acknowledgment of mankind hath obtained the height of Authority from the Apostolique Sea by Succession of Bishops Heretikes in vaine barking about her and being condemned partly by the judgment of the people partly by the gravity of Councells partly by the Majesty of Miracles To which not to giue the first place is indeed either most great impiety or precipitous arrogancie 11. Behold the Notes of the true Church Miracles Succession of Bishops Which perpetuall Succession of Bishops is the Ground and Foundation of the Amplitude Propagation Splendor and Glory of the Church promised by God ād foretold by the Prophets as may be seene Isaiae Chap 60. Vers 22. Chap 2. Vers 2. Chap 49. Vers 23. Chap. 54. Vers 2.3 Psalm 2.8 Dan 2.44 Which Promises some learned Protestants finding evidently not to be fulfilled in the Protestant Church which before Luther was none and being resolved not to embrace the Catholique Church wherin alone those Promises are clearly fulfilled fell
and reall necessity therof You perceaving the impossibility are necessitated to say it is not of importance but needless They in actu exercito you in actu signato shew it impossible to be done You I say teach it to be needless because you find it to be impossible as Protestants would make the world belieue that Miracles are ceased because they can worke none which if they had hope to do they would soone chang their Doctrine as you and they would quickly teach a Catalogue to be profitable and necessary if you could make one The truth is such a Catalogue is necessary in the principles of Protestants who deny the Authority of the Church and yet being indeed impossible to them as we see by experience in their differences and your express confession it shewes in what desperate case they and you are But heere I must by the way note a contradictiō of yours We haue heard you say Pag 134. N. 13. that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to an other is not so Which is repugnant to what you say Pag 13◠N. 20. Points Fundamentall be those only which are revealed by God and commanded to be preached to all and believed by all For if Fundamentall Points be such only as must be believed by all it is cleare that they which are necessary to be believed not by all but by some only cannot be Fundametall You also contradict Potter who Pag 21◠teaches that by Fundamentall Doctrines we meane such Catholique verities as are necessary to be distinctly believed by every mark every Christian that will be saved 7 Now That such a Catalogue is needless you would shew as I sayd because who soever believes the Scripture which is evident in all necessary Points and in many which are not necessary shall be sure to belieue all that is necessary and more 8. This evasion I haue confuted allready yet in this particular fit occasion I must not omitt to say somthing 9. First then in saying a Catalogue is needless you contradict other Protestants to whom I suppose you will deferr so much as to thinke their opinion not voyd of all probability and consequently your owne not to be certaine which were only to any purpose For if the contrary chance to be true and a Catalogue be really necessary your Doctrine denying both that it is necessary or that it can be given must be very pernicious to soules deceaving them with an opinion that that is neither necessary nor possible which yet is absolutely necessary for their salvation In the very sentence or Motto before your Booke you alledg Casaubon saying Existimat ejus Majestas c. His Majesty judges that the number of things absolutely necessary to salvation is not great and therfore that there is not any more compendious way to make an agreement than carefully to distinguish between necessary and vnnecessary things and that all endeavour be vsed to procure an agreement in things necessary Do not these words signify both a possibility and necessity of distinguishing between necessary and vnnecessary Points And yet we haue heard you say that it is both impossible and vnnecessary in direct opposition to your Motto And you say in your Epistle Dedicatory to the King that your Booke is in a manner nothing else but a superstruction vpon that blessed Doctrine where with you haue adorned and armed the frontispice of your Book and which was recommended by King James as the only hopefull meanes of healing the breaches of Christendome A strang cure by that meanes only which you hold to be vnnecessary and impossible And here by occasion of mentioning Casaubon I cannot omit to declare for a warning to others that I haue it vnder the hand of a person of great quality and integrity that that vnhappy man finding himselfe in danger of death dealt with the sayd worthy person to procure the presence and help of a Catholick Priest but his intention being discouered or suspected he was so besieged by his wife and a Protestant English Minister that it was not possible to be effected A fearfull example for all such as check or choak the Inspirations of the holy Ghost and procrastinate their conversion till they finde that common but terrible saying when it concerns Eternity to be true He who will not when he may shall not when he will 10. 〈◊〉 by this reason of yours there is no necessity of giv 〈…〉 even a Definition or Description of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall or of even mentioning such a distinction seing in practise you cannot by any such description or distinction know when they offer themselves in particular and you are sure not to misse of them by believing all that is cleare in Scripture Especially if we adde your words Pag 23. N. 27. That Protestants giue you not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls it is not from Tergiversation but from Wisdome and Necessity And when they had done it it had been to no purpose There being as Matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are And yet all learned Protestants harpe vpon nothing more than vpon this distinction of Points Fundamentall and vpon the definitions or descriptions of them as particularly may be seene in your client Potter Pag 211.213.214.215 which is a needless paynes if this your evasion be good and solid 11. Thirdly Though one be obliged not to disbelieue any Truth revealed in Scripture when it is knowne to be such yet he is not bound to belieue explicitly all such Truths For by this Fundamentall and not fundamentall points are distinguished as Potter P 213. saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Card Perron Replique Liur 1. Chap 10. calls the Faith of adherence or non-repugnance may suffice to wit an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared Now if I cannot sever or distinguish these two kinds of Points I shall either be obliged to know absolutely all and every Truth contained in Scripture which is a voluntary and intollerable obligation or none seing I cannot tell in particular what they be which I am obliged to know and so be in danger to be ignorant of fundamentall Articles without the actuall and express knowledg wherof I cannot be saved And this difficulty is encreased by the doctrine which you deliver Pag 195. N. 11. That there is no Point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme in the same circumstances necessary to be believed Seing then no point of Scripture can at any tyme in any circumstances be disbelieved it is necessary at all tymes in all circumstances to be believed And much more this must follow if we cannot know what points be Fundamentall except
by knowing every plain Text of Scripture which as I sayd is an intollerable burthen 12. Fourthly It imports very much to know summarily and certainly what points men are obliged to belieue explicitly that they may with more facility application and perfection learne them and not be diverted by things not necessary with prejudice to the knowledg of Articles Fundamentall or necessary by obliging every one to know every Text of Scripture Neither can you answer that this is done already in the Creed of the Apostles For we haue that forme of Creed by Tradition only and according to your principles we cannot belieue any thing contained in the Creed except we first know it to be contained in Scripture from which if we cannot learne what is Fundamentall and what is not we cannot be certaine that the particular points contained in the Creed are Fundamentall nor can you learne out of any text of Scripture that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points to say nothing that the Creed without the Church and Tradition is not sufficient to declare the meaning of itself and so we see Protestants cannot agree in the sense of any one Article therof as I shewed hertofore Besides if the Creed containe all Fundamentall Points why do you deny that it is possible to giue such a Catalogue Or if you say that even in the Creed it is impossible to determine precisely what Points are Fundamentall my former Argument retaines its force that by this meanes one cannot tell what he is chiefly to study and learne nor what he is bound explicitly to belieue in the Creed itself Nay since you can alledg no precept out of Scripture that all men are obliged to know and belieue the Creed the Creed of itself can be to you no rule at all either for Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points but still you are devolved to find in the whole Bible Fundamentall Articles of Faith mixt with Points not Fundamentall and so it availes Protestants nothing to alledg the Creed as a summary of all Fundamentall Points Lastly Potter Pag 241. holds it only for very probable that the Creed containes all necessary Points and yourself Pag 194. N. 4. say of Potter he affirmed it not as absolutely certaine but very probable as also rhe Doctour pretends only that all Articles of pure Faith but not of practise are contained in the Creed and yet no man can be saved without believing all Fundamentall points whether they be purè credenda or belong to practise and therfore we must conclude that to alledg the Creed for solving this my Argument can in no wise satisfy 13. Fiftly According to Protestants we cannot be obliged to belieue explicitely any Object vnless we find such an obligation evidently set downe in Scripture And if such an obligation be evidently expressed in Scripture it followes that you may giue vs a Catalogue of such Points If not you cannot burden mens consciences with such an obligation not expressed in Scripture 14. Sixthly I oppose yourself to yourself Pag 149. N. 37. You speake of Protestants in this manner Seing they ground their belief that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and go about to proue their Assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutly and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to belieue this thing that these only Points are Fundamentall Which words seeme to signify that Protestants can proue out of Scripture that such and such things only are Fundamentalls and what is this but to giue a Catalogue so exact that they may not only say these Points are Fundamentall but also that these only are such that is these and neither more nor fewer than these are Fundamentall Articles And Pag 150. N. 40. You say They Protestants may learne of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so And Pag 408. N. 35. You tell Charity Maintayned that he overreaches in saying that Protestants cannot agree what Points are Fundamentall and yet you grant in the same place that they do not agree and what reason can be given of this their so constant and long continued disagreement except because they haue no assured meanes and rule how to do it Also Pag 160. N. 53. To these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 19. Scripture doth deliver divine Truths but seldome qualifyes them or declares whether they be or be not absolutly necessary to salvation You answer Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the essentiall parts of Christianity if it were necessary What difference put you between an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity and a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points And how agrees this with what we haue heard you say Pag 166. N. 59. We know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall And Pag 23. N. 27. You say He that will goe about to distinguish what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it And Pag 22. N. 27. A little before the words I cited last treating whether it be possible and necessary to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls you say For my part I haue great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other What a confusion is here First It is possible it is not possible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls 2. It is possible to giue an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity 3. Pag 135. N. 14. Perhaps we cannot exactly destinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary from what is necessary consequently and accidentally meerely because it is revealed 4. I suspect that it is neither necessary nor profitable to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points 5. It is a business of extreame difficultie 6. it is an intricate peece of business and almost impossible that one should be certaine he hath done it when he hath done it By all which you can gather nothing but contradictions and ambiguityes an Affirmation a Negation a Perhaps a Suspicion an extreme Difficulty an intricate peece of businesse a Possibility an impossibility an almost Impossibility and finally nothing certaine but this that in this most important matter of Fundamentall Points Protestants neither haue nor can haue any certainty but that it may be so and so it may be neither so nor so as we see by experience that they do not only disagree in assigning what Points are Fundamentall but some affirme certaine Points to be Fundamētall Truths which others belieue to be Fundamentall errours But now in an other respect also I oppose yourself to yourself 15. Seaventhly For I must vpon occasion still put you in mynd of your doctrine that it is not
a materiall object of our Faith to belieue that Scripture is the word of God and that men are not obliged to receaue it for such yea and that they may reject it This supposed it followes that I am not obliged yea that I cannot belieue the contents of Scripture as divine Truths whether they be Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And therfore by believing all that is evident in Scripture I can in no wise be assured to believe all Fundamentall Truths Besides according to Protestants men can know by Scripture only that there are any such things as Fundamentall Points of Faith as yourself teach Pag 149. N. 37. In these words Protestants ground their belief that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and go about to proue their Assertion true only by Scripture Seing therfore you hold that men are not obliged to belieue Scripture it followes that you are not obliged to embrace that meanes by which alone you can attaine the knowledg of Points either Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and consequently de facto the meanes to know all Fundamentall Poynts cannot be to know and belieue all that is evidently contained in Scripture 16. Eightly and chiefly I haue proved that all Points necessary to be belieued are not evidently contained in Scripture and therfore by only believing all that is evident in Scripture a man is not sure to attaine yea he is sure not to attaine the knowledg and belief of all necessary Points But let vs now see what you can object against vs. 17. Object 1. You say Pag 134. N. 13. That As Charity Maintayned Chap 3. N. 19. Being engaged to giue a Catologue of Fundamentalls insteed therof tells vâ— only in generall that all is Fundamentall and not to be disbelieved vnder payne of damnation which the Church hath defined without setting downe a compleat Catalogue of all things which in any Age the Church has defined so in reason we might thinke it enough for Protestants to say in generall that it is sufficient for any mans salvation to belieue that the Scripture is true and containes all things necessary for salvâ—tion and to do his best endeavour to find and belieue the true sense of it without delivering any particular Catalogue of the Fundamentalls of Faith 18. Answer 1. Charity Maintayned was not any way engaged to giue a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall Points as Protestants are for the reasons which I haue given because without it they cannot possibly know whether themselves or their Brethren or any Church at all belieue all Articles necessary to salvation Yet voluntarily Charity Maintayned gaue such a generall Catalogue as could not faile in bringing vs to the knowledg of all particulars in all occasions For this cause he sayd do here deliver a Catalogue wherin are comprised all Pâ—nâ—s by vs taught to be necessary to salvation c Which is most true and puts a manifest difference between you and vs concerning the necessity of every mans being able to giue a distinct Catalogue ofneâ—essary Points For seing we belieue an infallible Living Judg who can and infallibly will propose divine Truths and declare himself in all occasions for what is necessary we are assured that we shall in due tyme be informed of all that is necessary and much more if we be so happy as to submitt to such Information and Instruction If I had one alwayes at hand who would and could yeaÌ„ could not but certainly instruct me what I were to belieue or say or doe were not all these actions in my power no lesse than if I did not depend vpon any such prompter Charity Maintayned had then reason to say that in the Catalogue which he gaue all necessary Points were comprised and this in a way no less easy intelligible and certaine then if we had before our eyes a Catalogue of all particular Points For our soule being disposed by this submission and the Object proposed by such a Guide we shall alwayes find a Catalogue made to our hands by the Goodness of God and Ministery of the Church For the contrary reason of not submitting to any Living Judg of Controversyes Protestants cannot possibly be assured whether or no they belieue all Fundamentall Points which yourself confess cannot be done except by knowing all evident Texts of Scripture to which taske no man can be obliged To say nothing that Scripture containes not all necessary Points nor is sufficient to declare itself Of which considerations I haue spoken hertofore And by this is answered what you object Pag 160 and Pag 161. N. 53. Where you pretend to assigne some generall Catalogues but such as by meanes of them it is impossible to know particulars as we may by that generall one which Charity Maintayned gaue Thus also is answered the Objection which you make Pag 158. N. 51. and Pag 22. N. 27. Where you demand of vs a Catalogue of all the Definitions of the Church For we haue told you that it is sufficient for vs to be most certaine that the Church will not faile to instruct vs of all her Definitions Decrees and whatsoever els is necessary as occasion shall require according to the severall degrees of Articles more or lesse necessary in different Circumstances which Scripture alone cannot do as hath bene demonstrated 19. Object 2. Pag 159. N. 52. You say touching the necessity of Repentance from dead workes and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the World all Protestants agree And therfore we cannot deny but that they agree about all that is simply necessary 20. Answer What Haue we now a Catalogue of All that is simply necessary and yet a Catalogue of necessary or Fundamentall points cannot be given 2. If these be All the Points which are simply necessary why do you so often exclaime against Charity Maintayned for saying that confessedly the Church of Rome believes all that is simply necessary For you grant Pag 34. N. 5. and els where that we belieue those Points 21. 3. I desire you to consider that Fundamentall Points are those which we are bound to belieue actually and expressly and as Potter sayth Pag 243. are so absolutely necessary to all Christians for attaining the End of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himself not only by a positiue erring in them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them Now if one cannot be saved without explicite and actuall knowledg of these Points he cannot haue true Repentance without actuall dereliction of the contrary errours and express belief of such Points in which Ignorance cannot excuse aÌ„d you say Pag 15. N. 29. Errour against a Truth must needs presuppose a nescience of it And that Errour and â—gnorance must be inseparable Therfore whosoever erres in such Points looses himselfe by such an Errour seing even a pure ignorance cannot excuse him and consequently he cannot be saved without actually relinquishing such an
most Fundamentall of all Articles in the Church that Iesus Christ the Son of God and the Son of Mary is the only Saviour of the world Surely one of you must be in such a most important and most Fundamentall errour that you cannot both be saved though you were inculpably ignorant of it as we haue seene out of Potter Pag 243. even concerning this particular Article And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresayd Articles of Repentance and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world which yet you confess to be simply necessary 24. Object 3. In the same Pag 159. N. 52. You say Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it some of them telling hem that all the ingredients were absolutly necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtfull yet all with one accord agreeing in this that the whole receypt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made vse of it he should infallibly find it successfull what wise man would not thinke they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health I ust so these Protestant Doctours with whose discords you make such Tragedyes agreeing in Thesâ— thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to salvation and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conforme his life vnto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and vndoubtedly be saved what matters it for the divection of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutly necessary and what not 25. Answer You Socinians who adore naturall reason and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men are much delighted in proposing similitudes which make a faire shew and may seduce the ignorant but being examined proue nothing against any except yoursel ves First This similitude can proue nothing vnless you begg the Question and suppose one receypt to haue in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased mans health that is Scripture to containe all Points necessary to salvation which you know we deny and say you erre in Thesi If with Scripture you would joyne the Tradition and Definitions of the Church your suppositions were true and your parity good Otherwise your receypt cannot haue all necessary ingredients 26. Secondly Suppose the sick man had great reason to belieue that the ground vpon which the Physitians build their opinion and agreement were not good nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit what sick man if he were also wise could judg their agreement to be sufficient for an vndoubted direction to the recovery of his health Heere then as in other severall occasions I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that we are not bound to belieue as an Object of our Faith Scripture to be the word of God but that we may reject it What then availes it me towards the belief of such or such Points that they are evident in Scripture if I do not belieue Scripture itself 27. Thirdly Suppose the ingredients were very soveraine and sufficient in themselves but that it were not in the sick mans power to procure them were the speculatiue agreement of the Physitians sufficient for his recovery So here It is impossible for most men to know all evideÌ„t texts of scripture which yet according to your grounds must make vp that number of Truths wherin one shall be sure to find all Fundamentall Points and so the agreement of Protestants that all necessary Truths are evidently contayned in Scripture is to little purpose since they cannot distinguish them from Points not necessary and for all men to know all Points evident in Scripture but not necessary is impossible and though it were possible yet being not of obligation for any man even though he be learned to know all such Texts defacto he might without sinne be ignorant of necessary Points which he can be certaine to know only by knowing absolutly all cleare places of Scripture and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutly necessary necessitate medij which is a plaine contradiction that some Points should be necessary to salvation and yet that we are not bound to attaine the knowledg of them or that the End which is the knowledg of such Points should be necessary and the only meanes to attaine it be either impossible or at least not of obligation to any as certainly no man is obliged to know precisely all and every particular evident Text of Scripture which â—et in your way is the only meanes to know all Fundamentall Points as in your example if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health he must be obliged to make vse of that receypt which alone could be effectuall in order to that end 28. Fourthly Suppose I could not take such a receypt without danger of drinking poyson togeather with the wholsome ingredients your similitude which goes vpon the contrary supposition doth clearely proue nothing Thus it passes in our case Men left to themselves without the Direction and Traditions of the Church yea with direct opposition to her Definitions and Authority cannot chuse but by occasion of reading Scripture alone fall into many errours against some Divine Revelation delivered either in Scripture or by Tradition that is in the written or vnwritten word of God as we see by experience of old and new Heretikes and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants wherof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in Gods Word either by detracting from or by adding to the true sense therof Now in divets places you affirme that every errour contrary to any revealed Truth is in its owne nature damnable without Repentance and you add Pag 158. N. 52. that for the most part men are betrayed into errours or kâ—â—t in them by their fault or vice or passion And therfore the true Conclusion will be that men presuming to reade and interpret Scripture by their owne wit without dependance on the Church ought to conceaue that they expose themselves to certaine danger of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation that is to a thing in itself damnable Neither can they hope for any helpe from Sectaryes whom they see infinitly divided among themselves And if they take such men for their Physitians some of them will affirme some ingredients to be necessary or profitable which others will sweare to be ranke poyson and so every Protestant is left to himself and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentalls is necessary for every one All which is strongly confirmed by calling to mynd that even the most learned
is the only thing in question Thus hee 33. To which I answer That the state of the Question being whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation in their severall Faiths and Religions and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith though of themselves they be not Fundamentall and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved seing they hold the Creed and all Fundamentall Points as they conceaue and therfore if they be in errour it is only in Points not Fundamentall Charity Maintayned said that Potter never answered to this Point clearly directly and constantly as he ought to haue done that is he never declared whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance or of one Church and Religion in such manner as one might absolutly say Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith This Potter never did nor in policy durst doe because saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 3. He was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation if they deny it to vs he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose Besides if once he grant that difference of belief though it be only in Points not Fundamentall destroy the true Faith Church and Religion he could not pretend that Protestants disagreeing among themselves could be all of one Church or substance of Faith and Religion and capable of salvation What remedy then but that he must contradict himselfe accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity or contrariety of difficultyes and so by vttering contradictions say Nothing at all to the maine question or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories For what implyes contradiction implyes only nothing But let vs go forward and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth his other words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold in words that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded is sinfull and damnable and destroyes the fundation of Faith being as Chilling saith P. 11. no less than to giue God the ly 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds yea and in express profession they and other Protestants do and must maintayne the contrary vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves in Points of heigh concernment for their cause This I proue by these considerations 35. First The World knowes that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants than that they all hold the same substance of Faith and retaine the essence of a true Church because they agree in Fundamentall Points which they are wont to proue because they belieue the Apostles Creed and the foure first Generall Councells and Potter in particular Pag 216. teaches that the Creed of the Apostles as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emerfent Heresyes in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephepsus Chacedon and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths and from thence inferrs Pag 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls and Pag 241. he saith the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the vnity of Faith and of the Catholique Church But these assertions were very false and impertinent if it be damnable and even Fundamentall against Faith to belieue any errour repugnant to Divine Revelation though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself For what imports it to belieue all the Articles of the Creed if in the meane tyme they deny some other truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such for example innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters Fundamentall of themselves As certainly some Protestants must doe seing two contradictoryes cannot be true Or why do they deceaue men in telling them that by believing the Creed they cannot erre Fundamentally seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour If therfore they will keepe this ground that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation because they agree in Fundamentall Points they must affirme that disagreement or errour in a Point not Fundamentall doth not destroy the substance of Faith or depriue men of hope to be saved nor is a Fundamentall errour as Potter and Chilling somtyme say it is as we haue seene and Chilling saith in particular Pag 131. N. 9. If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you he meanes vs Catholikes Wherfore vpon the matter if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded be a Fundamentall errour de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another according to Chillingworths owne words If it be not a Fundamentall errour the contrary Truth is not necessary and so one may be saved though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded which is the thing I intended to proue 36. Secondly Learned Protestants are very desirous and even ambitious that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman and this meerly vpon necessity and for their owne sake least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing from which Potter vtterly disclaimes Pag 59. saying Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion And Pag 63. The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions And adds that The very Anabaptists grant it But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs who they say are defided with horrible errours and corruptions if every errour in any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall destroyes the substance o Faith and Church and possibility of salvation If then they will speake with consequence to themselves they must affirme that errours in Points not Fundamentall
destructiue of salvation being but matters of small consideration in their account Secondly That they can not be excused from Schisme who forsooke all Churches for Points not Fundamentall and of so small moment in which they disagree amongst themselves and in diverse of which many of them agree with vs against their pretended Brethren which is to be well observed Thirdly that Chillingwâ— had no reason Pag 11 to say to Charity Maintayned produce any one Protestant that ever did so that is affirme that every errour not Fundamentall is not destructiue of salvation and I will giue you leaue to say It is the only thing in Question seing I haue proved out of many chiefe Protestants that for which he sayth no one can be produced yea and I can yet produce a full confession of Mr. Chillingworth himself that Errours in not Fundamentalls are not destructiue of salvation nor such as may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of a Church Thus he speakes in his Answer to the Direction N. 39. Though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all Errour destructiue of salvation or in itselfe damnable For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it Here I obserue first If the doctrine of Protestanss whom he expressly confesses to hold contradictions and consequently some of them to hold errours at least in Points not Fundamentall be free from all errour destructue of salvation or in itselfe damnable it followes that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not destructiue of salvation nor in themselves damnable which is the thing I intended to proue 2. What he saith of the Errours among Protestants that they are not destructiue of salvation he must also say of our pretended errours both because commonly of disagreeing Protestants one part agrees with vs as also because as I sayd diverse of them stand directly with vs against the common course of the rest and finally because the reason of being or not being damnable is common to all Points not Fundamentall which are supposed to contradict some divine revelation sufficiently propounded which to doe if it be destructiue of salvation must be so for all such Points if not in none at all 3. If the constant doctrine of the Church of England be so pure that whosoever believes it and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no errour in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the communion of it you must say seing Luther and his followers did and do disturbe the peace and renounce the communion of the whole Church of God before his tyme which must be supposed to haue erred only in Points not Fundamentall otherwise it had beene no Church they did and do that for which there was no necessity and for which they had no warrant and therfore cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme For the same reason also that the Church erred only in points not Fundamentall you must grant that whosoever believes as the Church did and lives accordingly vndoubtedly shall be saved For I am sure you belieue the Church of England to haue erred in diverse Points and in particular in her 39. Articles which was her constant doctrine if she had any constant at all In particular your conscience tells you that you belieue not the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity and much less that our Saviour Christ was true God and consubstantiall with his Father to say nothing of other Points of those 39. articles And is it not ridiculous to heare you talke of purity of doctrine of the Church of England which you belieue to be stayned with such Errours But you wrote for Ends If then salvation may be so assured in the Church of England you must grant the same of that Church which Luther and his associates forsooke and that therfore they certainly exclude themselves from salvation by forsaking the communion of them amongst whom salvation was so certaine and remember your words Pag 272. N. 53. it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient To which proposition if we subsume but it cannot be necessary to separate for avoyding that errour or attaining that Truth which to avoyde or attaine is not necessary to salvation therfore Luther who separated from the Church for Points not necessary cannot pretend any necessary or sufficient cause for such his separation aÌ„d consequeÌ„tly was guilty of the sin of Schisme 4. But yet you will still be making good that in these matters Protestants and yourself in particular haue no constancy but say and vnsay as may best serue their turne You tell vs the doctrine of all Protestants is free from all Errour in it selfe damnable which agrees not with what you say of Protestants Pag 19. If we faile in vsing such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion shall advise in a matter of such consequence our Errours begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offenses against God and that loue of his truth which he requires in vt And Pag 306. N. 106. For our continuing in the Communion of Protestants notwithstanding their Errours the justification hereof is not so much that their Errours are not damnable as that they require not the belief and profession of these Errours among the conditions of their Communion And Pag 279. N. 64. The visible Church is free indeed from all Errours absolutely destructive and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in itselfe is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation vpon them that keepe themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault If the visible Church be not free from errour which in itselfe is damnable how could you say that the Protestant Church of England is free from all errour damnable in itselfe But why do I cite particular passages You giue a generall Rule concerning all Errours Pag 158. N. 52. in these words If the cause of it an errour be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its owne nature damnable as if by negligence in seeking the Truth by vnwillingnes to find it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion shoudl be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens â—ll opinion or any other worldly feare or
whole company hath for essentiall Notes the true preaching of Gods Word and due administration of Sacraments This instance convinces ad hominem and vpon supposition that you will make good your owne inference which indeed is in it selfe of no force in regard that to sin or erre is not assentiall to every part of the Church as preaching of the word is essentiall to every particular and consequently to the whole Church and therfore God may giue his assistance to keepe men from sin and errour as he shall be pleased and having promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the whole Church and not having made any such generall promise to private persons which neither are nor do represent the whole Church you cannot inferr that the whole Church or a Generall Councell may fall into Errour because every particular private person taken apart may be deceived Your parity also between sin and errour is vnworthy of a Divine Faith externally professed or the exteriour profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but justifying grace or sanctity or Charity is not Yourselfe grant that Errour in Fundamentall Points destroyes a Church and that every particular person ceases to be a member of the Church by every such errour I hope you will not say the same of every or any grievous sin You grant Pag 274. N. 57. that corruptions in manners yield no just cause to forsake a Church and yet you excuse your leaving the Communion of our Church vpon pretence of corruptions in Her doctrine even in Points not Fundamentall of themselves It appeares then that errours in Faith though not Fundamentall preponderate any or all most grievous corruptions in manners in order to the maintayning or breaking the Communion of the Church Do you not expressly say Pag 255. N. 6. Many members of the Visible Church haue no Charity Which could not happen if Charity were as necessary as Faith to constitute one a member of the Church This is also the Doctrine of other Protestants Field Of the Church Lib 2. Cap 2. saith Entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ is essentiall to the Church Fulke Joan 14. Not 5. The true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy It is an impudent slander to say we say so Whitaker Contron 2. Quest 5. Cap 17. The Church cannot hold any hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church mark heere also that the and a are applied to the same Church Dr. Lawd Sect 10. Pag 36. Whatsoever is Fundamentall to Faith is Fundamentall to the Church which is one by vnity of Faith It is then apparent that there is great difference between Faith and charity for as much as concernes the constituting one a member of the Church and the contrary is of dangerous consequence as if by deadly sin every Bishop Prelate Pastour Priest Prince c. must necessarily cease to be members of Christs Church 86. But here I must obserue two things First If entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ be essentiall to the Church If the true Church cannot fall into Heresy and that it is an impudent slander to affirme that Protestants say so if the Church cannot hold any Hereticall Doctrine and yet be a Church as we haue heard out of Dr. Lawd Whitaker Fulke and Field respectivè it followes that the Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God whether it be of itselfe Fundamētall or not because every such errour is Heresy as contrarily we exercise a true Act of Faith by believing a Truth because it is testifyed by God though the thing of itselfe might seeme never so small And Pag 101. N. 127. you speake to this very purpose saying Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an oppōsition to the Faith And Potter Pag 97. saith The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written Word And therfore whosoever willfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretik◠not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared vnto him And Pag 250. Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretike And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be convinced of the truth of any such Conclusion This is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain-saieth any such truth to be an Heretike and obstinate opposer of the Faith Field Lib 2. of the Church Cap 3. sayth freedome from Fundament all errour may be found among Heretiks From whence it followes that errour against any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall is Heresy and yourselfe Pag 23. N. 27. say There is as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are If then every errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God be Heresy and that according to Fulke the true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy and that as Whitaker saith the Church cannot hold any Hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church it followes that either the Church cannot fall into any errour even not Fundamentall and so Protestants are Schismatiks for leaving Her vpon pretence of errours or that it is no impudent slander to say that Protestants say the Church may fall into Heresy as Fulke affirmes it to be seing she may fall into errours against Faith and all such errours are Heresyes Besides seing we haue heard Potter confesse Pag 97. that the Catholique Church is carefull to ground all Her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written word how can they avoide the Note of Heresy by opposing Her Declarations or of Schisme by leaving Her Communion By all which it is manifest that Heretiks haue no constancy in their doctrine but are forced to affirme and deny and by perpetuall contradictions overthrow their owne grounds and Assertions Howsoever for our present purpose we haue proved even out of Protestants themselves that your parity between errours against Faith and sins against Charity is repugnant to all Divinity seing externall profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but Charity is not and chiefly I inferr that the Catholique Church is not subject to any errour though not Fundamentall since it is confessed that shee cannot fall into Heresy and every errour against any revealed Truth is Heresy 87. The second thing I was to obserue breifly is this Charity Maintayned speaking expressly of errours in Faith which are incompatible with the being of a true Church you to disguise the matter aske why errour may not consist with the holyness of this Church as well as many
Fundamentalls I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point or parte from her Communion If you thinke it impossible not to sorsake her Communion in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall and yet belieue that you must not forsake her which is a plain Contradiction there remaines only this true and solid remedy against such an inextricable perplexity that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points be they Fundamentall or not FundameÌ„tall which is a certaine Truth and followes from the very Principles of Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls if they vnderstand themselves though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth Yea my inference that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points even not Fundamentall if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls is your owne Assertion P. 148. N. 36. Where you expressly grant that vnless the Church were infallible in all things we could not rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted 127. You say the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose But I would know what other Church could be such an vnerring Church except the Roman and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach Certainly there was none such and therfore since Protestants profess that the vniversall Church is infallible we must say it was the Roman togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion This Ground being layd and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe let vs now examine in particular your other Objections 128. You aske Pag 164. N. 56. Had it not been a damnable sin to â—rofess errours though the errours in themselves were not dâ—mnable Then N. 57. You goe about to proue that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things haâ—â—ng no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded And therfore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall and totall This you confirme with a Dialogue which adds nothing to the reason which now I haue cited in your owne words saue only that it proves at large that which we chiefly desired to be granted That if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles as Protestants say she is we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points In the end of this Dialogue you say It may be very great imprudence to erre with the Church if the Question be whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 128. In the N. 60. You say Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible And N. 61. For the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre you know no such tenet And N. 62. God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the Limits of the Churches Power then the Church herselfe And N. 63. That some forsaking the Church of Rome haue forsake Fundamentall Truths was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome for els all that haue forsaken that Church should haue done so which we Protestants say they haue not but because they went too far from her It is true say you in the name of Protestants if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to leaue it But we protest and proclaime the contrary And N. 64. You say It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa But their errour was that they held de factâ— this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so vpon a vaine pretence separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required and directly opposite to the Churcheâ— Catholicisme You add morover that Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages neither hath proved but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth And N. 65. You say To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith but he which is an Heretike in one Article may haue true Faith of other Articles These be your objections which being diverse and of different natures the Reader may not wonder if I be somwhat long in answering them Therefore I 129. Answer In this Question whether it be not wisdome and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points we may either speake First of things as they are in themselves or secondly according to the grounds of Protestants or ad hominem or thirdly what we may or ought to inferr vpon some false and impossible supposition as this is that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall differently from an inference proceeding from a suppofition of a truth or fourthly what may or ought to be chosen at least as minus malum when there intervenes a joynt and inevitable pressure of two or more evills This Advertisment premised 130. I answer to your demand whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours though in themselves not damnable that a parte rei and per se loquendo it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith and for that very cause it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all But that I haue proved already that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants it is not damnable to do so if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth and consequently that they ought in all Reason to adhere to the
Protestants teach that the Roman Church doth not erre in any Point Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and this you say diverse tymes is not true 147. Answer I will not say as you Pag. 76. N. 63. speake to Charity Maintayned I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged this Point against Charity Maintayned but contrarily I hope that the Reader if he be not a Protestant will find just occasion to prayse God that the Answer to this your Objection will demonstrate to him in how safe a way we Catholikes are even by the confession of our Adversaryes and how much it imports him to place his soule in the like safety 148. I haue already vpon severall occasions mentioned some passages wherin you and Dr. Potter confesse that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation Now I will doe it more at large Potter Pag 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanisis as he calls vs the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learued Protestants yield them c. In proofe wherof he cites in his margent Junius D. Reinolds and sayes See the juagment of many other writers in the Advertisement annexed to the Old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaotists grant it Fr. Ichnson in his Christian plea Pa 123. So that with this one Testimony of Potter we haue many other even of our greatest Adversaryes And I desire the reader to obserue well that here P 62 he saith To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteâ—med a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholikes haue added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and vnwrâ—ten dogmaticall Traditions their Transsubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new Doctrines and Decrees canonized in their late Synode of Trent Vpon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we haue cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constatute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we belieue the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to containe all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therfore those Points of our Doctrine which he giues for instance are no Fundementall errours nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the Chiefest Points controverted betweene vs and Protestants even transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councell of Trent Therfore we are free from fundamentall errours by the confession of our Adversaryes Pag 59. The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the Old The Reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only clensed it from corrupt and impure qualityes If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the Old Church and if it were only clensed from corrupt qualityes without change of the substance the substance must be still the same that it was and that which was must be the same with that which is Pag 61. The things which the Protestants belieue on their part and wherin they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaryes themselves do avow and receaue them as well as they Therfore we Catolikes haue the life and substance of Religion Pag 60. In the prime grounds of Principles or Christian Religion wee haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Therfore you grant that we haue the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion Pag 11. For those Catholique Verityes which she the Roman Church retaines we yield her a member of the Catholike though one of the most vnsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholikes Behold we are members of the Catholike Church which could not be if we erred in any one fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholikes why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholique And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to vrge against vs and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugnes himselfe while he speakes against vs nor distinguishing between vniversall as Logicians speake of it which signifyes one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholique as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spred over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and vpon that vaine conceit telling his vnlearned Reader that vniversall and particular are termes repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholique cannot be affirmed of Dr. Potter nor Dr. Potter sayd to be a Catholike because a particular cannot be sayd to be vniversall or an vniversall Pag 75. To depart from the Church of RomeÌ„ in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation P 70. They the Roman Doctours confess that setting aside all matters controverted the maine positiue truths wherin all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to belieue and how to liue so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctours confesse that setting a side all matters controverted c. is very vntrue it being manifest that Catholikes belieue Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of Faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we haue all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledg and practise for vs to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherin we differ from Protestants saith Pag 74. If the mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and noveltyes he shall find in that which remaines little difference of importance betweene vs. Therfore de facto we belieue all things of importance which Protestants belieue After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes Pag 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may belieue his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse proue and the Objection which he rayses from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise
Point that I need not say one word to ponder your words or declare the force of them Pag 7. N. 3. You expressly approue the saying of Dr. Potter That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points then are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary Therfore do we inferr Catholikes belieue all that is necessary to salvation and more But we can never yield so much to you Pag. 85. N. 89. You confesse the Roman Church to be a Part of the Catholique Church And we haue heard you say Pag 16. N. 20. If she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and beld no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique This you say and make good the like inference which I made by occasion of Dr. Potters words that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholique and other like Assertions of his Pag 163. N. 56. You say From Scripture we collect our hope that the Truths she the Roman Church retaines and the practise of them may proue an Antiaote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of hart follow this Absalon These Points of Christianity which haue in them the nature of Antidots against the poyson of all sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted still retaines therfore we hope she erreh not Fundamentally but still remaines a Part of the Church But this can be no warrant to vs to thinke with her in all things Seeing the very same Scripture which puts vs in hope she errs not Fundamentally marke how you professe to learne even out of Scripture that we erre not Fundamentally assures vs that in many things and those of great moment she errs very grievously And these errors though to them that belieue them we hope they will not be pernicious yet the professing of them against conscience could not but bring to vs certaine damnation Therefore the Points in which we differ from Protestants being acknowledged not to be Fundamentall and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience we are safe by your owne Confession If we did not belieue as we profess we were no Roman Catholikes In the same place you say expressly De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls yea you say Lin 33. Perhaps she does not erre damnably the contrary wherof you affirme so often You example of Absalon was very ill applyed to the Roman Church which did not rebell from you but you against the whole Church the Mother of all Christians more sacrilegiously than Absalon behaved himselfe wickedly to wards his father Pag 404. N. 29. you approue Dr. Potters saying Pag 79. which I cited aboue that the Roman Religion is safe that is not damnable to some such as beleeue what they professe And in the same place you say we may hope that she retaines those Truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvatioâ— Pag 401. N. 27 We approue those Fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine by which some good soules among you may be saved but abhorre your many superstitions and heresyes The Truths you retaine are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the conventi le of Papists If any soule may be saved in our Religion it is cleare that we hold not any Fundamentall errour with which no soule can be saved Pag 277. N. 61. you say The simple defect of some Truths prositable only and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Seing therfore you haue so often confessed that we erre not in Fundamentall Points our errours in some Truths profitable only and not fundamentall may consist with salvation How then do you say to Catholiks Pag 401. N. 27. As for our freeing you from damnable Herely and yielding you salvation neither He Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Pag 219. N. 50. speaking of Protestants you say They doe not disser at all â—n Matters of Faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mâ—ane by Matters of Faith such Doctrines as are adsolutely necessary to salvation to be believed or not to be dâ—â—believed Now you know well that in Points of greatest moment which Catholiks belieue against some Protestants other Protestants stand for vs against their pretended Brethren and therfore you must either say that we belieue all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation or that many learned Protestants do not belieue all such Doctrines and consequently are not capable of Salvation Pag Pag 269. N. 45. A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one af those things wherin the essence of the Church consists For this cause you say that although Protestants left the externall Communion of the Church yet they left not the Church because they left her not in any thing essentiall to a Church as Fundamentall Points are Therfore you suppose the Church before Luther did not erre in any Fundamentall Article Otherwise you had left her that is you had disagreed from her in a Fundamentall Point Pag 272. N. 52. and Pag 283. N. 73. You deny that Protestants divided themselves from the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is ceased to be a member of it which still supposes that the Church before Luther believed all essentiall and Fundamentall Points which Protestants also pretend to hold and for that cause say they left not the Church Pag 272. N. 52. You say In the reason of our separation from the externall Communion of your Church you are mistaken For it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation But if we erred in Fundamentall Points Protestants must haue forsaken vs chiefly for that reason that our Church was corrupted with Fundamentall errours of Faith Therfore you grant that we erred not in any such necessary Points Pag 401. N. 26. You confess that Dr Potter saith indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the Body of Christ and hope of salvation frees vs from the imputation of Schisme Pag 133. N. 12. You say expressly By Confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation It is well you make so open a Confession that we belieue much more than is simply necessary to salvation But as I sayd aboue we will not because we cannot yield so much to you And here I must aske againe How you could say Pag 401. N. 27. As for
our freeing you from damnable Heresy and yielding you salvation neither Dr. Potter nor any other Protestant is guilty of it Seing you say that By the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation If we belieue much more then is necessary to salvation by what Logicke will you deduce that we belieue not as much as is necessary 150. These so many and so cleare words of Dr. Potter and yourselfe may justly make any man wonder with what pretence of truth or modesty you could say Pag 280. N. 95. As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamentall it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you And Pag 308. 108. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we belieue the Points of difference not Fundamentall or necessary you haue been often told it is a calumny The oftner the worse it being a saying voyd of all truth and a shamefull calumny in you 151. To these testimonyes of Potter and Chillingworth many other might be allelged out of other Protestants as we haue seene diverse other alledged by Potter Dr. Lawd Pag 299 saith I do aknowledge a Possibility of salvation in the Roman Church But so as that which I grant to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they beleeve the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe Behold not only a possibility of saluation but also the reason therof because we belieue the Creed c which is the very reason for which Protestants hold that they themselues may be saved though they differ in many Points from one another This I say is the reason of Dr. Lawd which other Protestants must approue though in true Divinity it be of no force at all for though one belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe that is that he is God and Saviour of the world yet if he deny any point evidently delivered in Scripture or otherwise sufficiently propounded as revealed by God he cannot be saved even according to Protestants who therfore doe in this as in many other things speake inconsequently and contradict themselves Pag 376. he sayth The Religion of the Protestants and the Romanists Religion is the same nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion for the Christian ReligioÌ„ is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion Therfore say I we hold no Fundamentall errours wherin whosoever differ cannot be of the same but must be of a different Religion And Pag. 129. The Protestants haue not left the Church of Rome in her Essence not in the things which constitute a Church And P 282. he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church I thinke cannot be denyed aÌ„d in proofe hereof P 281. he alledges Luther Field Jos Hall Geo Abbot Hooker Mornaeus Prideaux Calvin And Dr. Jer Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying Pag 251. Sect â—0 teaches that we keepe the foundation and belieue many more truths than can be proved to be of simple and originall necessity to Salvation And therfore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of Salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the vnderstanding which as I sayd may easily be believed of vs Catholikes who suffer so much for our Religion so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and vnhandsome superstructures And in particular he shewes that Prayer for the dead and the Doctrine of transubstantiation are not Fundamentall errours and also saieth these two be in stead of the rest Yea he affirmes Pag 258. that there is implied as great difficulty in the Mystery of the B. Trinity as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by idolatry in adoring the Sacrament For further satisfaction in this matter the Reader will find the words of learned Protestants in Brierley Tract 2. Sect 14. As That we are of the Church That we are of the family of Iesus Christ a part of the house of God That it was evill done of them who first vrged a separation That we are the Church of God That the Catholike and Reformed make not two but one same Religion agreeing in all principall points of Religion necessary for Salvation That Catholikes and Hugonots are of one Faith and Religion That they are Domestikâ— of Faith and branches of the same viâ—e And Tract 1. Sect 6. Subdiv 1. That Those who live and dy in the Church of Rome may notwithstanding be saved and they are charged by very learned Protestants of ignorance and absurdity who are of the contrary opinion 132. I hope now it appeares that even in the judgment of learned Protestants Catholikes do not erre in points Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfore that Luther could not be excused from Schisme in dividing himselfe from all Churches for matters which do not exclude vs from eternall happynesse especially seing they who forsooke vs maintayne errours at least not Fundamentall as Potter Pag 67. plainly confesses and appeares manifestly by the disagreement of Protestants amongst themselves and the agreement of diverse of them with vs even in diverse of those points in which Luther pretended the Church to be corrupted as appeares by what we haue demonstrated heretofore Yet to leaue nothing vntouched I will goe forward not so much because indeed there remaines any Objection of moment against vs as to take away all pretence of cavills as also to take occasion of delivering some Considerations of importance against our Adversaryes 153. Object 15. Although the errours of the Roman Church be not fundamentall in themselves yet they are against Gods Revelation and Command not to deny any least truth testifyed by that supreme Uerity and consequently such errours are damnable and for which the Roman Church might be forsaken 154. Answer First This Objection is not only against the whole Church of Christ which you pretend to haue been corrupted with such errours but also against the Reformers therof seing of Protestants holding contradictoryes some de facto must be in errour wherof Grotius Rivetiani Apologetici Discu P 15. saith Protestantium Confessiones in multis rebus ita dissident vt conciliari nullo modo possint Uidentur autem Genevenses cum Harmoniam Confessionum edidere ita credidisse Harmoniam esse dissidentes Confessiones in vnum Uolumen compingere The Confessions of Faith of Protestants do so disagree that it is impossible they can be reconciled It seemes that they of Geneua when they sett forth the Harmonie of Confessions were of opinion that the Harmonie or agreement of Confessions did consist only in bindeing vp in one Uolume disagreeing Confessions Nay Protestants do further teach that it cannot be otherwise
that is that it is impossible that they can agree in all points Calvin Instit Lib 4. Cap 1. N. 12. speakes plainly Quoniam nemo est qui non c. Because none is free from some cloua of ignorance we must either leaue no Church at all or we must Pardon errours in those things of which men may be ignorant without breach both of the summe or substance of Religion and loss of salvation Marke how this Patriark of Protestants acknowledges that noe Church can be free from errours not Fundamentall Dr. Lawed Sect 38. Pag 360. In things not necessary though they be Divine truths also I confess it were hartily to be wished that men might be all of one minde and one judgment But this can not be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailtyes which here hang thinke and closes about her Whitaker Cont 2. Q. 5. C. 8. It is not needefull that all should thinke the same if such vanity be required there would be noe Church at all Potter Pag 39. It is a great vnity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the preces and particles of Divine Truth And Pag 69. He expressly confesses that all the weeds are not perfectly taken away in the reformed Church Chilling P. 279. N. 64. the visible Church is free indeed from all errours absolutely destructiue and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable Morton Appologie Lib 1.58 only Papists challenge priviledg of not erring And blessed be God who hath placed vs in a Church which vpon evident and necessary Reason challenges that priviledg without which there can be not infallibility in Christian Faith noe vnitie in the Church of which therfore we haue just cause to say with S. Austine Ep 48. wherewith Charity Maintayned ends the second part of his booke Others of the Donatists say we did indeed belieue that it imported nothing in what company we did hold the Faith of Christ But thanks be to our Lord who hath gathered vs from division and hath shewed to vs that it agreeth to one God that he be worshiped in vnity For what a Church is that which is divided even in points of Divine Faith If such errours be sufficient to divide from a Church as Protestants pretend to have parted from vs vpon that ground and without which they must confess themselves to be Schismatikes and that noe Church is free from such errours what followes but that all Churches and all men must be divided from one another and noe one Church be left in the whole world And how can they be excused from Schisme in leaving all Churches for errours which no Church can avoide And who would be a Protestant seing themselves confess that they neither are nor can be free from damnable errours that is errours against Divine Revelation which wil actually bring damnation vpon them that keep themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault as you say Pag 279. 64. So as for the Generall effect of damnation they differ not from fundamentall errours which also are pardonable by repentance Beside Pag 220. N. 52. you say by fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation By which words you must vnderstand all truths necessary because they are revealed by God and commanded and not only things indispensably necessary of themselves because you say one may safely expect salvation if he belieue all things Fundamentall which safety he cannot expect who erres in points revealed though not Fundamentall of themselves seing you teach that all such errours are damnable and in plain termes Pag 133. N. 12. you say their state is dangerous which can not stand with safety therfore by Fundamentall points with the belief of which one may safely expect salvation you must vnderstand all points not only Fundamentall of themselves but such also as are necessary only because revealed And Pag 290. N. 88. you expresly giue those errours of which we speake the name of fundamentall even as one membrum dividens of Fundamentall as the Divisum in these wordes Fundamentall errours may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable Or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and desiructiue of salvation Well now these errours which you acknowledge in the Protestant Church being against Gods Revelation and command must be in their owne nature damnable as you doe not denie but they are so and therfore we say that Luther and his fellows could no more forsake the Roman Church for such errours than they must forsake one an other till they leaue no Church at all and all come to be Independents both in respect of others and even of a mansselfe who must still be forsaking his owne errours against Faith as being damnable in themselves I neede not here repeat what I haue of necessitie often mentioned That scarcely we hold any Article against some Protestants in which we haue not other learned Protestants on our side against their fellows and I hope you will not say that the selfe same errours are even in their owne nature damnable in vs and not in Protestants which were a pretty non-sense and an vnjust partiality therfore I conclude that this Objection is no less against Protestants then vs yea it is vnansweareable by Protestants who confes that really their Church is subject to and actually is stained with such errours which we absolutely denie in respect of the Roman Church and such as agree with her 155. And here you must ponder your wordes Pag 280. N. 95. For Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 184. haveing alledged Potters wordes Pag 69. that the weedes are not perfectly taken away among Protestants saith What man of judgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one To this you reply And yet you yourselfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to haue some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted 156. To this your reply I may answer out of what I sayd aboue How I pray is it all one to make a Supposition acknowledged by him who makes it to be a thing both vntrue and impossible and to speake of a thing so certainly and immoveably true that the contrary is impossible The former case treates of a voluntary supposition which the supposer knowes he may recall or reverse at his pleasure and bring things to the true state in which they really exist and so as I may say all will be mended
but not Fundamentall is but a contradiction to your owne doctrine Seing whatsoever errour is damnable is also Fundamentall and whatsoever is Fundamentall is damnable if we respect the negatiue precept of Faith obliging vniversally all persons in respect of all objects at all tymes semper pro semper as divines speake not to deny any Point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Charity Maâ—nâ—ayned declares at large Part 1. Pag 79. And the same is taught by your selfe Pag 194. N. 4. In these words To make any Points necessary to be believeâ— it is requisite that either we actually know them to be Divine Revelations and these though they he not Articles of Faith nor necessary to be belâ—eâ—ed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being inforce vpon vs by a necessity of believing this essentiall and Fundamentall â—â—rtâ—cle of Faith that all Divine Revelations are true which to dâ— belieue or not to belâ—â—ue is for any Christian not only in pious but impossible Or els it is requisite that they be first actually revealed by God secondly â—ommaÌ„ded vnder â—â—ine of â—amnation to be particularly knowne and distinctly to be believed From these words of yours it clearly followes that culpably to deny any point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God implyes a contrariety with this essentiall and Fundamentall Article of Faith that all Divine revelations are true which certainly is a Fundamentall Truth and therfore all errours that are culpable and damnable are in this sense opposite to a Truth which indirectly and by accident and by consequence as you speake becomes Fundamentall The same you deliver Pa 197. N. 14. where you say to Charity Maintayned I deny flatly as aâ—thing destructive of it selfe that any errour can be damnable vnless it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it selfe or by accident to some truth for the matter of it Fundamentall Why then do you distinguish between damnable and Fundamentall errours Morover if every damnable errour as you confess every errour to be which disbelieves any sufficiently proposed Divine Truth be Fundamentall every damnable errour destroyes the Essence of a Church which you confess cannot exist togeather with a Fundamentall errour and consequently the Church cannot erre culpably even in points not fundamentall of themselves and remaine a Church which is the thing we teach and you through your whole Booke deny and are forced to doe so in regard you hold that Christ hath always had a Church on Earth and yet must pretend that she hath erred to saue yourselves from the imputation of Schisme and Heresy The truth is every sinfull errour against Faith in a point of itselfe never so small is damnable and destroyes Faith Church and salvation neither is there any difference for the generall effect of damnation between errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and therfore it is impossible the true Church can erre in either kind of such points because it is impossible that she can want any thing necessary to salvation or be obnoxious to any thing destructiue therof and so as I sayd for the Negatiue precept of not disbelieving any thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God there is no difference between those two sorts of Articles and the reason is because the Formall object or Motiue of our belief is the same in them both namely the Divine Revelation But for the affirmatiue precept of being obliged to belieue explicitly some prime Materiall Objects of Faith there is difference in regard that as such Truths are Fundamentall and necessary to be actually believed so errours contrary to them are most properly Fundamentall errours or errours directly and immediatly opposite to some Materiall Object of Faith Fundamentall of itselfe which every body sees doth not happen in all errours Otherwise how do you Potter and other Protestants distinguish between errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall if all errours be Fundamentall or against a Fundamentall truth But you erre by not distinguishing or not rightly applying the distinction between the Affirmatiue and Negatiue Precept of Faith nor between the Formall and Materiall Object therof The Negatiue Precept arises from the Formall Object it being vniversally and intrinsecè vnlawfull to disbelieve any thing invested with the Divine Testimony wheras the affirmatiue Precept is taken from the Materiall Object of Faith in regard that God hath commanded some Truths to be expressly knowne and believed as absolutely necessary to salvation Vpon this erronious mistake youvnadvisedly find fault with Charity Maintayned in your Pag 197. N. 14. for saying Part 1. Chap. 3 N. 2. That errours may be damnable though they be against some Points for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall which are the precise words of Ch Ma. Where you see he speakes of the Matter or Materiall Object and not of the Formall of Faith which is Divine Revelation and so this Doctrine of his is evidently true For â—s all Truths of Faith are not of their owne nature fundamentall Truths so neither can all errours be fundamentall Errours But say you the deny all of any revealed Truth for example of that of Pontius Pilates being judge of Christ is destructiue of this Fundamentall Truth that All Divine Revelations are true I answer as aboue that you erre by not distinguishing between the Materiall and Formall Object of Faith and not considering that fundamentall or not fundamentall Truths are not to be distinguished in order to the formall object of Divine Revelation which being the same in all Truths all should be fundamentall or all should not be Fundamentall But as I sayd that distinction is to be taken from the Materiall objects accordingly as some are more important and more necessary to be actually believed than other If any object that this truth All Divine Revelations are to be believed is a thing which we belieue as a Fundamentall Truth and therfore every errour against it must be Fundamentall To this I answer as aboue that those errours are Fundamentall which are directly and immediatly opposed to Fundamentall Truths not those which only mediatly and by consequence are such Now the errour directly opposite to this truth All Divine Revelations are true is this All Divine Revelations are not true which certainly is a Fundamentall errour as contrarily errours opposed immediatly and directly to Points not Fundamentall of themselves are not Fundamentall errours in the common sense of that distinction which were no distinction at all if every errour were equally opposite to a point Fundamentall in itselfe 171. You desire Charity Maintayned to reconcile his doctrine that errours may be damnable though they be repugnant to some point for its matter and nature not Fundamentall with his other saying Part 1. Chap 4. N. 15. Every Fundamentall errour must haue a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the
without Confesion Here you declare that perfect sorrow or Contrition is not a sufficient disposition for remission of sins even at the houre of death A doctrine fit only to make poore sinners despaite Against this Hypocryticall and desperate doctrine of yours I bring these reasons 5. First Wheras you require for remission of sins not only Sorrow and Detestation of offences past with a firme Purpose of amendment for tyme to come but also the Object of such an Act or Purpose that is Actuall amendment which you say being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant this Doctrine seemes to be contradicted by your selfe Pag 133. N. 12. In these words For those that haue meanes to find the truth and will not vse them they Protestants conceave though their case be dangerous yet if they dy with a generall Repentance for all their sins known and vnknowne their salvation is not desperate You seeme either to speake of men brought to the houre of death or at least you do not exclude such a case and of men in state of sin proceeding from negligence to find the truth which negligence must be caused by some deadly sinfull Feare Hope or some other vicious humane respect and consequently must haue produced some vicious Habits and yet you seeme to say such men may be saved by a generall Repentance which being only generall cannot descend to all particulars as the mortification of all particular ill Habits must doe yea you suppose that the particular sinfull errours are not known to them and much less can those vicious Habits from which they proceed be mortifyed which cannot be done at that exigent of imminent death And therfore either the doctrine which you seeme to teach that it is possible for such men to be saved at the houre of their death is false or els you must grant that Repentance requires not the mortification of all vicious Habits 6. Secondly As I sayd of your Doctrine concerning the fallibility of Christian Faith and of your Doctrine of Attrition that they could serue only to bring men to damnation so I say of this your Assertion that no sinner who vnderstands and believes it to be true can avoide desperation at the houre of death when he sees that the extirpation of all vicious Habits is impossible and yet Necessary to true Repentance and salvation of his soule Protestants are wont to receiue the Communion at the houre of their death which I suppose you will say ought not to be done without true Repentance of their sins vnless you will suppose all Protestants at the houre of their death to be free from sin which is against that which Protestants themselves suppose as shall instantly appeare and yet it is impossible for them at that tyme to attaine your Repentance by extirpation of all vicious Habits In your Booke of Common-prayer in the Order of visiting the sicke it is sayd Here shall the sicke person make a speciall confession if he feele his conscience troubled with any â—eighty matter Therfore as I sayd Protestants may haue some weighty matter at the houre of their death And then is set downe the forme of Absolution which the Ptiest or Minister is to giue But how can he who feeles his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter truly repent at that last houre by your kind of Repentance which you say is a worke of difficulty and tyme Or how can he be absolved without true Repentance 7. Thirdly This Assertion is contrary to two doctrines very common and as I may say capitall amongst Protestants that Faith only justifyes and that it is impossible to keepe the commandements For that Act of Faith which they call justifying and remissiue of sin is exercised in an instant and would saue a man though he should dy before it were in his power to extirpate all vicious Habits And if it be impossible to keepe all the commandements it is impossible not to committ some sinfull Acts wherby they are broken and which must necessarily leaue after them some vicious Habits and so insteed of extirpating all vicious Habits men must still be producing new ones How then can you say Pag 40â— N. 31. Repentance is an essectuall conversion from all sin to all holynes Is not the breaking of Gods commandements a sin Or can he be converted from all sin to all holyness and to vniversall Obedience as you speake who cannot avoide sin but must still be disobeying 8. Fourthly In your doctrine what shall become of such as being newly converted to the Faith of Christ from Paganisme Judaisme or Turcisme are baptized at the houre of death and yet were full of vicious Habits which they haue no tyme to Mortify or roote out Or will you deny true Repentance and Remission of sin to those who after a life ledd in many grievous sins and after the Production of many ill Habits being suddenly converted to Christian Faith were baptized in their bloud before they could destroy so many vicious Habits 9. Fiftly If you duly consider what you say you will find your manner of Repentance to be impossible not only in the cases which I haue mentioned but to those also who liue a considerable tyme after forrow for their sinnes be it Attrition or Contrition For the Habits of vice as they were produced by frequency of acts so are they not taken away but by multiplication of contrary acts Neither do they consist in indivisibli so as if one degree be destroyed there may not remayne divers others which must be rooted out by little and little and yet while one habit is diminished or destroyed another may remaine entire and even be encreased for example while the habit of injustice is destroyed or diminished the habit of intemperance or impatience or timidity may remaine as they were vntouched or else growe to be more intense by acts of those vices Nay who doth so perfectly and totally vpon the very first onset relinquish any one vice that he is not morally speaking subject to be committing some one act or other of that former vice wherby the Habit will returne to receiue some increase And then how large a space of tyme may chance to slip away before the Habit of one and much more of all vices be perfectly rooted out Especially if it be deeply radicated and seconded and abbetted or rather prevented by some inclination arising from complexion temptation of the divell bad examples false principles of the world and other such causes which make the committing of sin obvious and easy wheras the contrary acts of vertue not only find great resistance for the reasons now mentioned but also because they are of themselves of a sublime nature and require great purity of intention without mixture of profit or pleasure or tincture of selfeloue which vniversall conjuncture and perfect harmony of all good circumstances is so necessary that the want of any one be it never so small depraves the whole
sins past with a firme Resolution to amend for tyme to come is a sufficient disposition for remission of sinnes whether it be perfect Contrition without Sacramentall absolution or attrition with it though it be also true that perfect Contrition must involue a purpose to receaue absolution in due tyme. 17. Your third Errour is delivered in many places of your Booke and consists in this That one who lives in a sinfull errour against faith may be saved by a generall Repentance of all his sins knowne and vnknowne though he do not forsake that culpable errour but liue and dy in it In your Answer to the preface of Charity Maintayned Pag 7. N. 3. you approue the saying of Potter that both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more Points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary That it is very possible a man may dy in errour and yet dy with repentance as for all his sins of Ignorance so in that number for the errours in which he dyes with a repentance though not explicite and particular which is not simply required yet implicite and generall which is sufficient So that he cannot but hope considering the Goodness of God that the Truths retained on both sides especially those of the necessity of Repentance from dead workes and Faith in Iesus Christ if they be put in practise may be an andidote against the errours held on either side to such he meanes and sayes as beâ—ng diligent in seeking Truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it through humane frailty and dy in errour 18. About which words it is to be observed First that as I noted aboue you and Potter confess that Catholiks hold more Points of Faith than are necessary to salvation so that the Points in which we differ from Protestants which you call errours are not necessary and accordingly you teach Pag 9. N. 7. that men may be saved though they hold the doctrines of IndulgeÌ„ces Purgatory and the vse of Latine Service And therfore I may turne against you your owne words Pag 220. N. 52. May it please you therfore now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation Vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary These words I say proue that we may even safely for that is your word expect salvation in a Church which by confession of all sides believes more Points than are necessary vnless you will say that more is necessary than that which is necessary or that we belieue not as many Points as are necessary though we belieue more than are necessary Secondly That as I noted before you contradict yourselves in saying That by the goodness of God the Truths retained on both sides may be an antidote against the errours of such as being diligent in seeking Truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it by humane frailty and dy in errour For the errours of men so qualifyed as you describe them must needs be invincible if invincible no sins if no sins how can any truth be an antidote against them Or how can the doctrine of necessity of Repentance from dead works concerne works which are not dead that is no sinnes nor can be the Object of Repentance or capable of pardon I beseech you remember your owne express words Pag 16. N. 21. The very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therfore in themselves were damnable How then do you say that inculpable errours may be pardoned by a generall Repentance Or how do you in particular agree either with Catholiks or Protestants about the necessity of Repentance of dead workes seing you disagree from both of them in declaring what Repentance is necessary Thirdly Pag 8. N. 3. you say the Doctour gives them only hope of pardon of errours who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunityes and abilityes industrious to find the Truth or at least truly repentant that they haue not bene so In which words you distinguish those who are desirous and industrious to find the truth froÌ„ those who are repentant that they haue not been so The former sort of which men are not capable of Repentance because they committed no sin And if the second be truly repentant as you suppose they are that they haue not been desirous and industrious to find the Truth you suppose they know that they haue not been so To whom then shall belong that Repentance which you call generall and implicite of all errours knowne and vnknowne Fourthly Howsoever you endeavour to answer these contradictions it seemes you are constant that a sinfull errour may be pardoned though one liue and dy in it And then Fiftly The difficulty which I spoke of aboue comes to vrge you How such a man can attaine your kind of Repentance at the houre of his death when it is impossible But let vs goe forward 19. Pag 21. you say If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feard many millious are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but pardonable if discovered vpon a particular explicite Repentance if not discovered vpon a generall and implicite Repentance for all sins knowne and vnknowne in which number all sinfull Errours must of necessity be contayned Pag 168. N. 52. speaking of errour proceeding from some Voluntary and avoidable fault and in its owne nature damnable You say If the party so erring dy with Contrition for all his sins knowne and vnknowne as his Errour can be no impediment but he may his Errour though in itselfe damnable to him according to your Doctrine Charity Maintayned disclaimes from any such false and implicatory Doctrine as this it will not proue so As the most malignant poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote In these and other passages of your Booke you teach that a sinfull and damnable Errour for of such we must speake when we speake of Repentance to object wherof his sin may be forgiven while one remaines in such an Errour or without relinquishing it which is a most pernicious errour and destructiue of itselfe For if his errour be sinfull it is not because he sees it to be an errour and yet persists in it which is impossible seing that to judge a particular errour to be an errour is to forsake it and embrace the contrary truth because an errour discovered is destroyed neither is it an errour but a true judgment to judge that an Errour is an Errour according to the saying of S. Austine Lib. 15. de Trinit Cap 10. Nemo falsa novit nisi cum falsa
may be saved not by a generall but by a particular contrition not of sins vnknowne but knowne not remaining a formall Protestant but being a reall Catholike having retracted the former malice of his sin and believing in desire all that the Catholike Church believes and so he is a Protestant neither in act seing he doubts of the Protestant Religion nor in voto or desire which is to be a professed member of the true Church and to imbrace the truth and forsake all Errour as in this present Question we expressly speake of the errours of Protestants and enquire whether they can be saved with such errours as likewise our supposition for the present is that the Roman is the true Church and so the Uotum or desire of such a penitent is to forsake the Doctrine of Protestants and to embrace the Religion of the Roman Church But then if such a one survine and come to haue tyme sufficient for seeking and finding out the truth and neglect to doe it he waxeth recidivous and falls into a new sin and his eâ—â—ours grow againe to be sinfull by reason of their new sinfull cause 23. Your example that poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote is either de subjecto non supponente as if the poyson of sin could stand with the Antidote of Contrition or implyes a manifest falshood and contradiction if you suppose that contrition can destroy that sin which one is committing Naturall or corporall poyson may stand with an Antidote but sin the poyson of the soule cannot stand with Contrition and so caÌ„ helpe no more thaÌ„ an Antidote not receyved can hinder the operation of poyson aÌ„d contrition cannot be receyved in his soule who continues the act or affection to a deadly sin And so your example turnes against yourself and this Answer proves to be a more powerfull Antidote than the poyson of your objection which therfore I hope will not poyson any that receives with it the Antidote 23. Thirdly I answer by denying absolutely the case which was proposed that he who hath sinfull errours at the houre of his death can haue true Contrition without actuall direliction of them My reason is because Contrition being a most singular Gift of the Holy Ghost as I proved in the Introduction and including the perfect loue of God is an infallible Disposition to Justifying Grace as therfore God in his holy Providence hath decreed that after baptisme in the ordinary course or de lege ordinaria none shall be saved out of his Uisible Church so he gives not his effectuall Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition in the Will before he endue him with true Faith in the vnderstanding that as his errours were repugnant to Faith so his Repentance and retractation may rectify them by the contrary Truths of Faith For this cause the Apostle after he had sayd God will haue all men saved which words signify the End adds and to come to the knowledge of truth as the Meanes to such an End And this being the ordinary course in vaine is it to dispute what God may doe de potentia absoluta by his absolute Omnipotency or whether there be any physicall or Metaphysicall repugnance between Contrition and Errours per se loquendo damnable since those matters wholy depend on Gods free will and holy pleasure which we cannot know by Logicall humane demonstrations but only by Revelation wherby God hath declared in generall that for Christians there is no salvation without professing the Faith of his Uisible Church and for vs to put exceptions to that generall Rule can haue no other effect than to make men negligent in seeking the Truth in tyme vpon hope that they may be saved with Errours against Faith at the houre of their death when indeed it will proue too late Neither can it be objected that at the houre of death it is not possible to examine particular Controversyes and none can be obliged to an impossible thing For the answer is easily given out of what we haue already sayd First that this ought not so seeme strang to you whose kind of Repentance is impossible at that houre of death as I haue often sayd and so we may apply against you your owne words Pag 390. N. 7. They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy though they confesse them to God only and not to men They that confess them both to God and men if they do not effectually and in tyme forsake them shall not find mercy Now by your doctrine men cannot forsake their sins in tyme who haue not tyme for rooting out all vicious habits and therfore shall not find mercy But by the way what evidenct Scripture haue you that they shall find it who confess their sins only to God seing some Lutherans and other Protestants hold and other confess that it was the Doctrine of ancient holy Fathers that private confession of sins is commanded by God and we haue heard Kemnitius teaching that even Contrition without absolution is not sufficient for pardon of sins either in act or in desire and your resolute speech to the contrary is an affirmation without any proofe Neither can Contrition be sufficient vnless it imply a firme purpose to performe all that God hath commanded wherof Confession of deadly sins is one Secondly I answer that as God is supposed at that tyme to infuse perfect contrition and change the will so also you should suppose that he rectifyes the vnderstanding and the same meanes which he vseth for the one he may vse for the other whether he doe it immediatly by himselfe or by the ministery and helpe of some second cause as a catechist or instructour or good bookes to stirre vp the species and then God may giue his grace to belieue and it would be incomparably more strang that God should giue Repentance to Christians remayning out of his Visible Church for matter of Faith than to cleare their Errours supposing he will giue them Repentance though indeed in our case there can be no true Repentance vnless all sinfull errours be rectifyed 24. That which you alledge out of the Prophet David aboccultis meis munda me cannot signify that sin can be committed without some knowledge as even Socinians confess but only that sins committed by culpable ignorance are not wont to moue vs so much to detestation and sorrow as those which are committed with full knowledg and therfore those hidden sins require a more particular light and Grace of God to present them to our soules so clearly and effectually as we may be perfectly sorrowfull for them in particular and not be deceyved with such a generall ineffectuall sorrow as you obtrude without dereliction of the sins of which men pretend to repent 25. And now I hope it appeares vpon examination of your particular errours concerning Repentance that you make it either insufficient by your pretended necessity of extirpating all vicious habits
vniversall Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour and yet haue beene still the Church You must answer your owne Argument which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe by saying 5. First No particular man or Church may hold any sinfull and damnable errour and yet be a member of the Church vniversall Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants if they vnderstand themselves and as I haue often sayd Potter confesseth that it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God and that he who does so is an heretike and that heresy being a worke of the flesh excludes from the kingdome of Heaven And what a Church would you haue that to be which consists of Heretikes 6. Secondly To put a parity between particular men or Churches and the Church vniversall may very well beseeme some Socinian who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason and therfore no wonder if such a Church be subject to corruptions no lesse than private men whose naturall witts and reason must integrate as I may say the whole Authority of and certainty in such a Church and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours the Church cannot be free from them yea she must containe in her bosome or rather bowells such corruptions and errours and so many poysons contradictory one to another and yet not breake A noble latitude of hart and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity But for vs your Argument hath no force at all For we belieue the Church to be the Meanes wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding and to be the Judge of Controversyes as hath beene proved hertofore at large and this being supposed we must make vse of your owne words Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth From whence it followes that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion Which is further confirmed by those words of yours Pag 9. N. 6. No consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therfore it is not infallible Therfore say I to affirme that the Church can erre is to say she is not infallible nor can be judge of Controversyes nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding nor could she be a Guide even in matters Fundamentall as we haue proved els where and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good And in a word she would cease to be that Church which we are sure she is 7. Thus you say that Scripture which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith and decider of Controversyes must be vniversally infallible and that any the least errour were enough to blast the whole Authority therof As also if the Apostles who were appointed to teach Divine Truths could by word or writting haue taught any falshood we could not haue relyed on their Authority in any point of faith great or little 8. You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour These your words prompt vs a ready Answer and disparity between the Church and private persons who if they fall into errour the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church But if the Church erre to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting her errour Nay I do take a forcible Argument by inverting and retorting your owne words For supposing your Doctrine that we belieue Scripture to be true and the word of God for the Authority of the Church and another saying of yours that a proofe must be more knowne to vs than the thing proved otherwise say you it is no proofe I argue thus There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture as for the Church For if false Scripture be obtruded it may be discovered by comparing it with the Tradition and consent of the Church from which we receiue the Scripture as the word of God and consequently all the certainty we haue of the contents therof But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for discovering and correcting her errours seing as I sayd to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine will be to no purpose because that very Rule cā be of no force with vs but for the Authority of the Church which therfore must be as great or greater with vs then Scripture it selfe according to your owne saying The proofe must be more knowne than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd Matt 5. Uos est is sal terrae you are the salt of the earth But if the salt leese his vertue wherwith shall it be salted Vpon which words S. Austine L. 1. de serm Domini in monte C. 6. saith Si vos c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned forfeite the kingdome of heaven vpon feare of temporall persecution what other persons shall be found to free you from errour seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others So we may say If the Church which God hath appointed to teach others and deliver them the Scripture should erre who could be found to discover and correct that errour Your Argument is no better than this If a man may be a man though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body as fingers feete c. why may he not remaine a man though he want some parts absolutly necessary for the conservation of him in Being as hart head braine c. For infallibility in the Church is a priviledge necessary and as I may say essentiall to her as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith which office belonging to no private persons infallibility is not necessary for them 9. To your vaine subtility That we say It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose it selfe From whence you would collect that if the Church should erre yet her errour being not damnable as not opposite to the Church herselfe she might still remaine a Church I answer By the same reason you may say the Apostles might erre and yet remaine of the Church and their
errour if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to belieue even Fundamentall points must be damnable Which words you shamefully conceale out of guiltyness that they prevented all your Answers about Ignorance or such accidentall and variable circumstances to which you sly before you gaue them Seing it appeares that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Scripture sufficiently proposed and N. 15. you say That such Points are fundamentall Our B. Saviour saith S. Marke 16.16 he that does not belieue shall be damned And S. Paul Gal 5.20.21 having reckoned some vices and among the rest Sects concludes They who doe these things shall not obtaine the kingdome of Heaven Will you now stand vp and blaspheme and say that our Saviour and S. Paul should not haue pronounced damnation against disbelievers Sects and Heretykes without adding your limitations to wit vnless ignorance excuse or a generall Repentance obtaine pardon 21. In your N. 15. you giue a new explication of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall That these Points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamentall which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knoweth them to be so Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently How many things may be observed in these words First it answers not plainly to the Question of Ch Ma which was whether is there in such denyall of a Point contained in Scripture and sufficiently proposed as Ch. M. expressly speakes any distinction betwixt Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall sufficient to excuse from Heresy As certainly there is not Secondly by this distinction of yours all that is sufficiently proposed to be contained in Scripture is a Fundamentall Point and every errour in such Points must be a Fundamentall errour and destroy Faith Church and salvation and so you grant what Ch. Ma. desired in his Question though you thought not fitt to Answer it clearly and in direct termes but to involue things by talking of matters nothing to the purpose and therfore I say Thirdly Points deducible from Scripture but probably only are not Points of Faith which requires certitude but may be denyed without sin if one haue probable reason for his denyall as yourselfe confess N. 14. that it is a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contayned in Scripture if he who denyes it knew it to be so or haue no probable reason to doubt of it Otherwise not Ch Ma as I sayd spoke expressly of Points sufficiently knowne to be contayned in Scripture that is of matters of Faith and by what logicke can you distinguish Points of Faith into Points which are of Faith and points which are not of Faith as things which are deduced from Scripture probably only are not matters of Faith as we haue seene out of your owne words Doth not Logick teach that the Diuisum must be affirmed of everie one membrorum dividentium and will you affirme faith of that which is not Faith 23. In your N. 16. To the Question of Ch Ma whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture you answer It was never alledged to any such purpose But as in other Points so in this you speake for Protestants without any commission or warrant from them For who knowes not that nothing is more common with them than to say that Protestants may be saved and are brethren as agreeing in the substance of Faith because all of them belieue the Creed which reason were plaine non-sense if they may belieue the Creed and yet not be of one Faith nor hope of Salvation by reason of their disagreement in other Points Or what availes it them to agree in necessariò credendis all which you say the Creed containes which yet is very false if they differ in agendis in Articles of Faith by which they are directed for Christian Practise Seing Protestants differ not only in credendis but in agendis Howsoever I take what you giue that the Creed cannot be pertinently alledged as if believing it alone Protestants may disagree in other Points and yet remaine Brethren and so by this very answer you grant what Charity Maintayned intended to proue that disagreement in any one Point of Faith be it great or little cannot stand with Salvation on his side whose errour is culpable As wholosome meate taken alone may nourish but if the same man receiue poyson he shall not escape death in vertue of that meate which otherwise might haue conserved him in life and health Bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu One damnable errour is enough to worke perdition though a man belieue all Truths except that which is contrary to such an errour 22. I haue no more to say about this first Chapter except only that you might haue comprized the substance therof in few lines or words if you had not perverted the state of the Question by flying to accidentall and changeable circumstances and vsing needless and endless repetitions of such variable circumstances CHAP XI The Ansvver to his second Chapter CONCERNING THE MEANES WHERBY THE REVEALED TRVTHS OF GOD ARE CONVEYED TO OVR VNDERSTANDING And vvhich must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion 1. I Find by experience That the reducing of your dispersed and often repeated discourses to some heads frees me of much vnnecessary labour which otherwise must haue beene spent in speaking to every particular Section of yours For in this Chapter I find litle but either passion or calumny or begging of the Question or what is answered already till I come to your N. 30. which also containes nothing but a matter of fact whether Brierly and Ch. Ma and other Catholique Writers haue abused Hooker in saying that he teaches that Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God by the testimony of scripture itselfe but by some other meanes namely the Church For my part I haue read and considered the place cited by Ch Ma out of Hooker Lib 3. Sect 8. and find that you are like those charitable people who are content to want one eye vpon condition that their adversary be deprived of both You are willing that Hooker contradict Himselfe yourselfe and evident reason itselfe rather than he should seeme to favour vs. I say he must contradict reason which can never proue that Scripture is written by Divine inspiration as I know you will not deny seing all the contents of Scripture might haue bene set downe in writing without the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost You say Pag 114. N. 156. If there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may belieue a Booke of S. Austines to containe nothing but the truth of God
here your saying N. 27. When Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversyes of Religion are to be decided those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe â—or as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things vnder his feeâ—e is mâ—st true though yet S. Paul tells vs that when it is sayd he hath put all things vnder him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things vnder him So when we say that all Controversyes of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we do and must except from this generality those which are touching the scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his owne may say all my substance is in this shipp and yet never intend to deny that his shipp is part of his substance nor yes to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is sipportâ—d by the foundation and yet never meane to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you yourselves vse to say that the Bishopp of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would thinke vs but captious Sophisters should we inferr from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or els made him head of himselfe 5. Answer Are all those Protestants Cavillers who teach that we may know by Scripture it selfe that it is the word of God and consequently that it may decide this Controversy concerning it selfe Doth not Potter Pag 141. say That Scripture is of Divine Authority the believer sees by that glorious beame of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments found in the letter it selfe And doth not the Scottish Minister Baron after he had confuted the opinions of others about the private spirit and the Doctrine of Catholikes concerning the Church finally resolve that Scripture is knowne to be the Word of God by certaine criteria or markes found in the Scripture it selfe And therfore it cannot be denyed but that when Protestants teach that all Points of Faith may be learned by Scripture they must either say that this Point of Faith Scripture is the word of God may be learned by Scripture or els contradict themselves as indeed they must and for that cause ought to grant that besides Scripture there is some other Meanes to propose Divine Revelations and Scripture it selfe with the true interpretation therof Your examples may be turned against you by those your Brethren who deny both the private spirit and the Authority of the Church for assuring vs with certainty that Scripture is the Word of God and they will tell you that if a ship must either be within itselfe or no where a marchant shewing a ship of his owne and saying all my substance is in this ship must either grant that the ship is in itselfe or els that he spoke vntruly in saying all my substance is in this ship and the like they would say of a foundation that if it support the whole house and cannot be supported by any thing but by itselfe it must support it selfe and then they would informe you that seing not only the contents of Scripture but also Scripture itselfe are objects revealed by God which revelation can neither be knowne by a private spirit which you and they hold to be a foolery nor an infallible Church which all of you hold to be Papistry it followes that Scripture must be believed for itselfe or els not be believed at all And the same we may answer ad hominem that if the Pope could not be head of the whole Church but he must be head of himselfe it could not be sayd that he is head of the whole vnless it be also granted that he is head of himselfe but we deny that fond supposition that he cannot be head of the Church vnless he be head of himselfe as contrarily Protestants teach that the Scripture cannot be knowne by an infallible Church nor by the private spirit and therfore it must be knowne by itselfe The same they would answer to those words he hath put all things vnder his feete that he could not be excepted who did put all things vnder him if indeed those first words he hath put all things vnder his feete could not be verifyed vnless he who put all things vnder his feete were put vnder him Neither can you avoide this retortion of your brethren except by saying that we do not infallibly belieue Scripture to be the word of God aÌ„d therfore there is required no infallibility in â—he Church from which you say we receiue Scripture or els that Scripture is not a materiall object which we belieue or both as indeed you affirme both that Faith is not infallible and that Scripture is not a materiall object of our Faith And finally every one who hath care of his soule must out of these inextricable labyrinths of Protestants conclude with Catholikes that for believing with certainty that Scripture is the word of God we must rely on the Church with this condition also that she be believed to be infallible which infallibility is absolutely necessary if once with all Christians we belieue Christian Faith to be infallibly true 6. To your N. 34. I answer That all those Bookes of Scripture are to be acknowledged for Canonicall which the Church receives for such Before which declaration of the Church all they were very secure who differed about some Bookes because they always believed the Authority of Gods Church which could not faile to propose in due tyme all things necessary for salvation But for the contrary reason Protestants relying vpon the sole written word cannot be safe in regard that they not knowing what Points in particular be necessary to salvation to make all sure must be obliged to know in particular all that is contayned in all the Bookes which diverse learned men even of their owne Sect acknowledg to be Canonicall least otherwise they may chance to remaine in ignorance or errour of some matter necessary to salvation 7. The same Answer serves for your N. 36. For it is a Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemy to speake of Esther and diverse other Bookes of Scripture as Luther speakes of them after the Definition of Gods Church to the contrary Wherof see Charity Ma. N. 9. Pag 45. 8. Your other Sections or numbers till the 48. concerning the sayings of Luther whom I know you defend against your Conscience and the Canon of the English Protestant Church which now hath no existence and her 39. Articles being or having been vnder Censure may perhaps be altered I let pass not to loose tyme. Only I cannot omitt your words N. 47. directed to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it
impossible one And that he and other Protestants do but cosin the world and speake contradictions or non-sense when they talke of a perpetuall visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and whose Communion we are to embrace and yet tell vs that such a visible Church cannot be designed in particular where and which she is For this is all one as to make her invisible and vncognoscible and of no vse at all and therfore they being forced by manifest Scripture to assert and belieue a perpetuall visible Church we must without asking them leaue necessarily inferr that this Church by their owne necessary confession must be designable and cognoscible in particular You say By all societyes of the world it is not impossible nor very improbable he might meane all that are or haue beene in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church But this is no better then ridiculous For he saith What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all societyes in the world is that Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion c You see he speakes of that society of men which is the Church and which is the Pillar of Truth and would haue men search it out wheras the Primitiue Church neither is but hath beene nor was it for but directly against the Doctours purpose to advise men to search out the Primitiue Church and her Doctrine which had required tyme and leasure and strength of vnderstanding which he saith few men haue and therfore he must vnderstand a Church to be found in these tymes whose Directions they should follow and rest in her judgment To say as you doe that we embrace her Communion if we belieue the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and liue according to it is very fond as if the Doctour spoke of Scripture when he named the Church and in saying we are to embrace the Communion of the Church he meant we should embrace the Communion of Scripture which had beene a strang kind of phrase and in advising vs to seeke out that society of men and that Company of Holy Ones he vnderstood not men but the writings of men Do not your selfe say that the subject he wrote of was the Church and that if he strayned too high in commendation of it what is that to vs Therfore it is cleare he spoke not of the Scripture in commendation wherof you will not say he strayned too high but of the Church and of the Church of our tymes and so saith the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne c But why do I loose tyme in confuting such toyes as these It being sufficient to say in a word that Protestants in this capitall Article of the invisibility and infallibility of the Church are forced to vtter some mayne Truthes in favour of Catholikes though with contradiction to themselves 20. In your N. 87. You do but trifle Charity Maintayned N. 18. said That the true interpretation of Scripture ought to be receâ—ved from the Church is proved c To this you answer That the true interpretation of the Scripture ought to be reveaved from the Church you need not proue for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves ready to receaue all Truthes much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but any society of men nay from any man whatsoever But who sees not that this is but a cavill and that Charity Maintayned to the Question which was in hand from whence the interpretation of Scripture was to be received answered it is to be received from the Church And I pray if one should say the knowledge or truth of Philosophy is to be received from Philosophers would you say this need not be proved nor even affirmed to them who profess themselves ready to receiue all Truths not only from Philosophers but from any man whatsoever 21. You labour N. 90.91.92 to proue that Protestants receiue not the Scripture vpon the Authority of our Church but in vaine For what true Church of Christ was there when Luther appeared except the Roman and such as agreed with her even in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs and for which they pretend to haue forsaken our Communion Doth not Luther in his Booke against Anabaptists confess that you haue the Scripture from vs And Doue in his persw sion to English Recusants c Pag 13. sayth Wee hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nyce of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Byble which we receyved from them And Whitaker Lib de Eccles c Pag 369. confesseth that Papists hâ—ue Scripture and Baptisme c and that they came from them to Protestants That you receiue some Bookes and reject others which the vniversall Church before Luther received argues only that you are formall Heretikes that is voluntary choosers and that not believing the infallibility of the Church you haue no certainty of any Booke or parcell or period of Scripture And wheras you say N. 90. that we hold now those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly we rejected from the Canon and instance in the Booke of Machabees and the Epistle to the Hebrewes and add that the first of these we held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregoryes tyme or els he was no member of our Church for it is apparent He held otherwise and that the second we rejected from the Canon in S. Hieromes tyme as it is evâ—dent out of many places in his workes I answer that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly she rejected from the Canon and if there were any doubt concerning these Bookes of Scripture they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church but by some particular persons which doubt the Church did cleare in due tyme as I haue declared heretofore and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Machabees as also Charity Maintayned Part 2. Pag 195. which you ought not to haue dissembled did answer the same Objection made by Potter Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrewes I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. N. 42. seqq writes excellently of this matter and demonstrates that the Latine Church never rejected that Epistle as he proves out of Authors who wrote both before and after S. Hierome and that S. Hierome relyed vpon Eusebius and therfore your absolute Assertion that this Epistle was rejected in tyme of S. Hierome is no lesse vntrue than bold Neither ought you to haue concealed the answer of Char Maintayn Part 2. Chap 7. Pag 197. where he saith thus Wonder not if S. Hierome speake not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his opinion as once he sayd ad Paulinum of the
in those Objects in which they may chance inculpably to disagree You define the Religion of Protestants to be the Bible and that all who belieue all plaine Texts therof are true Protestants and do agree in matters of Faith and therfore must agree among themselves in such Points Now I aske whether you will define matters of Faith to be those wherin Protestants agree If you say yes then I take your owne words and say this is ridiculous and as if we should say Protestants agree in those things wherin they agree If you answer No but that matters of Faith are those which are clearly contained in Scripture whether or no Protestants or any other belieue them then you both answer and confute your owne Objection and turne it against yourselfe You say it is ridiculous to say we agree in matters of Faith and are all agreed that only those things wherin we agree are matters of Faith And yet you say Protestants if they were wise would do so too which is to say Protestants if they were wise would do that which you say is ridiculous Nay according to this your wholsome advise if they will be wise they must not regard what indeed is matter of Faith as being revealed by God but only that they procure to agree among themselves and then say that they agree in matters of Faith which is to say they agree in those things wherin they do agree which is the thing you object against vs. Neverthelesse I know not well by what Logike you will inferr that we speake as if one would say we agree in those things wherin we agree vnless perhaps by some such wild Syllogisme as this All matters of Faith are those wherin we agree but we agree in all matters of Faith Therfore we agree in all those things wherin we agree as if you say every mā is a reasonable creature but every reasonable creature is a man Therfore every mā is a mā If you would to the purpose you might say whatsoever we agree in is a matter of Faith but we agree in the belief of the Trinity c. Therfore the beliefe of the Trinity c. is a matter of Faith But howsoever this be we vtterly deny that definition of Faith and leaue it to Protestants that they may be wise according to the wisdom of your advise and definition 3. To the rest of this N. 5. as also to your N. 6. I answer that you would gladly divert vs to particular disputes But it is sufficient to say in generall That whatsoever is knowne to be proposed by the Church as revealed by God is a Point of Faith in respect of him to whom it is so proposed Neither it is pertinent to this present Worke to dispute in what subject infallibility resides Let me now tell you that which may suffice for the present that those three meanes of agreement which you mention the Pope A Councell with him The vniversall Church haue never yet nor ever shall nor ever can be found to disagree And it is no fayre dealing in you to omitt what Ch ma hath concerning this matter Part 2. Chapt 5. N. 15. and 16. where he answers the objection ād discovers the falsifications of Potter in citing Catholique Authors about this point But to proue that the vniversall Church cannot be infallible or a meanes of agreement you say N. 6. And indeed what way of ending Controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree therfore the whole Church hath not received it Answer I know no man hath greater obligation to answer your Objection than yourselfe who teach that by vniversall Tradition we know Scripture to be the word of God For if one should say what way of determining what Scripture is the Word of God can this be when if any deny it they may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue not such or such Scriptures therfore the whole Church or vniversall Tradition hath not received them If you answer that the number or Authority of a few is not considerable in comparison or opposition to all the rest nor ought to prevaile against the contrary suffrages as you speake Pag 68. N. 43. I answer First that if the Church be fallible it is not the number but the waight of reason which ought to prevaile And secondly you cannot but see how easy it is for vs to say the same That it imports not if some who are not of consideration in respect of all the rest disagree from them But the truth is your Objection is of no force vnless you helpe it out with your wonted refuge of begging the Question and supposing the Church not to be infallible For if she be infallible whosoever oppose Her decrees and Definitions by doing so become Heretikes and cease to be members of the Church nor can pretēd that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree Therfore the whole Church hath not received it As I sayd aboue that Schismatiques cannot pretend to be members of the Church after their separation And this your subtility is directly against Dr. Potter Pag 57. saying Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholique Verity maintayned by this Church or the Catholique visible Church as doe Heretikes or perversly drvides himselfe from the Catholique Communion is doe Schismatikes the condition of both is damnable The Scriptures and Fathers cited here by the Mistaker proue this and no more and therfore prone nothing against Protestants who never denyed it Now why do you not aske your client Potter How any man can oppose the whole Church or depart from Her Communion seing they who oppose and depart may pretend that they are part of the Church and do not oppose or depart from themselves and therfore Protestants who the Doctour saith never denyed it must deny it if they will belieue you or you must deny yourselfe if you will belieue them Your N. 7.8 are meere words without any proofe and deserue no other Answer 4. Your whole N. 9. is plainly impertinent Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 1. declared how Protestants are wont to abuse the distinction of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall to many purposes of theirs and among the rest to this That if you object their bitter and cotinued discords in matters of Faith without any meanes of agreement they instantly tell you they differ in points not Fundamentall In which words it is cleare that Ch. Ma. intends only to shew what vse Protestants make of the sayd distinction and that he speakes truth you neither do nor can deny the thing being notorious But you decline the matter and say I desire you to tell me whether they do so or doe not so that is whether they differ in points only not Fundamentall or do nor differ in them If they doe so I hope you will not find fault with the Answer But your hope
se loquendo of two dissenting in matters revealed by God one must oppose his divine revelation and Veracity which is evidently true but also that de facto it is so in many millions yea in the far greater part of Protestants who therfore erre culpably against the divine Testimony and committ a deadly sin not because others as you speak belieue a thing to be revealed by God which Ch. ma. never sayd nor dreamed but because they themselves ought to haue believed that same thing to be revealed which others did belieue to be such and indeed was such Thus then you ought to reforme your distracted Syllogisme Whosoever disbelieves any thing knowne and which ought to be knowne by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therfore errs fundamentally But some Protestants you say millions yea the greater part disbelieue those things which others belieue to be testifyed by God and which are and ought to be knowne by themselves to be so testifyed Therfere some Protestants yea millions and the greater part of them impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally 9. But yet that it may further appeare how much you wrong Ch Ma I must set downe his words which Chap 3. N. 3. are these The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Because till Points Fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against Faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them And the like is of Points not fundamentall which as soone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed than Points Fundamentall propounded after the same manner What could be sayd more clearly to shew that Ch Ma spoke not of whatsoever kind of Objects but expressly of such as are really testifyed by God and not only believed to be such by others but also sufficiently proposed to a mans selfe as Divine Truths and which therfore bring with them a most strict obligation to be believed Your little respect to truth hath forced me to be longer in this point than I expected or desired to be And I hope it appeares that you had no other cause except want of Charity to Charity Maintayned to feare that his hart condemned him of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing Fundamentall and damnable errour to disagreeing Protestants because forsooth some of them disbelieue and wittingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God Seing Cha Ma expressly required that what others believed to be testifyed by God should also be sufficiently proposed to ones selfe before he could be obliged to belieue which sufficient proposition being supposed yourselfe do not deny but it is a damnable errour to disbelieue any such truth 10. Your N. 18. hath two good propertyes Falshood and Confusion or Obscurity You cite Ch. Ma. speaking thus The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know and there you stop but Charity maintayned added these words but that some of them disbelieue and directly and wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall c Now I pray is there not a maine difference between ignorance or a not knowing or Nescience of a thing which another believes and a positiue opposition or actuall beliefe of the contrary to that which another believes How many truths are there which men do not know and yet erre not against them be cause their very ignorance keepes them from any judgement concerning them by way of Affirmation or negation but they carry themselves privatively or in a certaine manner passively or abstractively as if there were no such objects 11. But let vs heare what you object against so manifest a truth You say I would gladly know whether you speake of Protestants differing in profession only or in opinion also Answer I vnderstand not well what you meane by differing in profession only or in opinion also Do you meane that they make profession of differing in opinion when indeed they do not differ This were to dissemble and ly in matters of Religion But whatsoever your meaning be I answer that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Protestants differing in opinion one disbelieving what another believes as you confesse out of His words But you are willing to raise difficultyes where otherwise none could appeare 12. But then you say If they differ in opinion then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions It being impossible and contradictious that a man should know one thing to be true and belieue the contrary or know it and not belieue it And if they do not know the Truth of each others opinions then I hope you will grant they are ignorant of it If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held I answer this is nothing to the convincing of their vnderstandings of the truth of them and these remaining vnconvinced of the truth of them they are excusable if they do not belieue 13. Answer Though it be much against my inclination yet truth commands me to say that here you shew either great ignorance or else write directly against your owne knowledge where you will needs confound pure ignorance with positiue Errour the difference of which I shewed even now and what Logician is ignorant of the division of ignorance into Ignorantiam purae privation is and Ignorantiam pravae disposition is that is a meere want of knowledge of some truth or a positiue errour contrary to it And by your leaue your saying If they differ in opinion they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions is so far from being true speaking of pure ignorance that it implyes contradiction to say He who errs is ignorant seing to be purely ignorant in the sayd division of ignorance is one member into which ignorance is divided and one membrum dividens cannot in good Logicke include the other and therfore errour cannot include pure ignorance For it were to say one hath no knowledge at all and yet hath a false knowledg or a privation is a positiue entity and a Nothing a Something Your objection He who errs knowes not the contrary Truth and if he knowe not the truth he is ignorant of it is a meere mistake or equivocation For that he who errs knowes not or is ignorant of the contrary by a pure
ignorance or Nescience I deny That he is ignorant by a positiue errour or ignorance prauae dispositionis I grant and so when you assume He who knowes not the truth is ignorant of it you must distinguish according to the double sense of ignorance which hath beene declared and not speake with such confusion This same distinction I find in Dr. Potter Pag 243. where speaking of some Fundamentall Articles of Faith he hath these words These are so absolutly necessary to all Christians for attaining the end of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himselfe not only by a positiue erring in them or denying of them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them Where you see he distinguishes between error and not knowing and therfore one may be ignorant of what another believes and yet not erre against it or disbelieue it As it is one thing not to be hot and another to be hold Now Charity Maintayned expressly distinguishes between pure ignorance and errour and therfore you do very ill first to confound them and then vpon that affected mistake frame your Objections The same equivocation you haue Pag 25. where you make a shewe of great subtility but indeed the Reader will finde nothing but vanity as I shewed in that place 14. You say to Charity Maintayned If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held c I answer that this saying of yours is nothing to the purpose For though de facto Protestants are not ignorant what opinion other Protestants hold and therfore their disagreement is more patent and not only against the opinions by whomsoever they might chance to be held but also against opinions knowne to be defended by them whom they will needs call Brethren Yet indeed it is meerly accidentall and in no wise necessary to our present purpose that one Protestant should be conscious or know that he differs in opinion from another For if it were revealed to some in the Indyes that Christ is God and Saviour of the world and he did assent to that truth while another in Europe did dissent from the like Revelation sufficiently proposed this second doth truly disbelieue what the former believes no lesse than if he had knowne that the other believes it And therfore Charity Maintayned said Protestants disbelieue and wittixgly and willingly oppose what others do belieué to be testifyed by the word of God without saying vnnecessarily that they disbelieue what they know others belieue because as I sayd this knowledge is not necessary for our present purpose concerning the disagreement of Protestants in matters of Faith Much lesse to the purpose yea directly against syncerity is your saying That if their vnderstandings be not convinced they are excusable if they do not belieue Seing Charity Maintayned did speake of objects sufficiently proposed as revealed by God which are his expresse words in this very number which you impugne 15. In your N. 19.20.21.23 nothing occurrs of difficulty which hath not beene answered elswhere And you falsify Ch. Ma. when N. 20. you say he concludes that there is nodifference betweene errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall wheras he expressly saith in his N. 3. which here you answer and N. 4. that they do not differ in this that both of them are against Gods Revelation and damnable which yourselfe often grant yet you know that in other respects he puts a maine difference betweene them even in the number next precedent and declares the matter at large Surely this is no good dealing 16. In your N. 22. you still voluntarily mistake the state of the Question though Charity Maintayned had stated it very clearly N. 3. as we haue seene i. e. that when we treate whether errour excludes salvation we speake of Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God and not in case of invincible ignorance want of instruction or the like This being presupposed Charity Maintayned N. 4. saith thus Dr Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth sinally overthrow it and yields as much as we can desire Speakinge Pag 211. of that measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved he saith It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed or contradicted Now our question is in case that divine truth although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted and therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation Thus Charity Maintayned whose words you cite very imperfectly in this manner It is enough by Dr Potters confession to belieue some things negatively i.e. not to deny them therfore all denyall of any divine Truth excludes salvation Thus say you omitting these very next words of Charity Maintayned now our question is in case that divine Truths although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted And therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation And that Dr Potter alwayes supposes a sufficient Proposition before one can be obliged not to deny or contradict those Points of which he speakes is evident because one could not be obliged vnder sin not to contradict them if they be not sufficiently proposed Which Proposition he requires Universally in matters of Faith And in this very place he saith There is a certaine measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved but every thing revealed belongs not to this measure And then he adds the a foresayd words It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed Where it appeares that as no man is obliged to belieue those Fundamentall Points without the beliefe wherof none can be saved vnless they be sufficiently proposed so none can be obliged not to contradict Points not Fundamentall if they want sufficient Proposall And this is yet further demonstrated by Charity Maintayned who immediatly after the words of which you take notice and cite as His though imperfectly saith thus After He Dr Potter speakes more plainly in the very next Pag 212. It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall in regard of the divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him marke whensoever the knowledg therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. he saith where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded obserue sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretike and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Galat 5.20.21
And hence it followeth that it is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all truths of God wherof he may be convinced that they are from God Marke convinced that they are from God which implyes a sufficient proposall Now with what conscience could you conceale all these cleare words of Potter which by Charity Maintayned are set downe immediatly after those which you cite out of Him Charity Maintaryned and impugne them Yea the Doctor Pag 213. in the very same threed of discourse which Charity Maintayned alledged out of his Pag 211. of which you take notice and endeavour to defend saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Cardinall Perron calls the Faith of adherency or non-repugnance may suffice to witt an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared You see these words are in effect the very same which you answer it is enough by Dr Potters confessing to belieue some things negatively c and that He expressly requires that a thing be sufficiently cleared before one can be obliged to a non-repugnance or a non-denyall of it Which doctrine of Potter being once supposed certainly this is a good Argument It is enough for salvation not to deny some things when they shall be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God Therfore the denyall of them when they are so proposed is not enough for salvation but excludes it Can you possibly haue any thing to object against so manifest a deduction and truth as this is 17. You say N. 22. it is As if you should say One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therfore without a Horse no man can goe a journey As if some divine truths viz Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denyed And others for want of sufficient declaration denyable without danger 18. Answer You could not even for a fee haue pleaded more effectually in fauour of Charity Maintayned than now you doe while your intention is to impugne Him You grant that truths sufficiently declared are such as of necessity are not to be denyed But both Dr Potter and Charity Maintayned in the words of which we treat expressly speake of truths sufficienty declared as I haue proved therfore even by your owne confession they cannot be denyed which is the inference of Charity Maintayned I confesse my selfe to find great difficulty how to frame any answer to your example of a Horse because I cannot penetrate what vse or application you intended or could make of it Only I wish you to consider that when Dr Potter saith it is enough to belieue some things by as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed so that one haue an humble preparation of mynd to belieue them when they are sufficiently cleared that they are revealed as we haue heard him speake he supposes that it is necessary to salvation to haue such a preparation of mynd And then your similitude must goe thus A horse is necessary for a man to goe a journey therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey and so we may say it is necessary and not only sufficient for salvation in preparation of mynd not to reject any Point sufficiently propounded as testifyed by God Therfore whosoever is not so prepared excludes himselfe from salvation which is that we would haue Or els thus A horse is enough for a man to goe a journey not absolutly but vpon condition that he be not lame or extremely weake or otherwise vnable to travell Therfore if a horse be lame or otherwise vnable he is not enough for a man to goe a journey which consequence will teach vs to make this inference it is enough for salvation that one belieue some things with an implicite Faith not absolutly but vpon condition that he be ready to imbrace and belieue them actually and explicitly when they shall be sufficiently propounded in particular Therfore an implicite Faith is not sufficient for salvation if he want such a readiness of mynd which is our Conclusion Never the lesse if your Faith be so strong that you will needs haue one horse though lame and loaden with as many diseases as a horse to be enough or sufficient though not necessary for a man to goe a journey and for that cause that this is no good consequence One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey you know that not only Catholikes but Potter yourselfe and all Protestants as we haue heard you affirme hertofore and all Christians must deny the parity it being most certaine and evident that the beliefe of all Points Fundamentall is not enough for salvation but is of itselfe taken alone as it were lame and too weake without a mynd ready not to contradict whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as witnessed by God which is absolutely necessary to salvation and therefore we must still conclude that all denyall of any Divine Truth sufficiently propounded excludes salvation though one be supposed to belieue all Points which are Fundamentall of their owne nature These are the best considerations that I can draw from your example of a horse which yet you see make strongly for vs against yourselfe 14. You are pleased N. 24. to summe vp or as you speake bring out of the cloudes the discourse of Charity Maintayned in his Chap 3. N. 5. and then you censure it thus Which is truly a very proper and convenient Argument â—o close vp a weake discourse wherin both the PropositionÌ„s are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the Conclusion vtterly inconsequent 20. Answer You are so far from bringing out of the cloudes the discourse of Charity Maintayned that you haue cast over it a cloude and darknesse which neither you nor any body els will be able to remoue from it and place it in its owne former light except by hearing his owne words which are these I will therfore conclude with this Argument According to all Philosophy and Divinity the Unity and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence therof and therfore if the nature and being of Faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes but from the motiue for which he believes which is Gods Word or Revelation we must likewise affirme that the Unity and Diversity of Faith must be measured by Gods Revelation which is a like for all Objects and not by the smalness or greatness of the matter which we belieue Now that the nature of Faith is not taken chiefly from the greatness or smalness of the things believed is manifest because otherwise one who believes only Fundamentall Points and an other who together with them doth also belieue Points not Fundamentall should haue Faith of formall
different natures yea there should be as many formall differences of Faith as there are different Points which men belieue according to different capacities or instruction c And therfore we must say that vnity in Faith doth not depend vpon Points Fundamentall but vpon Gods Revelation equally or vnequally proposed And Protestants pretending an vnity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamentall Points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of Faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things equally revealed by God it is evident that they forsake the very formall motiue of Faith which is Gods Revelation and consequently loose all Faith and vnity therein In which words we see Charity Maintayned speakes of that vnity of Faith which is taken from the Formall Object and which to oppose is the proper cause of damnation for erring persons in all Objects whether they be great or small like or vnlike of themselves 21 Now in this discourse what false Propositions what confusion can you finde You say Who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits and therfore 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 bespecall from the Act and Object inspeciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which is moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 22. Answer To what purpose talk you of the Essence of Habits seing the Discourse of Cha Ma concerned only the Act of Faith whereby we belieue some Truths because they are revealed by God and vpon this ground he proved that every contrary Act is damnable and a grievous sinne which cannot be verifyed of Habits which of themselves are not sinnes Now who can deny that an Act of Faith takes its nature Essence and specification as Philosophers speak from the Divine Revelation And I hope you will not tell vs that the Essence of all Acts is taken from their Act and their Object as if the Essence of the Act were derived from the Act. Dr Potter Pag 139. saith expressly The formall Object or reason of Faith the chiefe Motiue mark motiue the first and farthest Principle into which it resolves is only divine Revelation Obserue that Divine Revelation only is the first and last into which Faith resolves without mentioning that it is taken from the Act yea excluding it by the word only only Divine Revelation And Pag 143. he saieth The chiefe Principle and ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is divine Revelation made in Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but this can erect or qualify an Act of supernaturall Faith which must be absotutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or perswasion or at the most acquired humane beleef Which words not only declare the Essence of Divine Faith but also express how by that Essence it is distinguished from other things and in particular from humane Faith perswasion and opinion as Cha Ma saied the vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence therof Thus you see that Cha Ma spoke truth in affirming that the Nature and Being of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes and that Potter vseth the word Motiue directly in this sense and to this purpose 23. What doe you meane in saying If the habit be generall the essence is taken from the Act and Object in generall If the Habit be speciall from the Act and Obiect in speciall I am very sure that every Habit and Act exists in particular though their Obiects be never so generall and so the Acts to which Habits incline are particular Acts producible by those Habits and nothing taken only in generall can be producible 24. Cha. Ma. and Dr. Potter saied that our motiue to belieue is the Divine Revelation and which is more you affirme the same heere That Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him And yet you strangely object That the Motiue to a thing cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 25. Answer First The motiue or Formall Object of which we speak is not an efficient cause in respect of the Habit or Act of Faith but if you will reduce it to one of the foure kinds of Causes which are commonly assigned some will saie it is Causa formalis extrinseca and perhaps others will say that you belieue the motiue to a thing to be an efficient cause because Aristotle defines the efficient cause to be Principium motus and you confound motum and motivum or motion and motiue Secondly Though a motiue were an efficient Cause your Argument That it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves because the efficient cause is is alwayes extrinsecall to the effect is of no moment For no man ever dreamed that the motiue or formall Object of Faith is of the intrinsecall essence of the act therof as Genus and Differentia are intrinsecall to the Species or Materia and Forma are intrinsecall Composito physico but that the act takes its essence from the formall Motiue or object and essentially is or includes a Referēce to it as every creature essentially hath a Relation to God who is the Prime and supreme efficient cause of all things and consequently as you say extrinsecall to them For this cause C Ma saied not that the Motiue to belieue is the essence of Faith but that the essence or nature of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes Which words signify a difference not an identity seing a thing is not saied to take from itself but to be its owne Essence Do not yourselfe say that the Essence of all Habits is taken from their Act and from their Object And yet I suppose you will not grant that the Act and Object are of the Essence of Habits as intrinsecall to them Especially seing naturall Habits are essiciently produced by Acts and Acts by Habits even supernaturall Acts as by their efficient causes And therfore according to your words are always extrinsecall to the effect And so you answer and confute your owne selfe 26. You doubt what Cha ma did meane by these words Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects But his meaning is cleare that Gods Revelation is the same whether it be applyed to Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and can no more be disbelieved in one kind of these Objects than in another it being no lesse impossible that the Supreme Verity and Veracity can testify a falshood in
be infallible only in Fundamentall Points if she erre not in such Points she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands seing he exacts no more than that which may bring her to salvation and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary men are bound to doe more than is necessary and so more shall be necessary than is necessary because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe 30. You say to Ch. Ma The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing betweene Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility But in this you speake either against your owne conscience or against manifest truth For if you say the meaning of Cha. ma. to be that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters your Conscience cannot but tell you that He could haue no such meaning as if because I am actually certaine what I am doing at this instant I must therfore be infallible and know certainly what every one is doing in the Indyes But if you meane that it is an errour in Ch Ma to say that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing he must be infallible both in that ād all other for which he hath the same or like grounds to make him certaine then you erre against manifest truth it being evident that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground to belieue a thing it is impossible that I should erre in any other for which I also evidētly see that I haue the same certaine ground This is our case If I be actually certaine by evidence of Scripture of the truth of one thing I am certaine that I cannot erre in any other Point for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture as he who actually assents to a demonstration knowne to be such can neither erre in it nor in any other knowne to haue the like certainty This being supposed your examples proue against yourselfe as I shewed in an other like occasion 31. I haue already particularly and at large answered your N. 27.28.29 In your N. 30 33.34 you impugne Ch Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe as you found them in Him and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader whom therfore I must intreate to peruse the Author himselfe Ch. Ma. N. 13. saith That to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church to Points Fundamentall as namely that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For by this manner of interpreting and limiting words whatsoever is delivered in Scripture concerning the infallibility of the Apostles or of Scripture it selfe may be restrained to infallibility in Fundamentall Points And in this Ch. Ma. hath reason For seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith but Scripture whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture cannot be to you certaine or a Point of Faith Let vs then take these words Matth. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevaile c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church and those other Jo 16. V. 13.14.16 The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which promise Potter saith Pag 153. was made directly and primarily to the Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall The first words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her Potter Pag. 153. limites they shall not prevaile so far as to sever it from the foundation that is that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points Now I beseech you produce some evident Text of Scripture declaring that those words are not to be vnderstood as they sound that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith even in Points not Fundamentall which errours are gates that leade to hell seing they are as you often confesse damnable in themselves and so lead to hell and damnation but with this limitation that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall Produce I say some such evident Text of Scripture and not topicall discourses of your owne In the meane tyme while you are busy about that impossible taske of producing some such Text 32. I will ponder the second place The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which Potter saith is vnderstood of the Apostles and of the vniversall Church but so as being referred to the Apostles it signifyes all truths Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points which is a harder explanation than that of the former words out of S. Matthew The gates of hell c. because you are engaged to alledge some evident Text of Scripture to proue that the very selfsame as I may saie indivisible Text which is acknowledged to speake both of the Apostles and of the Church must be forced and as it were racked to speake one thing of the Apostles and another of the Church All truth for the Apostles not all but only Fundamentall truth for the Church Bring I say some such evident Text of Scripture But it seemes you did easily perceiue that no such place could be pretended and therfore in stead of Scripture or the Word of God you offer only your owne conceits discourses and seeming congruences which are far beneath that certainty which is required for an act of divine Faith There is not say you N. 30. the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour 33. Answer I haue often sayd that in matters knowne by revelation only and depending on the free will or decree of Almighty God we are not to proue by humane reason what he hath decreed Protestants grant that both the Apostles and the Church are infallible for Fundamentall Points If then one should make vse of your reason and say There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points as for the Apostles For if the Church fall into such errours it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour What would you answer Would you grant that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points as there is for the Apostles That were to deny the
were not the Apostles an aggregation of men of which every one had freewill and was subject to passions and errour if they had beene left to themselves And therfore by your Divinity it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility which the Holy Ghost did offer to them I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme But is the Church indeed nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to paâ—sions and errour Hath she not a promise of divine assistance even according to Protestants against all Fundamentall errours which surely is more than to be nothing else than an aggregation of men subject to passions and errours even Fundamentall And as for freewill I aske whether that be taken away by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points or no. If not then freewill may well consist with infallibility If it be taken away then what absurdity is it to say that it is takeÌ„ away by infallibility in Points not FudameÌ„tall In aword whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles for all Points and in the Church for Fundamentall articles the same will serue to confute your owne Objection and shew that you contradict your owne doctrine and the Doctrine of Protestants yea of all Christians who belieue the Apostles to be infallible But of this I haue spoken hertofore more than once and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned that by Potters manner of interpreting those texts of Scripture which speake of the stability and infallibility of the Church and limiting it to Points Fundamentall he may affirme that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe Points Fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is divinely inspired Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer that Scripture is inspired only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice but only say that the Scripture saith All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end But all this is not to the purpose to shew by what Law Rule Priviledge or evident Text of Scripture you take vpon you to restraine generall Promises made for the Church to Points Fundamentall and not limite those words All Scripture is divinely inspired to the same Fundamentall Points For this you neither doe nor are able to answer but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text All Scripture is divinely inspired Nay beside this you do not shew by what authority you do not only restraine the Praedicatum divinitus inspirata but also the subjectum togeather with the signe all All Scripture which not only may but in your doctrine must be limited in a strange manner seing you teach that some Part of Scripture is infallible neither in Fundamentall nor vnfundamentall Points For here N. 32. you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelation And so it will not be vniversally true for any kind of Points that All Scripture is divinely inspired How then will you proue by these words that Scripture is infallible in all Points if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition which is Scripture to certaine Parts of Scripture and that indeed the Praedicatum divinely inspired may be limited to Fundamentall Points vpon as good ground as you limite the generall promises ef God and words of Scripture which concerne the infallibility of the Church 39. But N. 33. you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them and to proue this sequele you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme But I haue shewd that the Apostles may haue infallibility in a more high absolute and independent manner than the Church although the Churches infallibility reach to Points not Fundamentall as Protestants will not deny that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points in a more high manner than the Church hath though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles Yea if you will haue the Doctour speake properly to say the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church must suppose that the Church hath that guidance and consequently as you inferr infallibility though not in so high a manner as the Apostles I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned N. 13. and judge whether he speakes not with all reason and proves what he saith in this behalfe and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise and teach notwithstanding his owne confession that what was promised to the Apostles is verifyed also in the vniversall Church that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall I can only favour him and you so far as to tell you he contradicts himselfe 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary Charity Maintayned N. 13. spoke truth in affirming that Potter Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points For though the Doctor name the Church when he saieth Pag 152. that there are many millions of truths in Nature and History whereof the Church is ignorant and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome where with the Church is not acquainted yet his reasons either proue nothing or els must comprise the Apostles no less than the Church as Charity Maintayned expressly observes Pag 93. though I grant that some of the Doctors words agree only to the Church which is nothing against Charity Maintayned that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the c at which you carp But let the Doctour say and meane what he best pleases sure I am that neither he nor you will ever be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that the foresayd or other generall promises of infallibility extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles and to Fundamentall Articles only for the Church And this is the maine businesse in hand Though in the meane tyme I must not omit to say that your Syllogisme is very captious and deceitfull which is He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls But Dr Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner Therfore he limits not the Apostles
infallibility to Fundamentalls I say the Major of this Syllogisme on which all depends is deceitfull For though he that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls by only and precisely granting the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribing to the Apostles the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner yet he may doe it by some other way and in particular by the meanes of which now we speake that is by restraining the selfe same words of Scripture which without distinction speak of the Apostles and the Church to Fundamentall Points in respect of the Church and not in order to the Apostles and this voluntarily without proofe from any other evident Text of Scripture which yet in the Grounds of Protestants were necessary in this case As also by proving the fallibility of the Church by Arguments which must involue the Apostles no lesse than the Church as even now I haue proved Howsoever that you are not a faithfull interpreter of Dr Potter appeares by your saying He out of curtesy grants you that those words the Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with you for ever though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles yet in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense they may be vnderstood of the Church For where doth Dr Potter say that these words agree to the Church in a conditionall sense Which conditionall sense you interpret N. 34. to singify if the Church adhere to the direction of the Apostles and so far as she doth adhere to it which overthrowes the doctrine of Potter and other Protestants that the Church is absolutely infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentall Points in which yet she might erre if the promise of our Saviour were only conditionall and it would giue no more to the Church than to any private person who is sure not to erre not only in Fundamentall but even in vnfundamentall Points as far as he adheres to the direction of the Apostles And by this reflection the difficulty against Dr Potter and you growes to be greater how the same words of Scripture are vnderstood both of the Apostles and of the Church absolutely for Points Fundamentall and only conditionally for the Church in Points not Fundamentall And how will you be able to proue this various acception of the same words in order to the same Church and not only in respect of the Apostles and the Church by any other evident Text of Scripture You say to Cha Ma Do you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Doctour sayes which yet I know he never intended no more was promised in this place therfore he sayes no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 41. Answer If the Doctour spoke beyond or contrary to what he intended I cannot wonder since whosoever defends a bad cause is subject to write contradictions which yet men intend no to doe You say there may be other places besides this I answer It is neither in your nor in any mans power to alledg any place which may not be interpreted and restrayned as you limit this of which we speake Certainly the Doctour being to proue the absolute infallibility of the Apostles was much to blame for alledging ineffectuall Texts if He could haue found better Indeed I find in his Pag 152. these words That other promise of Christs being with his Matth 28.20 vnto the end of the world is properly meant as some Ancients truly giue the sense of his comfortable ayde and assistance supporting the weaknesse of his Apostles and their Successours in their Ministery or preaching of Christ But it may well be also applyed as it is by others (a) 5. Leo Scrm 10 de Nativ Cap 5. to the Church vniversall Which is ever in such manner assisted by the good Spirit that it never totally falls from Christ But as in the other Texts so in this the Question returnes to be asked by what evident place of Scripture can you or He proue that this Text speakes of an vniversall Assistance for the Apostles and only a limited direction for the Church seeing Potter grants that it may well be also applyed as it is by others to the Church vniversall You could say N. 30. Shew where it is written that all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end And much more may we say to you Shew some evidenr Text of Scripture that the Apostles are infallible in all Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall the Church only in Fundamentalls or that any Text of Scripture makes any such distinction I say much more may we say Shew c. Because the truth Authority and infallibility of the Church is proved independently of Scripture as the infallibility of the Apostles was proved before any Scripture of the New Testament was written But you who hold that we can belieue nothing as a matter of Faith vnlesse it be evidently set downe in Scripture are obliged either to proue the difference of infallibility in the Apostles and the Church by some evident Text of Scripture or els you cannot be assured of it as a thing revealed by God You see how hard you were pressed and therfore were forced to giue this noble answer That Dr. Potter out of courtesy grants vs that those words The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense may be vnderstood of the Church But I haue shewed that you misalledge the Doctour who sayes expressly that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles and is verifyed in the Church vniversall Now I aske whether or no it be true that this promise is verifyed in the Church If it be true that is if God hath revealed it to be so one would thinke it were no point of ceremony or courtesy but a matter of necessity to acknowledge so much It seemes you thinke the Doctour was of your disposition who Pag 69. N. 47. say to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose But I goe on and say if it be not true nor revealed that those words are verifyed of the Church how durst Potter affirme that they were verifyed of Her Is it lawfull to add to the old and coyne new Revelations Doth not Potter say Pag 222. to add to it he speakes of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it 42. You say The Apostles must be ledd into all such truths as was requisite to make them the
Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to
yourself who say heere N. 33. If we once suppose they the Apostles may haue erred in some things of this nature in things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in and what they haue not Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which heere you expressly suppose it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing Which supposed that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true how can you say that God both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he aid assist them farther Seing vpon that supposition the Scripture may be false and recount works never wrought and so it is consequent that we can haue no assurance by his written word of any farther assistance that God gaue them if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which is the contradictory to your assertion and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words and doctrine Nay you could not be sure that the Apostles had infallibility even for Fundamentall Points if once it be supposed that they and consequently their writings were subject to errour in any thing So farr from truth is your saying we could haue assurance of farther assistance Your N. 35.36 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered heretofore 48. I wish you had in your N. 37. set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned whereby he proves N. 15. that according to the grounds of Protestants it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only as they limit to such Points the infallibility of the Church and accordingly interpret Scriptures speaking thereof The summe of his Discourse is this Put together these Doctrines That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such Points that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall For seing all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall which Protestants cannot know except by Scripture which alone in their grounds containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe and therefore knowing by Scripture what Points in particular be Fundamentall as N. 40. you say expressly men may learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points by this Argument All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility this is a Fundamentall Point therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh is only your owne The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these are so For say you every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But you should correct your Syllogisme thus All that is necessary the Scripture delivers with infallibility but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall is necessary therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility Besides you say If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things Now both you and Potter affirme that there is an vniversall Tradition that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points and consequently that in vertue of such a Tradition men may belieue all Fundamentall Points without dependance or knowledg of Scripture as also for vniversall Tradition you belieue Scripture itself Heare your owne words Pag 198. N. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the Principles of Faith I ground it not vpon scripture Therefore according to your owne grounds Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things And you did not well to conceale this Argument taken from the Creed which was expressly vrged by Ch Ma in that very N. 15. which you answer By what I haue saied it appeares that in the grounds of Protestants the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation the vniversall truth of Scripture as you say but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall as I haue declared So we must conclude that the Argument of Ch Ma stands good that if you limit the infallibility of the Church you may vpon the same ground limit the infallibility of the Apostles and their writings namely the Holy Scripture 49. Your N. 39. goes vpon a meere equivocation or a voluntary mistake you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied N. 16. that no Protestant can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundamētall because they belieue that in such points she may erre which sequele is very true and cleare For how can I belieue with assurance an Authority believed to be fallible If she alledg some evident Reason Scripture c I belieue her no more than I would belieue any child Turk or Jewe and so I attribute nothing to her authority nor can be saied to belieue her Thus you say N. 36. We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes Your instances are against yourself For if the divell proue that there is a God or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion I neither belieue the divell who I knowe was a Lier from the beginning nor the Geometritian whom I knowe to be fallible but I assent for the Reason which they giue by whomesoever it had bene given and therfore you speak a contradictory in saying N. 38. Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves either by Scripturs or vniversall Tradition This I say implies a contradiction to belieue one because he proves seing the formall object or Motiue of Beliefe is the Authority of the speaker and not the Reason which he gives which may produce assents of diverse kinds according to the diversity of Reasons as Demonstration Scripture c which may cause an infallible assent not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church if it were fallible 50. In your N. 39. First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her and then you
be sure that they attaine the true sense of Scripture vnless they first know what points in particular be Fundamentall because in other they may erte as they say the Church may Besides it hath bene shewed that in the Principles of Protestants it cannot be convinced that Scripture is infallible except only in fundamentall Points and so men cannot rely on Scripture vnless first they be sure what points be Fundamentall Neither is there the same reason for vnderstanding not the bare words but the sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost as there is for vnderstanding som plain place in Aristotle or conceyving some evident naturall truths which are connaturall to humane reason and are not capable of different senses as the words of Scripture are Which may be proved even by the Examples which you bring as evident as I haue shewed hertofore that they are not so Neither can any Protestants learne them from Scripture alone with such certainty as is necessary to an Act of Faith which according to all good Christians must be infallible and therfore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you alledg as evident but your enough is not enough for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith And therfore Charity Maintayned did you no wrong at all and much less a palpable injury as you speak in saying you cannot with certainty learne of Scripture fundamentall Points of Faith which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell and yet it is evident that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning as I haue demonstrated about these sentences God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him that there is no salvation but by Faith in Christ That by Repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body Which are the Instances which here you giue as Truths both Fundamentall and evident 63. Your N. 51. hath bene answered in severall occasions And all that you say N. 52. is directly nothing to the purpose but passes from objects considered in themselves wherof Protestants confess some to be Fundamentall others not to accidentall circumstances as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamentall points or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them but only in accidentall circumstances of ignorance repentance and the like But of this I haue spoken hertofore as also I haue confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients c which therfore I think needless to repeete 64. Your N. 53. I haue answered in diverse places Your N. 54. is nothing but a long digression to which the particular Answer would require a whole Booke or volume directly against the scope of this Work which is only to treate in generall of the Church and Scripture and you know very well that Catholik Writers haue fully answered all your Demands as also you know how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants abovt Scripture which to them is the only rule of Faith if I had a mynd to digrees Your N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65 haue bene answered at large 95. I desire the Reader to peruse the N. 21. of Charity Maintayned and he will finde that you make an argument as his which is nothing like his discourse He saieth not as you N. 66. cited him in these words We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things Therfore we may not depart fram it in any thing which you call an Argument à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid The Argument of Ch. Ma. is Dr. Potter teacheth Pag 75. That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church could erre in any points of Faith they may and must forsake her in those and if such errours should fall out to be concerning the Churches Lyturgie Sacraments c. they must leaue her externall Communion which being essentiall to the Church they must divide themselves from her in that which isessentiall to make one a member of the same Church which I hope is more than to argue ad dictum secundum quid For what greater separation can there be from the Church than in that which is essentiall to make one be vnited to her Your saying that a man may leaue the vice of his friend or brother and yet not leaue his friend or brother is impertinent seing vices are not essentiall to men as externall Communion is to make one a member of the Church 66. You object what Dr. Potter saieth of the Catholique Church P. 75. he extends presently after to euery true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any ertour and call this a demonstration too 67. Answer If the Doctour will not contradict himself according to his judgment the Catholique Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth necessary to salvation as a particular Church may and therefore this may but that can never be forsaken or if he will affirme that no particular Church can be forsaken he must say that no such Church can erre in any point necessary to salvation For if she did so erre her Communion must be forsaken and I haue shewed externall Communion to be essentiall to the members of the Church Whereby is answered your N. 67. where you grant that we may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himselfe Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church who disagree from Her in profession of Faith and divide themselves from her externall Communion you must grant that they can no more doe so than they can divide themselves from Christ I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you say to Ch Ma In other places you confes his doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in Points not fundamentall which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 68. Your manner of alledging the words of Charity Maintayned in your N. 68. gives me still occasion to wish you had alledged them as you found them You make Charity Maintayned speak thus Dr. Potter either contradicts himself or els must grant the Church infallible because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre And then you say with your vsuall modesty This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intriate nothing I confess that reading the words which you impute to Charity Maintayned I found difficulty to penetrate the force of his Argument But the words of Charity Main are these If saith Dr. Potter we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could
appeares out of S. Matth. Cap. 28. where some things belong to the Apostles only as going into Galilee c. and other to the Church in them or to them in the Church as beside Teaching and Baptizing N. 19. Behold I am with you all dayes even to the consummation of the world which signifyes that he would be with them in their Successours who were to continue for all Ages after the death of the Apostles with whom he could not be present in themselves to the consummation of the world who were not to liue to the worlds end as you say heere Did he or could he haue saied to your Church which then was not extant I haue many things to say vnto you but you cannot beare them now So we may apply the like words Did he or could he say to his Apostles I will be with you to the worlds end when they were not to be extant But the truth is when our Saviour spoke to his Apostles our Church was then extant in the Apostles and the Apostles were to liue to the worlds end in their successours and so our Saviours promise is fulfilled of being alwaies with the Apostles in their Successours 81. You object to Charity Maintayned that In the very text by him alledged there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to For there it is saied the Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth but also will shew you things to come But this is answered by what hath bene saied already Though it were granted that some thing was promised to the Apostles alone it doth not follow that the whole promise was so restrained as I haue shewed aboue Besides Christian Faith teaches vs many things to come as the comming of Antichrist the generall judgement and signes precedent to it The Resurrection of the dead The eternall punishment of the wicked and reward of the just c For this cause S. Anselm apud Cornelium a Lapide in 4. Ephes N. 11. teaches that by Prophets in that Text are vnderstood interpreters of Scriptures because per eas futura justorum gaudia malorumque supplicia hominibus praenunciant If by shewing things to come you vnderstand the Gift of Prophecy Do you hold it as certaine that every one of the Apostles had that Gift as that they were infallible in matters of Faith Are you certaine that every Apostle could haue written the Apocalyps of S. John So that indeed if you will needs haue a full parity between being led into all Truth and knowing of things to come you will be found not to be certaine that the Apostles were infallible in matters of Faith Morover it is to be observed that to be infallible was essentiall to the office of Apostolate or teaching the Church as the Gift of Prophecy is accidentall and was communicated to others as we read in the Acts as also it was accidentall to speak all toungs to haue bene called immediatly by our Saviour as S. Matthias was not and yet was an Apostle to haue inflicted Censure of Excommunication with some visible punishment and the like extraordinary ornaments or Priviledgs And therfore no wonder if infallibility in matters of Faith be communicated to the Church though the knowledg of things to come were not though indeed de facto God hath and ever will communicate the Gift of Prophecy to his Church as is certaine by the vndoubted Authority of the best writers of all Ages You see now that neither Charity Maintayned nor other Catholique writers cite the saied text by halfes as you affirme N. 72. seing the latter clause of shewing things to come makes nothing against them nor alters the sense of the text as I haue shewed But now good Sr. I beseech you reflect whom you impugne while you would perswade men that Charity Maintayned and generally our writers of controversies when they entreate of this Argument cite this text perpetually by hafes seing Dr. Potter Pag 151. cites this very same place and leaves out those words will shew you things to come for which you accuse vs of citing that sentence by halfes especially if you call to mynd that he brings that text to proue that the Church cannot faile in Fundamentall points which as I saied were no proofe if it were meant of the Apostles only as you would proue it was by the words omitted by the Doctor no less than by C Ma he will shew you things to come To all which I add that seing you say that text concerned the Apostles only it must signify an infallibility both in Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points and therfore seing the Doctor confesses it to be verifyed in the vniversall Church she must be infallible in all Points But it is no wonder that you contradict your Client Potter since you so perpetually contradict yourself 82. In your N. 71. you seeke to divert me to the controversyes about publique service in an vnknowne tongue and communion vnder both kinds But you know Catholique Writers haue answered all that can be objected against vs in these two questoins and whatsoever you can alledg if it were of any moment as it cannot be it could only shew that Scripture even in that which to you seemes so plain is indeed obscure seing so many learned holy and laborious men see no such evidence as you pretend yea they are certaine that your pretended cleare interpretation is an Heresie Yet because you alledge against vs without any cause a greeke word edoke I must not omitt to tell you with truth that Protestants in this Point of the Sacrament shamefully falsify the Greeke Text 1. Cor. 11. V. 27. saying in their Translation Whosoever shall eate this bread and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord wheras the Greeke word signifyes vel or and so you should say Whosoever shall eate this bread Or drinke the cup c. which fraud you vse to proue the necessity of Communion in both kindes 83. Your N. 73.74 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered Only I may note that you put some Objection in a different letter which in Cha. Ma. I find not The Promise that the Holy Ghost was to remaine with the Apostles for ever was not restrained to yet is verifyed in them because they remaine for ever in their successours as you will say they remaine in their Writings Your friged interpretation of ever that is for the time of their lives is confuted by what hath bene cited out of S. Matthew Chap. 28.20 I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world And surely the end of the world signifyes a larger extent than the end of their lives Nay you are not content with limiting all Promises made to them to the tearme of their life but it seemes you make it not absolute but only conditionall even for that short tyme. For you say The spirit would abide
Charity Maintayned and the Doctor cite are absolute And Matth 28. V. 20. behold which particle holy Scripture is wont to vse when it speaks of some great or strang thing I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world Which wordsare both absolutely without any condition and cannot be restrayned to the lives of the Apostles and therfore dato non concesso that the Promise had bene made to the Apostles vpon condition of Loving God it does not follow that the same condition must be required in every one of their successours but for the merit of the Apostles it may be communicated to others in whom the Apostles liue and so what is granted to them is a reward bestowed vpon the Apostles as heroicall acts of particular men are rewarded both in themselves and in their posterity for their sake though their successors be destitute of that worth and desert without which condition theyr first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity or Prerogatiue which afterward is derived to their posterity absolutely and without any such condition as was required in the beginning Morover though it were granted that keeping the commandements were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility yet you will never be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that it is necessary in respect of every particular person it being sufficient that it be veryfied of the Church Catholique of which even Dr. Potter Pag 10. saieth that it is not improbable only but meerely impossible the Catholique Church should be without Charity Our blessed Saviour before he encharged the care of his Church vpon S. Peter exacted of him a triple profession of loue and will you therfore haue none to be lawfull Pastors except such as loue God aboue all things and are in state of Grace and free from deadly sinne Haue you a mynd to fetch from Hell the condemned and seditious heresy of Wicliffe That If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders consecrate or Baptize As authority and Jurisdiction are not of that nature of things which require Charity and the State of Grace so neither is infallibility no more than working of Miracles Gift of tongues and the like which by Divines are called Gratiae gratis datae and therfore you cannot imagine with any reason that the Holy Ghost cannot be given for some Effects to any who is not in state of Grace and I hope you will at least pretend to be more certaine that Scripture is of infallible Authority than that every Canonicall Writer did loue God and keep the commandements when they wrote Scripture yea of some Bookes of Scripture some call in Question who were the writers of them I will not heere stay to put you in minde that it is common among Protestants to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandements must they therfore deny the infallibility of the Apostles They are so farre from doing so that they hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls notwithstanding the impossibility in their opinion of keeping the commandements 85. Now I hope it appeares that your two Syllogismes goe vpon a false ground that the promise made to the Apostles is conditionall and so proue nothing As also that you breath too much gall and vanity in saying that Charity Maintayned and generally all our Writers of Controversy by whom this Text is vrged with a bold Sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty perpetually cut of the head and foot the beginning and end of it For I suppose you will not hold Dr. Potter for a Writer of Controversy against Protestants and yet he cites this Text and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts cutting of not only the head ād foot but also the breast and middle thereof therby shewing his judgment that the other words which you cite out of the precedent 15. and the following 17. verse make nothing to that purpose for which that Text is produced that is the infallibility of the Apostles and Church and that you by citing those different verses without distinction not only joyne head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together which is no less monstrous than to cutt them of but doe indeed vtterly destroy and depriue it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles from whom this very Text must receiue all the certainty it can haue Do not I maintayne the most perfect kind of Charity in defending my adversary the Doctor in this occasion of being forsaken and even impugned by whom alone he hoped to be relieved And indeed Dr. Potter only and not Charity Maintayned stands in need of defence seing he alledged those texts which the Doctor cites only to shew in deeds that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret itself whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to proue the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamentall Points which is the common tenet of Protestants and yet you overthrow it by making our Saviours Promise not absolute but depēding vpon a volūtary vncertaine condition 86. In your N. 76. you endeavour divers wayes to elude the Argument which is wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church taken out of S. Paul 1. Tim 3.15 where the Church is saied to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth 87. First you say Charity Maintayned is somewhat too bold with S. Paul For it is neither impossible nor improbable these words the Pillar and ground of truth may haue reference not to the Church but to Timothy But this exposition is not only against Calvin and other Protestants who expresly refer those words to the Church but also it cannot well agree with the Greek And even the Protestant English Translation reades it as we doe for as much as belongs to our present purpose Howesoever it appeares by this very example how hard and impossible it is to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone which every one will find meanes to interpret for his best advantage though it be not donne without violence to the Text. Neither is it heterogeneous as you argue that S. Paul having called the Church a House should call it presently a Pillar For you should consider that he calls it a House and Pillar in different respects A House of God the Pillar not of God but of Truth You will not deny that the Primitiue Apostolicall Church was vniversally infallible and so was both the House of God and Pillar of Truth and therefore it is nothing absonous or heterogeneous that the metaphor of a House and of a Pillar be applyed to the same thing Cornelius à Lapide heere saieth Alludit Apostolus ad Bethel de qua viso ibi Domino dixit Jacob Genes 28. verè non est hic aliud nisi Domus Dei porta Caeli If therefore in that place of Genesis to which the Apostle alludes the same is saied to be a House and a Gate in diverse respects a
that were not enough to shew that it must haue it in this which is very true For to be affirmed in Scripture but once is as much as to be affirmed a mill yon of tymes and seing you can giue no certaine Rule whether I must vnderstand that one place by those many or contrarily the greater number by that one it appeares even by this how hard a thing it is to know the true sense of Scripture without a Living Guide which was the end for which Charity Maintayned alledged that Text Ephes 4. and the other places of which we haue spoken all which though indeed they be cleare enough for the infallibility of the Church yet we see what evasions you seek to the contrary yea and pretend that your interpretation is evidently true and the interpretation both of Protestants and Catholiques manifestly false 101. The rest of N. 80. about the sufficiency of Scripture alone hath bene confuted in divers occasions Your instance that if Galen Euclid c. had writ compleat bodies of the sciences they professed perspicuously and by Divine inspiration we would then hau granted that their works had beene sufficient to keep vs from errour and from dissention in these matters is but a begging of the Question that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and because exceptio firmat contrariam regulam and that Scripture is not the totall Rule of Faith we must retort your argument against yourself and say that by Scripture which alone is not a compleat comprehension of all necessary points we cannot be kept from errour and dissention in matters of Faith Besides those Authors might preserue vs from errour and dissention in vertue of Demonstrations evident to naturall Reason wherein all men agree But the Objects of Faith are obscure and Scripture not able to interpret itself though it were supposed to containe all matters of Faith as it doth not and therefore a Living interpreter is necessary besides the written word 102 Your N. 81. containes nothing but Passion with the quintessence of Socinianisme seing you expresly profess that you are willing to leaue all men to their liberty and therfore needs no answer except what hath bene given hertofore You do but cavill at this saying of Charity Maintayned all which words or Texts wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church seeme clearly enough to proue that the Church is vniversally infallible as if it had indeed seemed to him that those Texts did only seeme to proue whereas it is evident and so He expresly declared himself he saied so because he did not bring them for proofes but only to shew how hard and impossible it is to determine matters by Scripture alone seing that which seemes to one to be the plaine meaning of Gods Word seemes not so to an other though indeed the saied Texts do effectually proue the necessity of an infallible living Guide But as you began vpon a direct mistake to examine the Texts which Charity Maintayned alledged so it was very congruous you should conclude with the like errour 103. I might omitt the following Numbers as contayning no reall difficulty which hath not bene cleared hertofore Yet I will note some passages to prevent all suspicion of guiltiness tergiversation or artificiall dissimulation of what I could not answer Only I intreate the Reader to reade the words of Charity Maintayned in himself if he chance to find any difficulty In your N. 84. you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned which are N. 23. Scripture is to be vnderstood literally where you leaue of but Charity Maintayned adds as it sounds and you cannot deny but according to the sound of the letter or words our interpretation of our Saviours Promises without any limitation is more agreable to the sound of the words which express or sound no restraint than that of Potter which restraines them to fundamentall points And therefore your telling vs that to literall is not opposed Restrayned buâ— Figuratiue is impertinent seing Charity Maintayned expresly spoke only of what did most sute with the sound of the letter which whosoever restraines without evident necessity doth as ill or worse than if he reduced it to a figuratiue sense yea a reality and a Figure may stand together as limited and vnlimited cannot 104. I say to your N. 87. that you and Dr Potter do not agree about those Texts concerning the infallibility of the Church as I haue shewed and in divers other matters which is a signe you haue no certaine cleare Rule or meanes for interpreting Scripture as also appeares by the innumerable other disagreements of Protestants which experience noe man will deny to be a good proofe But say you If there be no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst we are left to ourselves then it is impossible that Protestants should agree in your fense of them that the Chureh is vniversally infallible Answer You cannot as long as you are left to yourselves be assured with an infallible Act of Faith what the meaning of those Texts is by help only of those Meanes which Protestants prescribe for that purpose seing they cannot exceed probability as Protestants confess whereas we rely vpon other infallible meanes as Tradition and Authority of the Church which we proue to be infallible independently of Scripture which you also profess to receiue from the Church and then we may find in Scripture Texts which being interpreted by the true Church may beare witness to particulars concerning her for there can be no better reason to belieue one than a belief that he is infallible as you will not deny but that if once we belieue Scripture to be the word of God we may proue by it felf truths concerning itself as that it is divinely inspired that it is profitable to teach to correct c. as also you must grant that the Apostolicall primitiue Church which you hold to be infallible could beare witness to it self 105. You vrge Charity Maintayned with this Demand Why then saied you of the selfe same Texts but in the Pags next before these words seeme cleerely enough to proue that the Church is vniversally infallible A sirange forgeâ—fulness that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seeme cleerely enough to proue such a conclusion true and yet that three indifferent men should haue no possible meanes while they follow their owne reason to agree inche truth of this conclusion 106. Answer is it not a strang thing that you should not distinguish betwixt videri and videre seeming and seeing seeming doth not signify certainty or evidence as seeing doth and he who sees the sunne shine at midday will not say that it seemes cleare enough that the Sunne shines but his very Act of seeing makes it certaine and evident to him that he sees And if this be not true that Charity Maintayned did not absolutely affirme but only saied it seemes cleare enough c. Why
containes aâ— necessary Points of meere belief Now whosoever ponders those Premisses with attention will see that your multitude and Aggregation of Syllogismes haue only this that they are more difficult to be vnderstood than answered 10. Your N. 24. is answered by only reading the whole N. 9. of Ch Ma you cite it N. 10. For it will be found that you are grounded only vpon your falsification of his words when you object No proposition is implied in any other which is not deducible from it But where doth Ch Ma say the contrary He expressly speaks N. 9. of points which by evident and necessary consequence may be deduced from Articles both clearly and particularly contained in the Creed and I hope you will not say that every proposition implied in an other is deducible from it by evident and necessary consequence 11. You vrge The Article of the Catholique Church wherin you will haue all implied implies nothing to any purpose of yours vnless out of meere favour we will grant the sense of it to be that the Church is infallible and that yours is the Church Answer Independently of the Creed we proue the infallibility of the Church and we must not gather it at the first from the meaning of this Article but we learne the sense of this Article from the Church pre-believed to be infallible And seing you profess to receiue the Creed and even Scripture from the Tradition of the Church you cannot be certaine that the contents therof are true vnless first you belieue the Church to be infallible Besides by the Church all ChristiaÌ„s vnderstaÌ„d a Congregation of Faithfull people capable of salvation and yourself teach that every errour in Faith vnrepented brings damnation How then can it be saied that the whole vniversall Church can erre in Faith But you doe very inopportunely talk whether Ours be the Church seing we speak only of the Church in generall abstracting for the present from that other Question though it be euident that if there were any true Church which delivered to Christians the Scripture and Creed when Luther appeared it must be the Roman and such as agreed with her 12. You goe forward and say to Charity Maintayned The Apostles intention was by your owne confession particularly to deliuer in the Creed such Articles of belief as were fittest for those tymes Now to deliver particularly and to deliver only implicitely to be delivered particularly in the Creed and only to be reduâ—â—ble to it I suppose are repugnances hardly reconciliable Answer I know not well what nor whom you can pretend to impugne For Ch Ma never saied that there are no Truths particularly expresed in the Creed yea N. 5. and 8. he named divers in particular expreseb in it but he only affirmed that all are not so expressed in partilular but some implicitely others reductiuè as he declares in those two Numbers Now that some things should be delivered particularly and other some only implicitely and other only reductively can be no irreconciliable repugnance seing in all good Logick repugnance must be in order to the same thing as it is no repugnance that one writer should procede honestly and speak to the purpose and an other doe quite the contrary 13. For answer to your N. 25.26.27.28.29 I haue attentively considered and compared with my observations all the Authorityes or sentences which you alledg out of Catholique Writers and find them to containe no difficulty not precluded and answered by those observations And who knowes not that all Catholiques belieue that all declarations of Generall Councells concerning the Creed and all other points of Faith are necessarily to be belieued to say nothing of the other observations But I must be still intreating the Reader to reade in Charity Maintayned his N. 10.11.12.13.14.15 which you confusedly huddle vp togeather 14. In your N. 30. you grant as much as can be desired by vs to proue that to alledg the Creeds containing all necessary and Fundamentall points is impertinent to make either both Catholiques and Protestants or all Protestants capable of salvation though they belieue the Creed yet differ in other revealed Truths Thus you write in order to the N. 10. of Char Ma Neither is there any discord betweene this Assertion of your doctors and their holding themselves obliged to believe all the Points which the Councell of Trent defines For Protestants and Papists may both hold that all points of belief necessary to be knowen and believed are summed vp in the Creed And yet both the one and the other think themselves bound to belieue whatsoever other points they either know or belieue to be revealed by God For the Articles which are necessary to be knowen that they are revealed by God may be very few and yet those which are necessary to be believed when they are revealed and knowen to be so may be very many These words shew that Prorestants do but delude poore soules when they tell them that all Protestants haue the substance of Faith because they belieue the Creed when in the meane tyme they disagree in other points revealed by God and yourself say els where that as things now stand there is the like necessity to belieue all points contained in Scripture as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall And therfore it can litle availe Protestants to agree in the Creed which yet they do not if we regard the sense and not the meere sound of the words while they disagree in so many other points belonging to Faith The Truth is This grant and declaration of yours might well haue freed me from answering all the rest which you haue in this Chapter and whatsoever els you proue or disproue cannot be against the substance of that which Charity Maintayned affirmed in his fourth Chapter which treates this Question about the Creed 15. You pretend in your N. 31. to answer the N. 11. of Charity Maintayned but you omitt his discourse about the Decalogue of the commandements to shew a simili or paritate that it is not necessary that the Creed coÌ„taine all necessary points seing what is not expressed in it may be knowen by other meanes It will not be amiss to set downe the words of Ch Ma which are Who is ignorant that Summaries Epitomees and the like briefe Abstracts are not intended to specify all particulars of that science or subject to which they belong For as the Creed is sayd to containe all points of Faith so the decalogue comprehends all Articles as I may terme them which concerne Charity and good life and yet this cannot be so vnderstood as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty or the eschewing of any vice vnlesse it be expressed in the ten Commandements For to omitt the precepts of receaving Sacraments which belong to practise or manners and yet are not contained in the Decalogue there are many sinnes even against the Law of nature and light of reason which are not contained in the ten Commandements
errour and the same Heaven cannot containe them both wherby your Question why should any errour exclude any from the Churches Communion which will not depriue him of eternall salvation Is clearly inverted and retorted by saying Why should not any errour exclude any man from the Churches communion which will depriue him of eternall salvation The Arguments which you bring in this Number and N. 41.42.43 to proue that every one of the foure Gospells containes all points necessary to be believed haue been confuted at large hertofore 19. To your N. 44. and 45. I answer that Dr. Vshers words are as vniversall as can be whÌ„ he speakes of Propositions which without all controversie are vniversally receaved in the whole Christian world And if you will needs haue his other words the sevrrall professions of Christianity that hath any large spread in any part of the world to be a Limitation of those other which you haue now cited I am content vpon condition that you confesse it to be also a contradiction to those former words of his As for the thing itselfe Cha Ma names places of large extent in which the Antitrinitarians are rife and I feare he might haue added too many in England Holland and other places wher Heresy raignes and even Dr. Porter cites Hooker and Morton teaching that the deniall of our Saviours Divinity is not a Fundamentall heresy destructiue of a true Church neither doth the Doctor disproue them Paulus Ueridicus I grant names the B. Trinity among coinopista not as if Dr. Vsher had affirmed it to be such but as in Truth it is necessary for all or rather indeed he affirmes nothing but only as they say exempligratia by way of supposition which abstracts from the Truth of the thing itselfe For thus you cite his words To consider your coinopista or communiter credenda Articles as you call them vniversally believed by these severall professions of Christianity which haue any large spread in the world These Articles for example may be the vnity of the Godhead the Trinity of Persons the Immortality of the soule c Where you see he speakes only exempli gratia or by a may be according to the Doctrine of Catholiks without regarding whether or no in the opinion of Dr. Vsher the denyall of the Trinity exclude salvation But it is both ridiculous and vnjust in you to call this the greatest objection of Charity Maintayned which he touched only by the way and in order to Dr. Vâ—shers words For concerning the thing itselfe Protestants who deny the infallibility of Gods Church will not I feare hold the denyall of the Trinity to be a fuÌ„dameÌ„tall errour seing so many old heretiques haue denied the Truth of that Article and you with your Socinian brethren doe the same at this day and pretend many texts â—f Scripture for your Heresy If 〈◊〉 had at hand Paulus Ueridiâ—us perhaps I could discover somewhâ—t more against you For I remember he shewes how according to Dr. Vshers discourse and grounds divers Articles of Christian Faith may be cassiered and cast out of the Church and he finds so much matter against the Doctor as it is no wonder if he in his short examination tooke no notice of the contradiction which Charity Maintayned touches as he Charity Maintayned takes not notice of all the advantages or other contradictions which perhaps he might haue found and which Paulus Ueridicus observes but that was not the ayme of Ch Ma in his answer to Potter 20. In your N. 46. you say There is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Which N. 47. you declare or temper in this manner Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe soe I willingly grant But to say it is impossible to be done is against every mans experience and almost as vnreasonable as to doe the thing which is saied to be impossible For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition to perswade themselves vpon slight and triviall grounds that these or these though they seeme contradictions yet indeed are not so and so to belieue them or if the plaine repugnance of them be veiled and disguised a little with some empty vnintelligible non-sense distinction or if it be not exprest but implyed not direct but by consequence so that the parties to whose Faith the propositions are offered are either innocently or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions he that denies it possible must be a meer stranger in the world Thus you after your fashion involuing things in obscurity that one cannot penetrate what you would say but that you may haue an evasion against whatsoever may be obsected As for the thing it selfe There is no doubt but that men may belieue things which in themselves are contradictions wherof we need no other proofe then to shew that it happeneth so to yourselfe if you belieue what you affirme even in this matter wherin I shall demonstrate to be implied plaine contradiction But when men say with one voyce that we cannot assent to contradictions it is to be vnderstood if they be apprehended as such and therfore it might seeme needlesse to spend many words in confutation of this heresie as I may call it against the first principle of Reason Yet because your reasons may perhaps seeme to some to proue more since even in your explication or modification you saie only perhaps and may be of that which all the world holds for certaine and for the ground of all certainty in humane Reason and because if they be well considered they strike at the sublime mysteries of Christian Religion and in regard this is an age of Academiks and Sceptiks who willingly put all things to dispute wherby vnder pretence of freedome in Reason they take liberty against Religion as also to shew how little reason you had to take this vaine occasion of a fond flourish to shew a Socinian wit and lastly because by this occasion I may examine some other points I will both confute your reasons and shew that you contradict yourselfe 21. Only I cannot for beare to reflect how he who resolves Faith into Reason so much extold by him that he relyes theron as Catholiks doe vpon the infallibility of Gods Church or Calvinists vpon the private spirit or on the Grace of God which both Catholiks and Protestants against Pelagius belieue to be necessary for every Act of Divine Faith how I say this man doth now so extenvate Reason that if it indeed were so miserable and foolish as he makes it we might better belieue our dreames than our reason wherby he destroies all that himselfe builds vpon Reason and consequently Faith it selfe which in
vnderstanding or primam apprehensionem and judicium Never the less if you be setled in a resolution to defend that men being out of their right wits may belieue Contradictories I say it imports nothing for our present purpose seing I hope you will not say that the fact of such men can concerne Dr. Vsher to whom Cha Ma objected that some words of his did implie a contradiction Lastly be pleased to reflect that Aristotle speakes of express and knowen Contradictions and yourself confess that it is difficult and men ought not to belieue such and therfore this first Reason of yours proves either too much or nothing at all and so proves nothing at all because it proves too much And I wonder how you say in your N. 46. Pag 215. Though there can be no damnable Heresie vnless it contradict some necessary Truth yet there is no Contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth because there is no Contradiction that the same man at the same tyme should belieue Contradictions Let vs suppose this to be as it is a damnable Heresie Christ is not the Saviour of the world the contradictory is Christ is the Saviour of the world which is a formall contradiction and expressed in termes to which it seeemes by these words you may assent and consequently to express contradictions which yet N. 47. you are forced to moderate But when you say There is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth and add this reason or proofe because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions you must giue me leaue to speak ād say that you vtter plaine non-sense yourself talk of some non-sense distinction in proving that one may belieue contradictions because there is no contradiction that one belieue contradictions which causall supposes that we could not belieue them if it were a contradiction to belieue them and consequently that we cannot belieue contradictions and yet in this very sentence you say There is no contradiction but the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions 24. Your second reason is delivered in these words They which belieue there is no certainty in reason must belieue that contradictions may be true For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason This contradicts Truth therefore it is fals But there be now divers in the world who belieue there is no certainty in reason Therefore there be divers in the world who belieue contradictions may be true 25. Answer 1. Certainly if there be any certainty in Reason it is in this that contradictions cannot be true and seing you hold this not only not certainly true but to be false it is cleare that you are one of those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason and consequently you cannot be certaine even of your owne Assertion that contradictions may be true And so while you draw an Argument from those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason you depriue your owne Assertion of all certainty 2. If once you swallow that absurdity of the truth of contradictoryes when you say This Contradicts truth therefor it is fals the answer might be that it might contradict truth and yet not be fals but true because contradictions may be true And I beseech you tell vs whether you belieue that whatsoever contradicts truth is fals If you say it is not fals you speak absurdly For what is falshood but an errour against truth If you say it must be fals you overthrow your owne Doctrine that contradictions may be true because in contradictions one parte must be opposite to a truth and consequently fals 3. That conceypt that there is no certainty in Reason being fals and injurious to mankind you cannot ground on it any truth except this that it is a very fitt Principle for your absurd Conclusion that contradictoryes may be true and that if you belieue it to be true you are in apernicious errour If you hold it to be fals why do you vrge it against vs this Sceptick doctrine 4. Your Argument proves that one may assent not only to contradictories not perceived to be such but to them expressed in plaine termes because otherwise there would be certainty in this Reason These be express contradictoryes Therefore they cannot both be true Thus still your Reasons either proue nothing at all or against your self 26. Your third Reason is They which do captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions may as well belieue reall contradictions For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant but for their seeming to be so But you do captivate your vnderstandings to the belief of those things which seeme to your vnderstandings irreconciliable contradictions Therefore it is as possible and easy for you to belieue those that indeed are so 27. Answer 1. What is this but to vndermine Christian Religion wherin we submit and captivate our vnderstandings to Mysteryes which to humane reason seeme impossible and for that very cause we are taught to captivate our vnderstanding to the obedience of Christ And now you tell all Christians that by doing so they belieue Contradictions as well as if they believed reall contradictions which Jewes Turks Pagans and all men in their right wits know to be absurd and impossible and you confess to be vnreasonable and very difficult speaking of express contradictions as heere you speak of such since you expressly speak of things which to ones vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions I desire the Reader to looke vpon Chr Ma Chap. 9. concerning this matter 2. Therefor as in other Reasons so in this seing you speak of contradictions expressed in termes you contradict what yourself afterward N. 47. teach 3. The necessity that all Christians acknowledg of submitting our vnderstanding to Faith arises from this that they seeme to containe contradictions which could be no reason requiring the captivating our Reason if they did not suppose that contradictions cannot bettue and therefore this very reason which you bring to proue that men may belieue contradictions must suppose they cannot belieue them For if they could it would cost them litle to belieue that which to them seemed a contradiction 4. You say It is as possible and as easy for vs to belieue those things that indeed are reall contradictions as to belieue those things which to our vnaerstanding seeme contradictions which words suppose that it is both possible and easy for vs to belieue those things which to vs seeme contradictions and yet N. 47. you say it is very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue express contradictions Into how many contradictions do you fall while you treate of conradictions 5. Your Argument scarcely deserves any Answer For who is ignorant that contradiction must involue two sides one affirming the other denying and therefore
that can be objected against vs in that Mystery and you should haue brought as well theyr answers as your owne objections if your intention had bene to declare the Truth and not only to be blasphemous But still you declare more and more that you vndermine Christian Religion it being evident to any who is not ignorant of Phylosophy that whosoever denyes the possibility of Transubstantiation will much more deny other Mysteryes of Christiā Religion as in particular the blessed Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God as shewed concerning the B. Trinity out of Dr. Taylor and by your owne Confession Who can deny that one Body may be in two places or two bodyes in one or accidents remayne without substance or Subject if he belieue that one individuall Essence of God is in three Persons in the B. Trinity and in the Incarnation two complete Natures Divine and humane exist in one Person and a complete substance the Humane Nature of our Saviour Christ not subsist by itself but by the subsistence of the second Person it being no more strang or difficult that an accident should not exist in alio than that a complete substance should not subsistere per se and farre more vnintelligible that one Nature should be in three persons or two natures in one person then that one Body should be in diverse places there being a more strict connection betweene Nature and Hypostasis than betweene a Body and a place But your conclusion of the N. 46. is so patently injurious to Christian Religion that it is intollerable You say to Ch. Ma. If you can not compose the repugnance of points implied in Transubstantiation and that after an intelligible manner then you must giue me leaue to belieue that either you doe not belieue Transubstantiation or els that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstanding to the belief of contradictions And who I pray can vndertake to answer all arguments objected against the Blessed Trinity Incarnation and other sublime mysteryes of Christian Religion and compose all seeming repugnance after an intelligible manner otherwise than by finally captivating our vnderstanding to the obedience of saith And if you will not be content without all be declared in an intelligible manner is it not Hypocrisie in you to say pag 376. N 56. of Scripture Propose me any thing out of this Book and require whether I belieue it or no and seeme it never so incomprhenssible to Human Reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart For seing you belieue Christian Religion only with a probable assent for Humane prudentiall Motives how can Mysteryes seeming incomprehensible and repugnant to human Reason be declared not to be repugnant after an intelligible manner ād why should not a confessedly meere probability yeald to a seeming evidence in your grounds who resolue Faith into Reason only confessedly probable And heere againe I desire you to reflect on your saying That it is no Contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of Contradictions Is not this to say that if it were a contradiction to subjugate our vnderstanding to contradictions we could not doe it And yet you teach that we may belieue contradictions and consequently you should say though it be a contradiction to subjugate our vnderstandings to contradictions yet we may doe it because we may belieue contradictions and so you must either deny that men can belieue contradictions or els confess that the saied same sentence It is no contradiction that men subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of Contradictions destroyes itself as I haue shewed And besides when you say It is no Contradiction that c you must signify that to be a contradiction is to be impossible and that if it were contradiction to belieue contradictions it were impossible to belieue them Seing then every one in his right wits judges it a contradiction that the same thing should be and not be at the same tyme he must judg it impossible and if he judge it impossible he cannot judg it de facto to be so and consequently cannot judg contradictoryes to be true because it is impossible that a thing be and not be for the same tyme as all Contradictoryes say they are Into how many precipices do your subtiltyes cast you and force you to say and vnsay the same thing in the same words 32. Your seventh Reason N. 47. is this That Charity Maintayned cannot in Charity think that Dr. Vsher and Dr. Potter did not belieue what they saied and therfore if theyr words implied a contradiction we must grant that it is not impossible at once to believe contradictions 33. Answer If it be an Act of Charity to belieue that the Doctors believed contradictions it will be Charity in you to belieue that they did it not wittingly which you say no man in his right wits should doe and then your reason procedes only in contradictions not expressed and is answered confuted and retorted against yourself in the same manner as your Fourth Fift and Sixt reasons were 34. Your N. 47. containes a modification of your saying That one may assent to Contradictions but a modification or explication which containes a plaine contradiction as I haue shewed in my answer to your fourth reason And therfore I will say no more of this matter except to mention in a word your saying To belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if we belieue it to be a contradiction c what an expression or repetition is heere When can one belieue a contradiction to be a contradiction if he belieue it not to be such when it is expressed in termes It is it is not you talk also of non-sense Distinctions because you loue darkness and in disputation nothing vexeth Protestants so much as when Catholiques take of the obscurity of their objections with cleare and solid Distinctions wherby they instantly become silenced ministers Lastly N. 46. you grant that perhaps Dr. Vshers words Marke that his words and 〈◊〉 only hee but these his very words did suppose that a man may belieue all Truths necessary to salvation and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie which being once granted Charity Maintayned had reason to say that Dr. Vsher did vtter a contradiction and proved it by this cleare reason That there can be no damnable Heresy vnless it contradict some necessary Truth which cannot happē in one who is supposed to beleeue all necessary truths Now you grāt expressly Pag 215. N. 46 That there can be no damnable Heresy vnless it contradict some necessary Truth And therfore you must grant that it is contradiction to belieue a damnable Heresie and yet belieue all necessary Truths in regard that if he belieue all necessary Truths he must belieue that Truth which is contradictory to that Heresy which also he believes and so should belieue two contradictories at the same time Which belief of at least implied contradictions being supposed it is easy afterwards
to bring one to open contradictions which you confess is very difficult and vnreasonable you should say impossible for a man in his right wits to belieue and so you forsake your two Dr. Vsher and Potter in this Assertion which you say N. 47. the one preached and printed the other reprinted Your second answer is that the latter part of Dr. Vshers words is but a repetition of the former But this answer destroyes the former which yet you do not deny to be good and agreeable to the meaning of the Doctor For if the Second part be a contradiction of the former as according to your first answer it is how can it be only a repetition therof And you tooke not a fitt example out of S. Athanasius his Creed to proue a meere repetition you I say who wickedly hold that Creed which indeed is a Catholique profession of the chiefest Articles of Christian Religion to be but an aggregate of Contradictions And yet that explication of S. Athanasius Neither confounding the Persons c was necessary against some Heresies that grāted a distinction of Persons only quoad nomina ād not in reality For your other vulgar examples to proue that those latter words may be only a repetition of the former you must remember that in matters of Faith all shew or shadow of contradictions or falshood must be carefully avoided as certainly it is a pernicious thing to giue occasion of believing that a damnable Heresie may stand with the belief of all necessary Articles of Faith and so a formall Heretique may be saved and nevertheless you do not deny but that Dr. Vshers words may suppose this Yet Charity Maintayned out of this poyson gathered this wholsome doctrine in the same N. 17. that if one believing all Fundamentall Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable heresies it followes that the fundamentall truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed And so the Creed cannot be saied to containe all Points necessary to be believed which is the maine Point in hand You wonder that Ch. Ma. did nor espie an other contradiction in D. Vshers words like to that which He noted but if that other be a contradiction you say it is of the same nature with that which was observed and so it had bene to multiply things without necessity But enough of this which Ch. Ma. N. 17. professed to note only by the way which yet did either trouble you very much for the difficulty of his argument or else you are willing to take anie occasion of making a vaine shew of your skill in Logick and Metaphysick but with how many contradictions and little credit to yourselfe I hope the Reader hath seene by the confutation of all your Reasons 35. In your number 48.49 you are highly offended with Ch. Ma. as if he had said N. 18. that Dr. Potter patches vp a Religion of men agreeing in some few or one Article of beliefe that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest hold conceipts plainly contradictory which you say is a shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his owne judgment but relates the opinion of others M. Hocker and M. Morton but especially even these men as they are related by Dr. Potter to the constitution of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world but also submission to his Doctrine in minde and will Now I beseech you Syr tell me ingenuously whether the Doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions agree with one consent in the beliefe of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation And so the truths wherin they agree amount to many millions c. 36. Answer First Ch Ma in the said N. 18. doth not ground his Assertion vpon the Doctrine of Hooker and Morton but vpon the principles of Potter and Protestants who hold that men may be members of the same Church if they agree in fundamentall Articles though they should differ in never so many other points and you cannot deny this not only to be true but the very ground for which they hold themselves to be brethren and capable of salvation notwithstanding their differences in matters not fundamentall From whence it followes that although it were granted that Protestants agree in many Points not fundamentall yet this is meerely accidentall and nothing against the Assertion of Ch Ma because if once you suppose them to agree in all fundamentalls and disagree in all other Points they must still be members of one Church For in this mattet more or fewer cannot alter their case so they keepe with in the compass of non-fundamentalls as contrarily though they were supposed to agree in those many millions which you mention and in as many millions more as you may please to imagine of points not fundamentall yet if they differ but in one fundamentall they cannot be members of the same Church and so your millions of such points can availe nothing either to constitute men members of the same Church or to hinder them from being so and therfor if you agree in never so many such points it helps you no more then if you agreed in none at all according to the ground and Doctrine of Potter and Model of his Church and therfor the saying of Ch Ma is very true who speaks reservedly in this manner According to this Model of Dr. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarcely one Point of Faith what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one or few Articles of beliefe who yet for the rest should be holding conceipts plainly contradictory so patching vp a Religion of men who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimera having the head of a man the neck of a horse c. For there is greater repugnancy betwene assent and dissent then betwene integrall parts as head neck c. These words if you read them with attention doe not affirme what is de facto but only goe vpon a supposition that is what a Church he would make if men agreed only in fundamētall points and for the rest should hold conceipts plainly contradictorie and therfor he vseth the word Model which signifies not necessarily what is but what would be if Potter proceeded according to his owne grounds taking them for a Model of his building Thus Ch Ma doth not wrong Dr. Potter in imputing to him the opinions of others but you misalledge Ch Ma that you may accuse him of calumny created by yourselfe 37. Secondly I answer if Ch Ma had spoken not vpon meere supposition but by way of affirmation as he did not if he committed any
that men may be of the same Church and hope for salvation for the only belief of fundamentall points though they differ in non-fundamentalls you contradict yourself and Dr. Potter who saieth it is infidelity and damnable and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God So that vpon the whole matter you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne and overthrow Potter Yourself and Protestants whom you vndertake to defend To all this I add that Charity Maintayned might haue saied not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House so the belief of only fundamentall points cannot make a Church but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any point revealed by God as we haue seene in Potters assertion it followes that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith and of a Church and so cannot pretend to so much in order to a Church as a foundation is in respect of a House You say that Ch. Ma. Pag 131. takes notice that Dr. Potter by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary But by your leaue in this you falsify both the Doctor and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved In which words you see the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly and explicitely and so he speaks Pag 213. Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith Now I hope Protestants will not deny that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point to be believed by an express and actuall Faith Therefore necessary and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor doe not signify the same thing nor are of the same extent 44. In your N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63 you shew so much choler bitterness and ill language that the best answer will be to apply my selfe only to the matter desiring the Reader to consider the points which I shall set downe and he will finde your objections answered by only applying my considerations to them as they come in order 45. First Before you can refer any considering man as you speake to the Scripture for his satisfaction you must assure him that it is the word of God which you confesse we can only learne from the Church and then if he be indeed a considering man it will instantly inferr that the Church must be infallible or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God nor of any one truth contained therin and as you say he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall so by the like Tradition he may know what she holds in points of Doctrine and either belieue her in them or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture Seing in the principles of Protestants he cannot learne any such precept except from Scripture itselfe and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture that there is such a precept which as I sayd is against the principles of Protestants Moreover yourself teach that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith and therfor a man must first learne the Church and of the Church before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions if he will not contradict himselfe For Pag 139. he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree and consequently the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith vpon Nouices and we speake of such weakelings and doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and vnderstand the Scripture Therfore men must first be referred to the Church and not to the Scripture as Potter in the same place saieth expressly The Testimony of the present Church though it be not the last resolution of our Faith yet it is the first externall motiue to it 46. Secondly you say to Charity Maintayned To the next question cannot Generall Councells erre You pretend he answers § 19. they may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition 47. Answer Amongst the Errata or faults of the Print Charity Maintayned notes this in the Pag 136. Lin. 22. Damnably Corrige damnably I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter because it is not Dr. Potters word though it follow out of his doctrine All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata where you see he was scrupulous not to adde one word which was not expressly the Doctors though it be most true that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine as Ch Ma saieth but his words in this very place at which you carp signify no lesse yea more For Ch Ma cites these words out of Potter Pag 167. Generall Councells may weakely or wilfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre Now what difference is there to say a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying or misvnderstanding or neglecting Scripture and a Councell may erre damnably Is it not damnable wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably because one may erre damnably if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes or for sloath humane respects of hope feare c. and yet not be so culpable as when it proceeds from wilfulness and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd that in the doctrine of Potter Generall Councells may erre more than damnably Haue we not heard the Doctours words Pag. 212. whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity And shall not a wilfull misapplying or neglect of Gods Word be damnable and more then simply damnable even infidelity The Doctour teaches that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally but he neither doth nor can say according to the doctrine of Protestants that Councells cannot erre fundamentally and if Fundamentally surely damnably But why doe I spend tyme in this Yourselfe here N. 53. confesse that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably is not false for the matter but only it is false that Dr. Potters sayes it A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth which he himselfe teaches and so finally Charity
divided in externall communion one of the which true Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practice but the other was stained with both For to finde this diversity of churches cānot stand with reds of Histories which are silent of any such matter It is against Dr. Potters owne grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall It contradicts the words in which he sayd Pag 155. The Church may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in Heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church Of these last words you say Let it be so I see no harme will come of it What indeed Is it no harme that it may be sayd with truth that your Protestants are proved bragging false Lyars in saying Luther reformed the whole Church But to omit this these words declare that Ch. Ma. speakes of two Churches wherof one did triumph over all errour and then adds to find this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with records of Histories c where the particles this diversity are referred to two kinds of Churches wherof one did triumph over all sinne and errour and yourselfe explicating the Doctors words say To triumph over errour is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it This supposed the objection is clearly of no force wherin you say To suppose a visible Church before Luther which did not erre is not to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnless you will haue vs belieue that May be and Must be is all one which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so And you would not make so bad Arguments vnless you will pretend you cannot make better But this whole objection is grounded vpon concealing the words of Ch. Ma. who spoke of a Church triumphing over all errour as we haue seene by his express words and therfor when in the very next consequent period he mentions a Church free from errour it cannot be otherwise vnderstood then of such a freedome as he spoke of immediatly before that is of a Church as indeed the true Church ought to be free from all danger of falling into any least errour against Faith Besides suppose he had spoken of a Church which defacto did not erre in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall from the Apostles time to Luther it had been no ill argument to inferr that she could not erre because morally speaking and without a miracle or particular assistance or infallible direction of the Holy Ghost it had been impossible for so many men in so many Ages of so different dispositions through the whole world to haue agreed in the same beliefe concerning matters not evident of themselves but farr exceeding the light of naturall reason and seeming contrarie to it and therfor if they had not been effectually preserved from errour no doubt but some would haue fallen into it which is so true that Dr. Potter sayth Pag 39. it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces and partiticles of divine truth The rest of this Number hath been particularly answered heretofore and your weakning the strength of Historie and tradition serves only to call in question all Religion in your ground who belieue Scripture for tradition 17. In your N. 57. you say to those words of Ch. Ma. N. 18. Our Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice 〈◊〉 Looke again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the world Answer Ch. Ma. doth not as interpreting our Saviours Parable Matth 31. saie that the field he speaks of is the Church but that he foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choise corne which is very true seing he expresly makes the parable of the kingdom of Heaven which is the Church saying The Kingdom of Heaven is resembled to a man c. and the amplitude of the word world doth not exclude the Church for which and her Pastours he gaue that wholesome Document Sinite vtraque crescere Let both grow vp and I pray where but in the Church can there be the wheat which our Saviour would not haue rooted out And because your owne guiltiness moves you in this occasion to tax Catholiques because they punish obstinate Heretiques you should reflect that the tares are not to be gathered when there is danger least by so doing the wheat may be rooted out and therfore a contrario sensu if there be no such danger yea that by sparing the cockle the good corne will suffer the cockle is rather to be taken away than the corne destroied In your N. 58. may be observed a strange kinde of saying that God is infinitly mercifull and therfor will not damne men for meer errours who desire to finde the truth and cannot Is it mercy not to damne men for that which is no fault And for which to damne one were injustice and therfor not to doe it is not mercy but justice 18. Your N. 59.60 haue bene answered at large in the Chap 7. about Schisme Neither can these propositions be defended from a contradiction The Church of Rome wants nothing necessary to salvation and yet it is necessary to salvation to forsake her For as I haue proved even he who believes she erred yet is supposed to belieue that notwithstanding that error still she wants nothing necessary to salvation and therefore the distinction of persons whereof one believes she errs and the other believes she does not erre cannot saue this contradiction 19. That which you say N. 61. is answered by these few lines Almighty God hath promised to giue his sufficient grace to avoyd all deadly sinne and consequently all damnable errour as you confesse every errour against any revealed Truth to be vnles ignorāce excuse it which cannot happen if as you affirme such an assistance is promised to vs as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very proficable truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours because this assistance supposed the Church if she fall into errour must be wanting to herselfe and her ignorance can not be invincible but culpable and damnable both in it selfe and to her and if her errours be damnable she wants some thing necessary to salvation that is the true assent of Faith contrary to that damnable errour and she hath something incompatible with salvation namely that damnable errour and so indeed that truth which you call only profitable becomes necessary and that errour which you suppose to be only hurtfull is destructiue if your Doctrine be ttue that God gives sufficient Grace to avoyd all sortes of errour and to lead to all very profitable truths
be in errour All that Ch. Ma. sayes is That if you erre in judging you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours you must rectify your conscience by judging the errours not to be fundamentall or damnable and therfor not excluding salvation Is this good dealing in you And why doe you say N. 106. A fifth falshood it is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must meane if you speake consequently to judge they haue no errours because we judge they haue none damnable Seing Ch Ma sayd most expresly that you doe the favour to other Protestants whome you cannot deny to be in some errours not to judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Once againe I must aske whether this be conscionable dealing 46. You are too resolute in this N. 106. to impugne the saying of Ch Ma That according to the Doctrine of all Divines ther is great difference betwixt a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience And I feare you doe not well vnderstand this true Doctrine when you say These are but divers words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholy speculatiue but tending to practise nor such a dictamen wholy practicall but grounded vpon speculation For you should say the contrary that a perswasion purely speculatiue is so far from tending to practice that oftentimes it is joyned with this judgment I cannot frame my practice according to this speculation and consequently my practice can not be grounded vpon such a speculation as Catholike Divines doe learnedly explicate particularly in the matter and forme of Sacraments But this is not a place to handle this matter at large it being sufficient to haue sayd that a speculation taken alone and abstracting from all other considerations of all sides oftentimes would proue pernicious if it were applyed to practice You falsify Ch Ma as if he did affirme that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some Doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errours For Ch Ma sayth not that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation c. And had not also a practicall dictamen c. but his words are Although they had in speculation conceaved the vissble Church to erre in some Doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgment they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not suhstantiall to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could breake the bond of Charity by breaking vnity in Gods Church You see Ch Ma declares not what dictamen Protestants had but what they might and ought to haue had which are as different things as to say one is an honest man and might and ought to be such an one Ch Ma sayes not that Dr. Potter teaches in express words that Luther was obliged to forsake the Church for an vnnecessary light but that it followes vpon his assertion that he was bound to forsake her externall communion for poinrs not necessary to salvation 47. In your N. 107. your example that Euclide was not infallible yet was he certaine enough that twice two are foure is not to the purpos because such truths are evident by the light of nature as the mysteries of Christian Faith are not Otherwise how were it possible for you to disagree so irreconciliably as the world sees you doe 48. Ch Ma sayth N. 41. Since in cases of vncertaintyes we are not to leaue our Superiour nor cast of his obedience or publickly oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience without a publick breach especially if with their vncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your owne brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy To this you answer by abbreviating the words of Ch Ma thus Your Church was in peaceable possession you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages and then you add Doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed and the Professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of Possessours if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession But by what commission or warrant doe you say to Ch Ma you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it as if his words must needs be so restrained Wheras the Church of Rome was in possession of Right not to bee opposed in her Doctrine by private persons she was in possession of the good Name and Estimation of being a true Church for which she is commended by S. Paul The Pope was in possession of power and jurisdiction over all Christians of making lawes Accepting appeales gathering Councells c. And both the Pope and Church were in possession of the Professors of her Doctrine that is Christians were their subjects who could not be seduced by fraude Schisme Heresy or violence without offence to God and man as you will not deny all lawfull Communities to haue Right that their subjects should not withdraw and divide themselves from such a mysticall Body Neither is it pertinent whether in this place we take possession as it is defined Detentio rei corporalis corporis animâ—jurisque adminiculo it being sufficient for our present purpose that it be that which is called quasi possessio the having any thing as we are sayd to haue hands feete life c. You say the Professors of the Doctrine were in nature of Possessors if we may speake improperly rather then the thing possessed with whome no man hath Reason to be offended if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession Answer It is strange that no man hath reason to be offended if men quit the possession or forsake the true Doctrine the grace of God or vertue or honesty because he is supposed to possesse them or for a man to depriue himselfe of some member of his body or even of life it selfe Your last words That the possession which the Gouvernours of our Church had for some ages of the party gouverned was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence are most injurious to Truth to Gods Church and to God himselfe as if our Saviours promise of a stable Church should be verified only by fraude and violence seing as I haue often sayd ther was no visible Church vpon earth except the Roman and those who agreed with her against the Doctrines which Luther did broach as Ch Ma shewes here Pag 173. and you doe not deny Pag 274. N. 56. where I obserue by the way that you say I know not who they be that say Luther reformed the whole Church wheras Ch
doth not absolutly excuse but sayes How they shall be punished in the last day of judgment for this errour of their false opinion none but the judge himselfe can know Qualiter pro hoc ipso falsae opinionis errore in die Judicij puniendi sunt nullus potest scire nisi Judex as Potter cites him in the margent Which wordes if one take in rigour suppose they are to be punished and that they haue sinned but that none can tell how or how far or how much their ignorance might lessen their punishment Your saying to Ch Ma You yourselfe though you pronounce the leaders among the Artans formall Hereticks which words you put in a different letter as if they were his words though I finde them not in him yet confesse that Salvian was at least doubtfull that at least is your owne word whether these Arians who in simplicity followed their teachers might not be excused by ignorance And about this suspension of his you also seeme suspended for you neither approue nor condemne it Thus you not without some tincture of your Gall. For Ch Ma being only to declare Salvians minde had neither reason nor occasion to declare in this place his owne opinion how far ignorance may excuse some particular persons which he did Part 1. Cap 1. N. 3. and 5. and Part 2. Pag 102. in the Conclusion of his Booke where you will finde but very cold comfort for such as hope to be saved by ignorance 11. That which followes is more against Potter then against Ch Ma who grounds his argument vpon the expresse words of the Doctor That to confine the Church to one part and place as the Donatists did to Africa was an errour In the matter and nature of it properly Hereticall against that Article of the Creed wherein we professe to belieue the Holy Catholick Church To which Major proposition he adds this Minor But Luthers Reformation or Church if one man may be cald a Church was not vniversall but confined to that place which contained Luthers body a lesse compas then Africa Therefore his Reformation or doctrine can not be excused from formall Heresy This Deduction to me seemes no lesse then demonstratiue supposing the express grant of Dr. Potter for the Major proposition and yet you are pleased to call it a rope of Sand and an vnsyllogisticall syllogisme and say it is even cosen German to this To deny the Resurrection is properly an heresy but the preaching of the Ghospell at the beginning was not vniversall Therfore it â—â—nnot be excused from formall heresy For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not deny the Resurrection so may he also not deny the Churches vniversality and as the Apostles who preached the Ghospell in the beginning did belieue the Church vniversall though their preaching at the beginning was not so so Luther also might and did belieue the Church vniversall though his Reformation were but particular But good Syr how then do you defend your client the Doctour from this your argument To say the visible Church is confined to one place is properly an heresy as Potter affirmes it to be But the preaching of the Ghospell at the beginning was but in one place therfore it was formall Heresy As also from your other To deny the Resurrection is properly an Heresy c. Be pleased then to doe your Doctor the favour to reflect That considering the Predictions of the Prophets of the Amplitude Propagation and Promise of our Saviour for the stability of his Church to say that after sixteene hundred yeares it was reduced not only to that compass which contained Luthers body but that it was corrupted with many and damnable errours that is in true Divinity to a No-Church yea and that many chiefe Protestants expresly affirme that it wholy perished is a vast Heresy vnles you would rather call it by the name of infidelity the consideration wherof did bring some chiefe learned Protestants to renounce Christian Religion And so your argument drawen from the first preaching of the Apostles is of no force and cosen German to this To deny that divers Churches and Nations did receaue the Faith of Christ as S. Paul testifieth of the Church of Rome in particular is properly an Heresy against the expresse wordes of Scripture but at the very first preaching of the Apostles Rome and many other places did not receaue the Faith of Christ but only some of those who heard their first Sermons Therefore their first preaching was Heresy And for you to say that the Church is only vniversall de jure because it ought to be so is no lesse ridiculous then impious against the promise of our Saviour which was that she was de facto to be vniversall and not that she ought to be vniversall and perpetuall as every man ought to be vertuous and as the Donatists did not deny she ought to be vniversall as Ch. Ma. shewes N. 17. Pag. 242. of which Number you take notice for some other matter but dissemble this point which yourselfe also affirme Pag 300. N. 99. in these words The Truth is the Donatists had set vp at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular And although in this you be much deceaved because the intention of the Donatists was not that which you faine for your owne purpose but vnder pretence to take care of their Brethren in that Citty though indeed that the world might account them Catholiks by communicating with the Bishop of Rome with whom to communicate was taken by the Ancient Fathers for an assured signe of being a true Catholik They had also as S. Austin de vnitate Ecclesiae C. 3. witnesseth a pretended Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist sayth Epist 163. Here did he first attempt to affirme that his communion was spread over the whole earth c. But because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of Language Whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spead over the whole world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest than he who should affirme that Luthers reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole earth being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the Sect of the Donatists This is the discourse of Ch. Ma. in the sayd N. 17. whereof you thought safest to take no notice as indeed destructiue of your argument As for your objection that the greater part of the world is not Christian c. every Christian and in
ventis vocatur Ecclesia Quomodo vocatur Vndique in Trinitate vocatur Non vocatur nisi per baptismum in nomine Patris Filij Spiritus Sancti Will you now limit vndique to places round about or adjacent and not grant that it signifies the whole world The learned Fevardentius in his Annotations vpon this place of S. Irenaeus not only affirmes that by eos qui sunt vndique fideles all Churches of the whole world are vnderstood but proves it with much clearness and erudition observing among other things that it is saied Ad hanc Ecclesiam not ad vrbis amplitudinem populorum frequentiam non ad imperij culmen non ad Caesarum majestem sed ad hanc Ecclesiam Thus your first objection being proved to be grounded meerely vpon a confidence that vndique must be taken in this place as you would haue it and withall perceiving that even this will not come home to your purpose without an other voluntary alteration for it is no less difficult a sense to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there froÌ„ those who are euery where than to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there from those who are round about you fall vpon a conjecture that in all probability in stead of conservata it should be observata although no copie either printed or manuscript reads it in that manner and suppose it were observata the difficulty would still remaine what observata might signifie whether observed that is kept and maintayned and then it were all one with conserved or observed that is marked found perceived or the like as you would haue it not considering that by this conceypt you wholy alter the Argument of S. Irenaeus and substitute an other For whereas that holy Bishop and Martyr grounds his proofe against Heretiques vpon the Authority and succession of the Roman Church you make him vrge these Heretiques only by the Testimony of people round about that Citie because they never observed any alteration of doctrine in that Church which therefore according to this your fiction must be judged by the neighbouring people and not they directed by her which kind of reasoning had bene a meere begging the Question and no effectuall confutation of those Heretiques who would instantly answer that both Rome and the adjacent people had altered the Apostlike Tradition by holding doctrines contrary to theirs nor could they haue bene confured otherwise than by supposing that the Roman Church was by the Promise of our Saviour Christ secured from all errour against Faith and to vse your owne lately recited words to say that the people about Rome would haue observed it if there had bene any alteration in the Church of Rome had bene but to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in question as being still to vse your owne words not evident in it self according to the principles of Protestants who de facto hold that many errours crept into the Church without being observed and plainly denied by S. Irenaeus his adversaries and not proved by him especially if we consider that as yourself speak The Church of Rome had a Powerfull principality over all the adjacent Churches it had bene more probable that she might haue led them into errour which they would haue embraced as an Apostolicall Tradition than that they would or could haue corrected her if indeed she had bene conceyved to be subject to errour no less than the adjacent Churches Now as for the difficulty of those words In which the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who were every where yourself must answer it seing you hold your conjecture of observata to be but probable and that all hitherto haue read it and do still reade it conservata and that even though you reade it observata it will be a hard sense to say In which Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwaies bene observed from those who are every where and if in stead of from you say by hath bene observed by those who are every where though in that acception you must take Ab in a different sense when it is sayd ab Apostolis from and when it is saied ab his qui sunt vndique by we may also say hath bene conserved by those who are every where and the sense will be that in the Roman Church there hath alwaies bene the Tradition from the Apostles which hath also bene conserved in all Churches and in which they must agree with Her propter potentiorem Principalitatem and because she hath an evident and certaine succession as being founded vpon a Rock and in this sense we may also say that the Tradition receyved from all Churches hath bene conserved in the Roman Church as the center of Ecclesiasticall vnity to vse the words of the most learned Perron in his Reply Lib. 1. cap 26. 31. In your N. 30. after other discourses which containe no difficulty which may not be answered by what hath bene saied in divers occasions you come to your old cramben of the Chiliasts or Millenaries of which you say Justine martyr in Dial. cum Tryphon Professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time belieued it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Sr. we haue no â—eason to belieue your word without some proofe And that you may not â—â—use my proofe against you as proceding from one who being a partie may be suspected of partiality I oppose to you a learned ProtestaÌ„t Doctor Ham in his Uiew of c Pag 87.88.89 who convinced by evidence of truth not only confesses and proves the weakeness of that place in S. Iustine to conclude any thing against Catholique Tradition but also demonstrates that your allegation is an egregious falsification while you say Iustine martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques For S. Justine expresly affirmes that many doe not acknowledg this doctrine of the 1000. yeares and those many Christians that are of pure and pious opinyon or judgment and that those whom he calls nominall Christians Atheists impious hereticall leaders are they who denyed the resurrection not those that acknowledg the resurrection and denyed the Millennium And the Doctour concludes in these very words By Iustine it cannot be concluded that the 1000. yeares was a matter of Catholike belief in his time but only favourd by him and many others and consequently though that were after condemned in the Church would it not be from this testimony inferred that a Catholick Doctrine much lesse a Tradition were condemned And he gives vs a Rule whereby we may answer all that can be objected out of S. Irenaeus or any other ancient Author saying Pag 91. I confess I acknowledg my opinion that there were in that age men otherwise minded as out of Iustin it appeared I could cite an other highly
qualifyed Protestant who this very yeare 1651. hath putin print that Justin confesses that some good and honest Christians did not acknowledg that Doctrine of the Millenaries which the Doctor Pag 88. shewes very well not to be repugnant to an other saying of S. Justin to which this last Author sayes it is repugnant Now I beseech you consider how you can impugne Gods Church by a pretended tradition which not only Catholiques but even learned Protestants out of S. Justines words denie to haue bene Catholique or vniversall in his time and which this Doctor avouches not to be asserted as vniverfall by the Lord Faulkland himself whereby this Objection so often repeeted in your Booke comes to just nothing and I haue wondered that so worme-eaten and obsolete a thing as this is should be revived and vrged as a Demonstration against the Traditions of the Church But it is Gods Goodness to confound the enemyes of his Church by their owne wisdome and confute them by their owne arguments and is it not a great proofe for the infallibility of the Church that these her adversaries after all labour and study can alledg only such a toy as this to proue the fallibility of the Church for so many Ages wherein she could not but haue fallen into many mote and greater errours if she had bene subject to accept and deliver fals or apocryphall Traditions If you haue a mind to speak to the purpose you must produce some cleare and vndoubted Tradition or some Definition of a Pope or Councell for this of the Chiliasts or any other errour But this is as impossible for you to doe as that God can break his Promise that the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her and that he will be with her to the worlds end You say If this Tradition of a thousand yeares was not conserved and observed in the Church of Rome had Irenaeus known so much he must haue retracted this commendation of that Church Not so by your leaue but as a true child of Gods Church if he had bene perswaded his opinyon to be against her Tradition he would haue retracted his opinyon and not his commendation of the Church vpon which he builded his Doctrine against those Heretiques whom he impugned otherwise his argument takē from her Tradition had bene of no force but petitio principij proving their Heresies to be false because the Church of Rome which in those particulars did not erre taught the particular opinyons of those men to be false Especially since by the confession of S. Justin Many Christians of pure and pious judgment held the contrary 33. Having considered with attention all the rest that you haue in this N. 30. I find nothing which hath not bene answered either by mee or by Ch Ma Part 2. Chap 2. N. 32. for as much as belongs to Him and as for your vaine affected florish against the most learned Cardinall Perron it is both impertinent to my purpose and really so slight that I could not haue imagined you would in modesty haue premised these fond words The words of the Cardinall I will here insert and with short censures dispell and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants In a word I must say That you do not distinguish betwene matter of Faith and of Fact nor consider that although error against Faith defended with obstinacie be per se loquendo a sufficient cause of excommunication yet it may be also necessary in prudence for some circumstances to abstaine from inflicting such a censure and in the case of Pope Uictor the success shewed that even for matter of fact he was in the right For after his death the Councells of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus which Protestants receiue as Lawfull Generall Councels excommunicated those who held the same Custome with the Provinces which Uictor had excommunicated I haue no tyme to take notice of your seditious speach Pag 35. letter f that inferiors may excommunicate superiors if they did any thing which deserved it By which Doctrine you or any other Socinian might haue excommunicated thē who excommunicated all such as held the 39. Articles to containe any errour as is knowne you believed them to containe divers 33. To your N. 31.32.33.34.35 I answer that in the Authorityes alledged out of the Fathers by Ch. Ma. you will still find a particular preheminence of the Roman Church and you could not haue done vs a greater favour than to touch the matter of Appeales to Rome from the whole world if it had bene handled by Ch. Ma. as it was not and therefore I must refer the Reader to Catholique Writers and in particular to the learned Cardinalls Bellarmine and Perron from whom he may receyue full satisfaction Only to what you say N. 31. that S. Austine Lib. 1. retractat Chap. 26. retracts what he had saied that the Church was builded vpon Peter I must answer that Chap. 26. Retract there is no such matter as you mention and what he hath Chap. 21. is so answered by Bell. De Rom. Pont. Lib. 1. Chap. 10. as your objection will be found to make rather for than against vs. In your N. 32. you haue no reason to find fault with Ch. Ma. for translating Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus the principality of the sea Apostolique did alwayes flourish seing it is cleare that S. Austine in that place attributes a particular priviledg to the Sea of Rome as the Chaire of Peter and a Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome as he speakes In psalm Con. partem Donati Whereby it appeares that he makes but one chiefe Apostolique Sea and it seemes this Translation of Ch. Ma. was so good that yourself could not perceiue or tax it till an excess of desire to trifle made you at length put it in your margent it not occurring tyme enough to find a place in the Text. Maximianus of whom you speak N. 36. is cited by Onuphrius Lib de primatu Petri parte prima and by Adamus Tannerus a knowen learned Divine Tom. 3. Disp 1. de Fide Quest 5. Dub. 3. Epistolâ ad Orientales in these words Omnes fines terrae quae Dominum sincerè receperunt vbique terrarum Catholici veram fidem profitentes in potestatem Romanorum Pontificum tanquam in solem respiciunt c Hunc enim Petrum de caeteris mortalibus ex toto terrarum orbe conditor orbis elegit cui Cathedram magisterij principaliter possidendam perpetuo privilegij jure concessit vt quis quis Divinum aliquid aut profundum nosse desiderat ad hujus praeceptionis oraculum doctrinam que recurrat You say Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius I find no such thing in the Councells Neither can I belieue that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelue hundred yeares a goe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome But if that be true which you often inculcate that deeds are better witnesses
perswasion or opinion that our Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subjest of it an humane perswasion You desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that our perswasion is not inregard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall 57. Answer we belieue with certainty that the Churches doctrine is true because such our belief depends vpon infallible and certaine grounds as hath bene shewed heretofore and we are certaine that every Act of Faith necessary for salvation is supernaturall in essence not by sensible experience and naturall reason on which you are still harping but by infallible principles of Faith because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is vniversally and in all occasions necessary for vs to belieue as I proved in the Introduction which demonstrates that the essence of Faith is supernaturall Your saying that if it be our perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion deserves no answer Is not even the Beatificall vision in men as in the subject thereof And yet I hope you will not call it a meere humane Act and much less an humane perswasion besides our Faith being absolutely certaine cannot be called only a perswasion 58. Your N. 75. containes nothing which is not answered by former Grounds and in particular by your owne Doctrine that every culpable error against any revealed truth is damnable yea and repugnant to some fundamentall necessary Article from whence it must follow that of two dissenting in revealed Truths he who culpably erres sinnes damnably and cannot be saved without repentance Your gloss of S. Chrysostome is plainly against his words seing he speakes expresly of small errours which he saieth destroie all Faith as we haue heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. Chrysostome Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole Doctrin who subverteth it in the least article CHAP XVI THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH 1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter with your owne words delivered in the beginning of your answer to the preface of Ch Ma where you say If beginnings be ominous as they say they are C Ma hath cause to looke for great store of vningenuous dealing from you the very first words you speak of him vz. That the first foure Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter are wholly spent in an vnecessary introduction vnto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his wits either denied or questioned and that is That every man in wisdome and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation being a most vnjust and immodest imputation For the first three Paragraphs of Ch Ma are employed in delivering such Doctrines as Divines esteeme necessary to be knowne and for that cause treate of them at large and I belieue if the Reader peruse those paragraphs he will Judge them not vnnecessary and which heere is chiefly considered it is very vntrue that they are spent to proue that every man in wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation which Ch Ma never affirmed and is in itself euidently false Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best and not be content with that which is good to liue according to the Evangelicall Counsells and not judg the keeping of the commandements to be sufficiēt for salvation which were to turne all Counsells or things not of obligation in themselves to commands and could produce only scruples perplexities and perhaps might end in despaire What then did Ch Ma teach He having N. 3. declared at large two kinds of things necessary to salvation necessitate tantum praecepti or also necessitate medij delivers these words N. 4. Out of the foresaid difference followeth an other that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sinne that we procede prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdom Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the Doctrine which we imbrace proceeds vpon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected But when we treate not precisely of avoyding sin but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot be saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow every probâble opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probabilitie proue falc I shall not probably but certainly come short of salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the vertue of Charity to wards myself which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assisstance of Gods Grace to make the matter sure Thus saied Ch Ma which may be confirmed out of S. Austine Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3. graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret He speakes of Baptisme which the world knowes he held to be necessary to salvation And what say you now Is this to say vniversally that every one is obliged to take the safest way to his salvation Is it not to say the direct contrary that not in all kinds of things one is bound to take the safest parte as shall be further explicated hereafter 2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch Ma saieth N. 7.8.9.10 11. and he will find you could not answer so briefly as N. 3. you pretend you could doe For I haue proved that by your owne confession we erre not fundamentally and you grant that Protestants erre damnably which we deny of Catholiques therfore we are more safe thā you seing both of vs consent that you erre damnably and we absolutely denie that we doe so 3. I was glad to heare you confess perforce N. 2. that in the Arguments which Ch Ma delivers N. 12. there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leaue their commumion For this is to grant that according to a probable and consequently a prudent opinion some Protestants your pretended Brethren are Heretiques and that the rest sinne grievously in not forsaking the communion of those other which vpon the matter is to yeald that all
what hath bene saied heretofore and also by Cha Ma Part 2. Chap 4. N. 4. which you were willing to conceale In your N. 27. you say as S. Austine saies that Catholiques approue the Doctrine of Donatists but abhorre their Heresy of Rebaptization c But you should say in stead of Doctrine Baptisme as Cha Ma hath it For how can S. Austine approue the Doctrine of Donatists and yet hold that they taught an Heresy of Rebaptization 20. In your N. 29. you say to Cha Ma I conceiue you were led into errour by mâ—â—â—aking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors for a positiue assertion He saies indeed of your errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yeâ— for vs to profess what we belieue not were without question damnable But to say though your errors be not damnable we may not profess them is not to say your errors are not damnable but only though they be not As if you should say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from it Or though we do erre â—in believing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry or as if a Protestant should say Though you do not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host yet being vncertaine of the Priests intention to consecrate at least you expose yourself to the danger of it I presume you would not think it fairely done if any man should interpret either this last speach as an acknowledgment that you do not commit idolatry or the former as confessions that you doe erre in points not fundamentall that you do erre in believing the reall presence And therefore you ought not so to haue mistaken D. Potters words as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not daÌ„nable when he saies no more but this Though they be so or suppose or put the case they be so yet being errors we that know theÌ„ may not profess the to be divine truths 21. Answer is It possible that a man should speak so correctingly aÌ„d magisterially as you doe in this place aÌ„d yet be so palpably mistakeÌ„ as you are you say Dr. Potter saies of our errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yet for vs to profess c. vpon which words you ground your whole discourse and yet both you and the Doctor disclaime from these words though of themselves they be not damnable and put them among the errata of the Printer in both your Books to be corrected thus though in the issue they be not damnable so as you obtrude to vs the fault of the Print for the words of Dr. Potter and will needs haue Ch Ma partaker of your gross mistake in a point vpon which you say a great part of his Book is grounded Now then the print being corrected in this manner though in the issue they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess I beseech you doth not though signifie that indeed they are not damnable to them which belieue as they profess And is not this the constant doctrine of Dr. Potter and yourself that Catholiques who in simplicity of hart belieue as they profess may be saved And therefore your owne correction and this very place of the Doctor so corrected returnes vpon yourself and proves that he spoke not as vpon a supposition of a confession but vpon a confession concession and positiue assertion and that you should haue vnderstood it so though it had bene as He and you cite it though of themselves they be not damnable And who is ignorant That the word though joynd with a verb of the present tense implies a thing existent in truth and if you will express only a supposition you must vse an other Tense and say though your errors were not damnable in themselves yet c or though your errors were supposed not to be damnable c and your declaring Though they be so by suppose or put the case they be so is against the common sense of all that vnderstand English Neither will any Catholique say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from her but though the Church did erre in points not fundamentall or suppose the Church did erre in such points yet you may not separate from her For betwene the Present and Preter-imperfect-tense in our case there is as great difference as betwene a positiue Affirmation and a meere suppositioÌ„ which as Phiosophers speak nihil ponit in esse The like I say of your other exaÌ„ple though we do erre in believing Christ really present yet that whosoever did speak in that manner could not be excused from denying the reast presence and the same is evident in your other examples which therefore still returne against yourself If one should say though Christian Religion be superstitious and fals yet many Christian men lead a morall life would any Christian take such a speach in any other sense than that Christian Religion is fals Or if one should say Though Mr. Chilling worth deny the blessed Trinity the Incarnation of the Sonne of God originall sinne c yet he pretends to be a Protestant and to defend their cause against Ch Ma who would not vnderstand that speach as an assertion and not only as a Supposition that you deny the Trinity Or if one should say to an other though thou be a knaue and my enemy yet I will pray for the were this a meere supposition And heere it may seeme some what strange that the Doctor both in the first and second Edition of his Book should haue though of themselves they be not damnable and you also in your first Edition for I haue not the second and therfore cannot examine it should haue the same yea and ground your discourse against Ch Ma vpon it and yet in the correction of the Errata both of you haue in the issue neither can I see any reason hereof except because that strength of truth and coherence with some Principles of Protestants made you say that our errours are not damnable of themselves and yet vpon further advise finding this confession also disadvantagious you though best to turne of themselves into in the issue But the truth is that in these matters of damnable fundamentall not fundamentall errours of the infallibility of the vniversall Church of the nature of Heresie and the like Protestants haue no settled grounds but must say and vnsay as they are prest by different or contrary occasions as hath bene noted els where and therefore it imports litle what you cite out of Potter against vs seing that can only shew that he is forced to contradict himself as also other Protestants are Now how full the Doctor yourself and other chiefest Protestants are in favour of vs and our salvation hath bene proved heretofore at large out of their owne
make vs evidently see what we belieue yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God and therfor say I with an Assent more certaine than can proceed from humane Authority or meere Arguments of Credibility 3. Divers great Philosophers hold that Accidents are not only dispositions to the substantiall Forme but reall causes therof immediatly producing it as they are instruments of the Principall substantiall Agents and make vp as it were one totall Cause with them According to this Philosophy your instances make against your selfe and do confirme the Doctrine of some grave Diuines that if we consider the Arguments of Credibility not as they are mere inducements precedent and disposing to Faith only shewing the object therof but as they integrate the Formall object or Divine Revelation we must say that they are elevated and raised vp to be part of the object and immediately causes of the Assent of Faith not of their owne force or taken alone but joyned with and conveying to our vnderstanding the Divine Revelation wherby they grow to be the voyce and testimony or as it were reall letters of God speaking to men by them For which cause S. Paule Heb 2.4 affirmes miracles to be a certaine speach of God saying God withall witnessing by signes and wonders where Theodoretus sayth that God by miracles giues a testimony to preaching Miracles therfor are in some manner the very voyce of God Whence S. Austine Ep 49. Quaest 6. absolutely sayeth God speakes by wonderfull workes And Marc vlt it is God cooperating and by signes confirming what they spoke And Ioan 10. Christ our Lord sayd concerning his owne workes They give testimony of me Therfor say these Divines Arguments of Credibility may be raised above themselues And so your examples and instances make nothing against vs but do confute your selfe Which contradicting of your selfe as in many other occasions so heere also forces me to stay yet a little in observing a couple of your contraryetyes or contradictions 81. The one is in these words Pag 329. and 330. If you speake of an acquired rationall discursive faith these Reasons which make the object seeme credible must be the cause of it If you speake of a supernaturall infused faith then you either suppose it infused by the former meanes and then that which was sayd must be sayd againe c Do not these words distroy themselues Or what sense can they beare An acquired rationall discursive faith caused by Reasons which make the object credible and a supernaturall infused faith infused by the former meanes that is by the Reasons which make the object seeme credible If an acquired rationall discursive faith be caused by the Reasons which make the Object credible and a supernaturall infused faith be caused by the same meanes and Reasons how do you distinguish a faith so acquired from a faith in the same manner infused Or rather how can it be a supernaturall infused Faith if it be caused by the same meanes by which an acquired discursive faith is caused In a word how is the same faith acquired and supernaturally infused 82. Your other contradiction I fynd Pag 36. and 37. N. 9. And Pag 112. N. 154. in both which places you grant to some a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence and yet in the former places you say of such men that the spirit of obsignation or confirmation makes them know what they did but believe Now if they know that they did but believe how is their certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence seing you put such a knowledg as is more than Faith which implyes obscurity and consequently such a knowledg is indued with evidence and yourselfe Pag 325. N. 2. saie He that doth barely and meerly believe doth never know and that science and knowledg are synonymous termes Therfor you speak of an evident knowledg and then I say how comes their certainty of adhesion to be beyond their certainty of evidence Or how can you speake of a certainty of adhesion beyond the certainty of evidence Who Pag 330. N. 7. say That power which infuseth into the vnderstanding assent must also infuse Evidence into the object and looke what degree of assent is infused into the vnderstanding at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object If at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object which is in the Assent how can the Assent be beyond the evidence of the object 83. To these your contradictions I add your saying Pag 37. N. 9. What God gives as a reward to believers is one thing and what he requires of all men as their duty is an other and what he will accept of out of grace and favour is yet an other To those that believe and live according to their faith he gives by degrees the spirit of Obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe He requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the Motives and Reasons enforcing to it he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be living and effectuall vnto true obedience In which words you distinguish three sorts of persons which yet according to your owne words must fall to be the same First of them who believe and live according to their faith 2. of those who performe what is required of them as their duty and 3. of them whose faith God will accept out of grace and favour For to believe and live according to their faith to have a faith effectuall to obedience and working by love is required of all as their duty such a faith I say is required and will be accepted by the law which God hath prescribed Matt 19. V. 17. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the Commandements and no less will be accepted out of Grace and Favour Otherwise it should be and not be required and so your triple distinction of persons destroyes it selfe and ends in one only sort 84. I would gladly go forward to your other Objections but first you must give me leave to confute and turne against your self a saying which hath too much of the insolent and injourious against true Christian Faith in these words Pag. 329. N. 7. Your Faith if you please to have it so let it be a free necessitated certaine vncertaine evident obscure prudent and folish naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall assent 85. All this groundless insulting I will retort against your self eveÌ„ out of your owne grounds aÌ„d joyntly will shew that it belongs nothing at all to our Faith First your Faith is free and necessitated Free if you will stand to your owne express words Pag 329. N. 7. that there is obedience in it which you say can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disâ—bâ—dience as there is not where