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
men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as experience shewes not necessary But the Answer to this objection hath been given already For some thing may be necessary for some persons at some tyme in some Circumstances which are not necessary vniversally for all Persons Tymes and Circumstances as I specifyed in the Councell of the Apostles in Canonicall writings which written vpon some particular occasion yet require an vniversall beliefe and in generall Councells which you and Potter affirme to oblige as we haue seene aboue Indeed your peremtory wild demand Why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall Meanes to determine all Controversyes be necessary c might well by your leaue beseeme some Jew asking why should or how can Christian Religion be necessary to salvation if for many Ages it was not in Being and yet in the meane tyme men were saved Or why should or how can the believing and obeying the Definition of the Apostles in their Councell or the beliefe of the Gospells and other Canonicall writings be necessary to salvation if for many ages such beliefe was not required and in the meane tyme men were saued Or why should or how can infallibility be necessary to write the Scripture if the writing of Scripture was not necessary but that men were sayed without it You say in the same N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes of 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 we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing Which words seeme not to agree with what you add against Charity Maintayned in his N. 7. 8. that an vniversall infallibility must be granted to that meanes wherby controversyes in Faith are to be determined vnless men haue a mynd to reduce Faith to opinion of which words you say you do not perceyue how from the denyall of any of the grounds which Charity Maintayned layd it would follow that Faith is Opinion or from the granting them that it is not so For my part I do not perceyue how it was possible for you not to perceyue it since you confess that without an vniversall infallibility we could yield vnto such a meanes but wavering and fearfull assent a and what is this but opinion or a meere humane Faith As contrarily if the Meanes or Motiue for which I assent be infallible and I belieue it to be so and assent with an act proportionable to that motiue my assent must needs be certaine and infallible and not a wavering and fearfull assent If this be not so why do you require infallibility in the said meanes Certainly infallibility is not necessary to beget a wavering and fearfull assent 13. You would gladly free yourselfe of that just imputation that you confound Divine Faith with opinion But your tergiversation argues you guilty You bring I know not what parityes betwen Faith and Opinion but decline the maine difference That Divine Faith is absolutely certaine and infallible Opinion not You being conscious of your Antichristian Doctrine That Christian Faith exceeds not probability dissemble the chiefe difference which I haue declared and you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of that griēvous but just accusation that you change Divine Faith into opinion Wheras you say that as opinion so Faith admitts degrees and that as there maybe a strong and weake opinion so there may be a strong and weake Faith and add that Ch Ma if he be in his right mynd will not deny it I answer that still you sticke to your false ground that Christian Faith is not infallible Otherwise you would not make this comparison between the weakness and strength of Opinion and Faith which in its essence excludes all falshood As contrarily Opinion is not free from all feare least it be false 14. The confutation of your N. 8. about the infallibility of Christian Faith is the subject of my first Chapter and therfore I need say no more here except only to aske what you can vnderstand by these words of yours But though the essence of Faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection yet may it be enquired whether any certainty of Faith vnder the highest degree may be sufficient to please God and attaine salvation Can the very essence of Faith be weake and imperfect and yet the degrees therof be certaine in the highest degree and exclude that weakness and imperfection which the essence doth not exclude is not the whole essence of Faith in every degree or graduall perfection therof But as I sayd directly contrary to that which your words seeme to sound the very essence of Faith excludes all weaknesse that is all falshood and doubtfulnesse and every graduall entity therof includes such a certainty though one mans Faith within the compasse of the same essence may exceed the Faith of another in graduall perfections as contrarily though Opinion may haue many graduall entityes yet none of them can exclude formidinem oppositi a feare that the contrary may proue true which if any particular degree of intension did exclude it were not Opinion but a certaine knowledge and so could not be a degree of intension vnder the species or essence of Opinion but an assent essentially distinct from all Opinion 15. In your N. 9. I obserue that you do not only grant the possibility of a certainty of adherence in the will beyond the certainty of evidence in the vnderstanding but also a certainty of knowledge in the vnderstanding aboue the strength of probable Motives or Arguments of Credibility For you say they know marke this word know what they did but belieue and are as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares which saw it with their eyes which looked vpon it and whose hands handled the word of life If God can do this with his Grace seing Christian Faith requires the Grace of God why do you deny that by it we are no less assured that the Objects of Faith are true than if we had seene them with our eyes c The rest of this number is answered Chap 1. 16. You are pleased N. 10. to delight yourselfe and deceiue others with a wild collection as you stile it fathered on Ch Ma being only a brood of your owne braine The case stands thus Ch Ma N. 8. hath these words Out of the Principles which I haue layd That there must be in Gods Church some meanes for deciding Controversyes in Faith and that it must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propounds as spoken by God it vndeniably followes that of two men dissenting in matters of Faith the
him Philip. 2.17.18 But if I be immolated vpon the sacrifice and seruice of your Faith I rejoyce and congratulate with you all And the selfesame thing doe you also rejoyce and congratulate with me What great sacrifice seruice or obedience is a faith only probable and necessarily inferrd from probable Premises 16. Morouer that Faith doth not necessitate our vnderstanding but is free and voluntary euen quoad specificationem as Diuines speake that is in such manner as it is in our will to belieue the contrary of what we belieue by Faith and for that cause requires Gods particular assistāce and a pious affection in the will and a submitting or captiuating of our vnderstanding is gathered out of diuine Scriptures that vpon the same preaching of the Ghospel some belieued and some belieued not as we reade Act. 17.32.34 Certaine mocked but certaine sayd we will heare thee againe concerning this poynt But certaine men joyning vnto him did belieue Marc 16.15.16 Going into the whole world preach the Ghospell to all creatures He that belieueth ād is baptized shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be condemned V. 14. he exprobated their incredulity Which shewes that jnfidelity is a sinne and sinne supposeth liberty to the contrary Rom. 10.16 But all do not obey the Ghospel This supposeth that some belieue not and that some other belieue and in belieuing exercise a free Act of obedience Gen. 15. Abrahā belieued God and it was reputed to him vnto justice Heb. 11. it is sayd that God prepared for the Fathers an euerlasting citty and that they got a repromission by Faith Ioan. 20. Blessed are they who haue not seene and haue belieued Luc. 2. Blessed art thou who hast belieued But a meritorious act or deserving such prayses must be free Now Chillingworths faith is such as necessitates the vnderstanding to assent at least that it cannot assent to the contrary as hath bene shewed Therfor his Faith is not that Christian belief which Holy Scripture commands that is a free Assent captiuating our vnderstanding and raysing it aboue all the Motiues of Credibility or Probability and consequently absolutly certaine and infallible wherby we voluntarily submit and perfectly subject our soule to God and his supreme authority For wheras we may distinguish foure sorts of Knowledg wherof the First is Experimentall or of senses 2. Scientificall 3. Humane Faith 4. Diuine Faith Man ought to be subject to God by a voluntary knowledg and such the first and second sort is not The third is imperfect as the authority on which it relyes is subject to errour The fourth then remaynes as it were Religion or highest worship called latria or the greatest submission wherby the will perfectly subject vnto God subjecteth vnto him the other powers which are subordinate vnto it selfe and it is great impiety to belieue that God hath not enabled Christians to offer to theyr creatour and Redeemer a seruice or Obedience connaturall to the Diuine Autority Perfection and Testimony 17. This reason drawen from Obedience exercised in the act of Christian Faith is further enforced thus The command of the will or Pious affection which Diuines require in Faith produceth in the vnderstanding a more firme assent than would be produced without (a) Vide Card Lugo de Fide Disp 10. Sect. 2. N. 19. it as we see by experience that men obstinate in errour or strongly affected to some truth produce by theyr will a more firme assent than otherwise it would haue bene yea the command of the will affection passion and the like moue men to assent to that vnto which otherwise they would not assent or from which perhaps they would dissent Therfor seing the will can moue the vnderstanding to produce the substance of an act much more may it determine vs to produce more degrees of assent or dissent than otherwise it would Although therfor it were granted that a Conclusion formally as such can haue no greater strength than it receyues from the Premises yet the same conclusion or object taken materially may receyue greater strength from some other cause than it did receyue from the Premises as such as the same materiall truth which being inferred from probable Premises is only probable may grow to be certaine if it be deduced from demonstratiue arguments Therfore Chillingworths ground that the Assent of Faith being a Conclusion drawne from probable Premises can be noe more than probable is either false if it be vnderstood that by no other meanes it can be made more than probable or impertinent if he meane that it cannot exceede probability precisely and formally as it is a Conclusion inferd from probable Premises it being sufficient for our purpose that it be improued to a certainty by some other meanes Yea since he grants that our Assent of Faith receyues from the Arguments of Credibility the highest degree of probability and that indeed it receyues a further perfection from the Pious Affection and prudent command of the will we must conclude that it is raised aboue the highest degree of a probable to a certaine Assent Which yet is more and more euinced by this following consideration 18. It is impossible that Christian Faith can retaine the highest degree of probability as Chilling pretends if it haue no greater perfection than it receyues from the sole probable Arguments of Credibility Therfor we must find some other ground on which Christian Faith relyes than meerly such arguments The antecedent I proue thus For to omit what some perhaps will say that at least the Assent of Faith which he sayth is a Conclusion is not so probable as the Premises on which it depends and so is not probable in the highest degree although it were granted that the Motiues of Credibility considered alone may mooue the vnderstanding to the highest degree of probability and such as one cannot entertayne without a prudent doubt of the contrary yet if they be compard and confronted with very great difficultyes objected against them by reason that the Mysteryes of Christian Faith which really are superiour and seemingly are contrary to naturall Reason and Philosophy that supposed highest pitch of probability must needs be abated and lessened and come to some lower than the highest As althongh the will do necessarily loue an object which appeares good when it attends not to any reason or formality of some euill neuerthelesse it is not necessarily carryed to loue that object when it perceyueth any euill therin so the vnderstanding so long as truth is proposd without any thing offered to the contrary necessarily or easily yelds assent but if contrary difficultyes be represented it is apt to pause and consider and perhaps doubt or feare and must needs fall somwhat from its former confidence adhesion and assent if it be left to it selfe and not assisted with greater strength than can arise from meere probabilityes encountred and balanced with contrary seeming strong reasons And as Chilling speaking to Catholiques sayth Pag. 113.
who may either see by this the disposition of the man and his contradiction to himselfe or gather how the infallibility of Faith is as it were the naturall sense of Christians since he who so much impugnes it cannot chuse but make ashew of defending it Pag. 410. he sayth For Arguments tending to proue an impossibility of all Diuine supernaturall jnfallible Faith and Religion I assure my selfe that if you were ten tymes more a spider than you are you could suck no such poyson from them My hart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the searcher of all harts knowes that I had no other end in writing this Booke but to confirme to the vttermost of my ability the truth of the Diuine and jnfallible Religion of our deare lord and Saujour Christ Iesus If this be true surely the Booke which goes vnder his name is supposititious or a changeling telling vs that the Conclusion followes the weaker of the Premises of which one is but probable wheras now you heare him auouching that Christian Faith and Religion is supernaturall Diuine and infallible To this I will add what he hath Pag 357. N. 38. Certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I doe belieue the Gospel of Christ as it is deliuered in the vn loubted Books of Canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I belieue it vpon this Motiue because I conceyue it sufficiently aboundantly superabundantly prooued to be Diuine Reuelation And yet in this I do not depend vpon any succession of men that haue always belieued it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath bene no such succession and yet do not find my selfe any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that though an Angell from Heauen should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my selfe that I should not be mooued This I say and this I am sure is true The Reader may make of those words as verily as that it is now day That I see the sight c What he pleases I will only say that if Christian Faith be only probable it is either foolery or hypocrify in him to tell the world that he would not be mooued though an Angell from Heauen should gainsay it or any part of it For who would not sooner belieue an Angell from Heauen than the confessed fallible testimonyes of men on earth And therefore if he speake as he thinkes he must either acknowledg Christian 〈…〉 be infallible and so no authority gainsaying it can be by liued or else he cannot avoyde a non sense in preferring 〈…〉 probability before an Angell from Heauen 40. Whatsoeuer his words and Doâ—â—â—â— be against the infallibility of Faith I am sure that in deeds none doth bring better proofe for it than hee by pleading against it with Reasons and Arguments which may be so clearly answered as that euery one cannot but giue sentence for the Possession of Diuine infallible Faith seing no new Argument of worth or weight is produced to impugne it 41 That I may not seeme only to say and not proue this I must craue pardon if in answering his Objections I may perhaps seeme long and might justly be censured for tedious vnless my desire and intention were not only to answer but by Gods holy assistence to confute and retort his Arguments and so proue the Truth as also incidently to treate some materiall poynts which will offer themselues by occasion of his Objections and for themselues should not haue bene omitted And so I hope this length will bring with it a fourfold commodity This being done Christian Faith will keepe its Right to infallibility without any other positiue Reason to proue it though I haue brought diuerse and many more might be alledged and some who are sayd to cry vp Chillingworths Arguments will I hope see how flat and low they will be found to lye by being impartially considered and duly examined 42. His first and chiefest Objection which only hath any shew of dissiculty namely that The Motiues of Credibility being only probable Faith it selfe cannot be certaine he tooke from Catholike Diuines but dissembled their Answers and wanted humility to captiuate his vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Faith as they did and all good Christians ought to doe though neuer so many difficultyes should offer themselues to the contrary But this Objection I haue answered at large and turned it vpon himselfe in seuerall wayes and occasions needless to be repeated and therfor I come to his other Objection 43. Object 2. pag. 326. N. 4. Euery text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake or of any that were strong in Faith of any that were of little or any that were of great faith of any that abounded or any that were rich in Faith of increasing growing rooting grounding establishing confirming in Faith Euery such text is a demonstratiue refutation of this vaine fancy prouing that Faith euen true and sauing Faith is not a thing consisting in such an indiuisible point of perfection as you make it but capable of augmentation and diminution Euery prayer to God to increase your Faith or if you conceyue such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your Faith the Apostles praying to Christ to increase their Faith is a conuincing argument of the same conclusion 44. Answer Not to take notice of his improper speach of augmentation and diminution in Faith which are appropriated to Quantity as intension and remission are propertyes of Quality the grouud and supposition on which this whole objection goes is manifestly vntrue namely that we make Faith to be a thing consisting in an indiuisible point of perfection wheras all Catholike Diuines teach that it hath degrees of perfection and intension no less then Hope and Charity and that de facto it receyues increase by euery meritorious act togeather with justifying Grace The Holy Councell of Trent Sess 6. C. 10. gives this Title to that Chapter Of the merease of justification already receiued c. And concludes it with these words Hoc justitiae incrementum petit Sancta Ecclesia Dominica 13. post Pentecosten cum orat Da nobis Domine Fidei Spei Caritatis augmentum This increase of justice the Holy Church doth ask when she prayes Giue vs ô Lord increase of Faith Hope and Charity You see we thinke it not derogatory from the perfection of our Faith as you are pleased to speake to pray for increase therof Who is ignorant that in Qualityes We are to distinguish between their essence which consists as it were in an indiuisible poynt and degrees of intension which may be increased within the compass of the same Essence otherwise it were not intension but the production of another Species or Essence as we experience in heate light and
all Now your Objection tends only to proue that a probable faith may be sufficient to sway our will to obedience in respect of other Precepts concerning Workes or Manners all which though we did grant yet such a faith could not be sufficient to salvation which cannot be obtayned without performance of the Precepts both of living well and believing aright 105. Thirdly that a probable belief is not such a faith as we are commanded to haue I haue proved already and it is cleare enough of it self if it be remembred that we are obliged to belieue the Articles of Christian Faith by an Assent immoveable notwithstanding whatsoever temptations impulsions or reasons to the contrary which cannot possibly agree to a probable assent For nothing but Certainty can produce an immobility in the vnderstanding and a prudent settled resolution never to alter for what reason soever and to say the contrary is to turne meere probability into absolute certainty What is more vulgarly knowne than that Probability is essentially the roote of feare least the contrary may be true and involves an aptitude to be changed if better reason present it selfe We may well compare Probability in the vnderstanding with Passions in the Appetite which are a source of prepetuall motion Actiue and Passiue to moue and to be moved Or it is like the humours in our body which destroy it and themselves For Probability by the feare it hath adjoyned is still in actu primo in a disposition and readness to destroy it selfe And we may say Qui sibi nequam est cui bonus erit He that is wicked to himselfe to what other man will he be good If Probability cannot conserue it selfe being left to it selfe how will it encounter with accidentall temptations arising from the Divell World Flesh Passions feares Hope Loue Aversion Obstinacy Animosity Pusillanimity Education and the like If you were to giue a reason of your so many changes in Religion you must referr it to the nature of Probability which in reason must yield to better reason and so Preface N. 5. you profess that your constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heaven which for the present seemed most probable And Pag 303. you say of yourself that of a moderate Protestant you turned Papist and the day that you did so you were convicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion was an errour That afterward vpon better consideration you became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirmed Protestant you might with truth have acknowledged more alterations in Religion than heer you specify as that you passed the second tyme from Protestancy to vs and how then were you a confirmed Protestant And in the same N. 103. Pag 304. That you do not yield your weakness altogeather without apology seeing your deductions were rationall Behold the ground of your alterations Rationall and probable deductions which ground will remayne without end till one be settled by certainty A fearfull state wherin one may yea ought at the houre of death to chang his Religion if seeming better reasons do then present themselves against than he hath for it wherby he may come to dy of no Religion at all Socinians are wont to talk much of Reason of considering and discoursing men But alas what else is Reason or consideration or Discourse destitute of submission to God by an infallible Assent except a perpetuall and incessant offer or a temptation to alter their faith and pull downe their former Religion before they haue tyme to build or resolue of a new one Besides Christian Faith being obscure and evidence the naturall center of our vnderstanding without which it is like a stone violently held from falling no wonder if the strength of Certainty be necessary to beare vs vp aboue the inclination we haue to be placed in the center and light of Evidence wherby it falls out that humane reasons against Faith being connaturall and as it were levell with our vnderstanding are easily and eagerly accepted especially since the Mysteryes of Christian Faith seeme contrary to Reason because indeed they are aboue it 106. Morover if we reflect on the Essicient Cause of your probable faith which I haue proved to be only strength of nature how weake and changeable must it be If Holy Iob could say of Man nunquam in eodem statu permanet he neuer remaynes in the same state Iob 14. V. 2. much more may we say the same of the weakest belief in the soule of man which is meere probability produced by the only forces of him who never remaines in the same state Lamentable experience hath taught vs how many of great witts yea of zeale and piety who stood as Cedars of Libanus and shined like beacons to enlighten others haue fallen into damnable and somtymes even foolish Heresyes though once they believed the contrary Truths and Articles of our Faith with absolute certainty Such is the imbecillity of nature And then what can be expected of a belief which expresly tells it self that it is not certaine and which believes no poynt of faith with certainty except that Faith it self is not certaine Holy Scripture assures vs that he who loves danger shall perish therin Eccli 3. V. 27. It is in every mans power by Divine assistance to arrive to a certaine true belief as I shewed even out of Chillingworth himself and this he is obliged to doe by the immediate Precept of Faith and by the obligation of Charity to ones self which bindes vs to choose the safer part in a matter of so great moment and therfor let no man please himself in a probable Faith and put himself not only in danger but in certainty of perishing by such a weake probable and changeable Assent 107. And now I hope it appeares that the Reason which Chari Maintayned gaue for the infallibility of Christian Faith remaines very good and solide though delivered by him incidently not imagining that any would call in question the certainty of Christian Faith against D. Potter who expressly avouches it and against all Protestants As well might it haue beene expected of Char Maintayned to proue the Mistery of the most Blessed Trinity of the incarnation of the second Divine Person his Death Resurrection and Ascension the eternall reward of Saints in Heaven and punishment of sinners in Hell or any other Article of Christian belief common to Catholiques and Protestants as this truth that Christian Faith is certainly true The truth is that I hill doth so farr dissent from Protestants that I cannot be thought to write against him or to confute any defense he makes for Potter but to handle a new subject and argument against new Heresies which Potter and other Protestants will profess to detest and it were no wonder arguments should chance not to hitt that mark at which they never aymed nor confute those against whom they were never intended Yet in fact this argument which heer you impugne doth rightly proue the
only in generall that some commands oblige only vnder a veniall sinne your saying is impertinent to a matter in which the least sin committed by disbelieving any Poynt sufficiently proposed as a divine Revelation is deadly as I haue declared and you often and purposely grant Yea further how can it be sayd that some of the least commandements of which our Saviour speakes are concerning veniall sins seing our Saviour affirmes that whosoever shall break one of his least commandements and shall so teach men shal be called the leastin the kingdome of Heaven if those words signify an exclusion from Heaven Or if this exposition please you not but that you will haue them vnderstood of veniall sins then you must explicate how our Saviour could say he that shall break one of his Commandements obliging only vnder a veniall sin shal be least in the kingdome of Heaven seing all men break such commands by committing veniall sins and so there shal be no comparison or contradistinction of least or great but all must be reckoned amongst the least Besides you must reflect that our Saviour speakes of him that shall break one of his least commandements and shall so teach men Now though it be but a veniall sin to breake a commandement which obliges only to abstaine from a veniall sin yet to teach that it is lawfull to breake any commandement even concerning veniall sins is a great and deadly sin as being an errour against Faith As for example to lye or wittingly to vtter an vntruth ossiciocè or jocose without prejudice vnto any is but a veniall sin yet to belieue and much more to profess and teach that it is no sin to lye were a grievous deadly sin of Heresy To what purpose then do you tell vs of our pretending that some least commandements are only concerning veniall sins But the truth is I conceyue it will be hard to name any writer who doth so oftē cast himself into labyrinths and perplexityes as you doe In the meane tyme it appeares more and more how necessary it is that there be some living judg for determining Controversyes of Religion not only in Articles vniversally and absolutely and in all cases necessary but also for other Poynts which by occasion of emergent Heresyes or for avoyding contentions and danger of Schismes or other causes may necessarily require to be determined And that things profitable taken as it were in generall are necessary to be believed in Gods Church as I haue declared aboue 75. Which truth is yet strongly proved by other words of yours in the same Pag. 9. N. 7. where about holding errours not necessary or not fundamentall you say It imports very much though not for the possibility that you may be saved yet for the probality that you will be so because the holding of these errours though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the feare of Purgatory and the doctrine of Purgatory the feare of Hell as you well know it does too frequently So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours yet by meanes of them many are made vicious and so damned By them I say though not for them No godly Layman who is verily perswaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the vse of your Latine service shall be damned I hope for being present at it yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices vnderstood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which is might afford them may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved Besides though the matter of an Errour may be only something profitable not necessary yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sinne As not to regard veniall sinnes is in the doctrine of your Schooles mortall Lastly as veniall sinnes you say dispose men to mortall so the erring from some profitable though lesser truth may dispose a man to errours in greater matters As for example The belief of the Popes infallibility is I hope not vnpardonably damnable to every one that holds it yet if it be a falshood as most certainly it is it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to belieue Antichrist if he should chance to get into that See These be your words to which I may add what you haue Pag. 388. N. 6. where you say to your adversary Wheras you say it is directly against Charity to our selves to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation this is true but so this also that it is directly against the same Charity to adventure the omitting any thing that may any way helpe or conduce to my salvation that may make the way to it more secure or less dangerous And therfor if the errours of the Roman Church do but hinder me in this way or any way endanger it I am in Charity to my self bound to forsake them though they be not destructiue of it And Pag. 278. N. 61. you say If I did not find in my self a loue and desire of all profitable truth If I did not put away idlenesse and prejudice and worldly affections and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of divine matters being prepared in mynd to follow God and God only which way soever he shall lead me if I did not hope that I either doe or endevour to doe these things certainly I should haue litle hope of obtaining salvation What could haue bene sayd more effectually to proue the necessity of some infallible Meanes to decide controversyes evē in things only somthing profitable as you speake For out of these your own words it will be demanded whether it be no matter that such poynts be declared since they may import very much though not for the possibility that men may be saved yet for the probability that it will be so because the holding of errours in those matters though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation and by the meanes of them many are made vicious and so damned and because the want of that devotion which the truths contrary to those errours might happily beget and the want of that instruction and edification which they might afford may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved since also though the matter of such errours may be only somthing profitable not necessary yet the neglect of them may be a damnable sinne And I pray you what greater neglect then to hold and write as you doe that if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased it is no matter since also erring from some profitable though lesser truth heer is no mention of necessary or very profitable truth may dispose a man to errour in greater matters since finally it is against the vertue of charity to ourselves not only to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation but also the omitting any thing
it to be a perfect Rule he believes it to be a Rule 95. Besides this you deliver another doctrine which overthrowes the sufficiency of scripture taken alone Thus you write p. 144. N. 31. The Apostles doctrine was confirmed by Miracles therfor it was entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certaine divine truth and which had the attestation of divine Miracles The falshood and danger of this doctrine I will purposely confute herafter For the present I say that it makes Scripture wholly vncertaine and vnfit to be a sufficient yea or any Rule of Faith although it were never so cleare and evident in all necessary points For if once we yield that the Apostles could err in poynts belonging to Religion we cannot belieue them with certainty at any other tyme or in any other article as I demonstrate in the next Chapter and the thing is manifest of it self All Divines and all men by the light of Reason require an vniversall Infallibility in that Authority for which they must belieue with divine Faith and if it could erre at one tyme it might erre at another for ought we could know or if it say one thing to day and the contrary to morrow what certainty can we haue to belieue rather the one than the other And indeed we can belieue neither of them with certainty Besides you seeme to require that every part of Christian doctrine be confirmed by miracles beforwe can be certaine of the truth therof which blastes the credit of all scripture For how do you know that the Apostles wrought miracles to proue immediatly and in particular that scripture is the word of God Or how can you belieue that miracles were wrought severally in confirmation of every rext of scripture And yet we belieue every such Text with an assent of divine Faith Nay wheras protestants alledg some texts to proue that scripture contaynes evidently all necessary points you must shewe that those very texts were confirmed by miracles if you will belieue them with certainty as entirely true which I suppose you will judg to be a Chimericall endeavour and therfor we must inferr that by no text of scripture you can proue it to contayne all necessary poynts of Faith Divers other errours you maintayne against holy scripture which as in the next chapter I will demonstrate make it vncapable of being any Rule at all for Christian Faith and therfor you must either retract those errours or renounce the common principle of protestants that scripture alone contaynes evidently all points necessarily do to believed 96. 19. And lastly I overthrow theit sufficiency of scripture alone by not only answering but also confuting the arguments by which they endeavour to establish it For seeing it lye vpon them positively to prove their Assertion if it be demonstrated that the arguments which they bring are either impertinent or insufficient it wil remayne effectually proved that they cānot avouch Scripture alone to contayne all things necessary to salvation I must therfor of necessity be large in answering their Objections in performing wherof I both Answer and Impugne Defend the truth and Confute my Adversary in one generall poynt which alone implyes or extends it self to all particular controversyes in Faith Your 97. First Objection Pag. 109. N. 144. is taken from a saying of Bellarmin de Verb. Dei L. 4. C. 11. That all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all 98. Answer First Bellarmin even as you alledge him speaks only of things necessary for all that is for every private person not of things necessary for the whole Mysticall body of the Church as if all such things were evidently contained in scripture yea he expressly declares himself to the contrary § Nota Secundo affirming that the Apostles were wont to preach some things only to Prelats Bishops and Priests as of the manner of governing the Church administring Sacraments refuting Heretiques c Secondly he sayes not that all things which are necessary for all are writtren evidently which only could serue your turne but only that they are written which is true though they were writtē obscurely as many things are contained in scripture in particular and yet obscurely and much less doth he say that they are evident without the declaration of the Church and helpe of tradition which only were for your purpose yea that his words can haue no such meaning but the direct and express contrary Bellarm himself will best declare in that very Chapter from which your objection is taken and almost immediatly after the words by you cited Thus he speaks § sed admissa Dico eorum omnium dogmatum c I say that there are found in scripture testimonyes of all those Doctrines which belong to the nature of God ād that we may concerning such Doctrines be fully and plainly instructed out of the scriptures if we vnderstand them aright but that sense of scripture depends on the vnwritten Tradition of the Church Wherfor Theodoret L. 1. C. 8. relates that scriptures were alledged on both sides both by Catholiques and Arians and when the Arians could not be convinced by them scriptures because they did expound those selfsame scriptures otherwise then Catholiques did they were condemned by words not written but vnderstood according to piety and no man ever doubted but that Constātine consented to that condemnation Could any thing haue been spoken more clearly solidly and truly to shew in what sense things of greatest moment as was that article of the Divinity of Christ our Lord against the wicked Arians for defense wherof the church suffered so much and so many Martyrs shedd their bloud are contaynd fully and plainly in scripture that is in those texts which fully and plainly recommend the church and vnwritten tradition as I noted in the beginning And yet further in the same Lib. 4. Cap. 4. § 7. Necesse est c. he saith that oftentymes the scripture is doubtfull and intricate so that it cannot be vnderstood vnless it be interpreted by some who cannot erre therfore it alone is not sufficient which are his express words and then gives divers examples of some chief points even belonging to the nature of God which all good Christians beleeue as matters of Faith and yet cannot be proved by scripture alone And Cap. 7. he saith S. Austine sayd that that Question whether they who were baptized by Heretiques were to be rebaptized could not be decided by scripture before a full Councell of the Church but that after the Councell had declared the doubt and the whole Question there may be taken assured documents from the scripture For scriptures being explicated by the Councell do firmely and certainly proue that which they did not firmely proue before But why do I stand vpon particular passages since in the same Lib. 4. Cap. 3. he speakes vniversally and sayes that we Catholikes disagree
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
imply All things necessary Thus Pag 212. N. 43. your Nynth demand is whether in the text of the Acts All things which Iesus began to doe and teach must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things be it so will you then haue the Text of S. Luke beare this sense It seemed good vnto me having attained at least to all things necessary c. as if the Evangelist himself were doubtfull of what kind of truths he had bene informed or had set downe in his Gospell whether necessary points only or both necessary and profitable Do you not see into what labyrinths you cast yourself by your voluntary vngrounded limitations or interpretations of S. Luke And how many wayes your Objection is evidently both answered and confuted and further how easily the twelue demands which you make to proue that S. Lukes Gospell must containe all necessary Points are answered Which I will now doe having first told the Reader that every one of your Demands or Proofes is but a begging of the question and a supposall of that which is in Controversy as will appeare in every particular Poynt 110. Your Demands Pag. 212. N. 43. are these 1. Whether S. Luke did not vndertake the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand â— 111. Answer may be given to this Demand either as the thing is in it self or as it relates meerly to our present Controversy to wit whether S. Luke vndertooke to set downe all things necessary to salvation For which last consideration or respect it imports nothing for you or against vs though it were granted that S. Luke did vndertake the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand vnless you could proue that those many did take in hand to write a Gospell containing all things necessary to salvation which you will never be able to doe otherwise then by way of imagination or as in a dreame especially if we add that you must doe it out of some evident Text of Scripture telling vs that those Persons wholy vnknowen to vs had such a particular designe which till you can performe giue me leaue to retort against you this Argument S. Luke in your supposition or imagination vndertook the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand but there is no imaginable ground to affirme that those many had taken in hand to deliver evidently all particular points necessary to salvation Therfor there is no ground to affirme that S. Luke had any such designe 112. But if we answer your Demand according as the thing is in it self I say that we must in no case grant that S. Luke vndertooke the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand but rather the direct contrary his purpose having bene after a diligent and faithfull search wherin those others fayled to oppose their proceeding by providing an antidote against their careless or false or vncertaine and apocryphall Narrations Yet if your meaning be only in a generall way that as those men purposed or pretended to write the History of our Saviour Christ so S. Luke also had the same generall ayme although one might deny or Question this very thing and without any great rashness of judgment conceiue that they had some other sinister End agreeable to the Meanes they vsed of false or fabulous storyes yet I will not stand with you in the denyall of this as being a thing which can neither hurt vs nor helpe you but is wholy impertinent till first it be proved that those men intended to set downe all necessary Points of Faith and then further that S. Luke agreed with them in that particular designe of writing all such Points yea and vntill you can proue both these things out of some evident Text of scripture Besides although you could performe an impossible taske and proue that some of those many had that designe of specifying all necessary Points by what dreame can any man assure himself that we must say the same of all Rather if we will discourse according to meere humane reason or conjectures without certaine authority they being many as S. Luke affirmes it was lesse needfull that every one should set downe all necessary Points it being abundantly sufficient that some or divers or many of those many should doe it At least it is impossible for you to evince that of those many all had such a purpose as you profess not to be certaine but only probably perswaded that every one of the Evangelists who yet were but foure should write all things necessary and I hope you will not pretend to be sure that all those many intended to doe more then some of the few Evangelists had done Now if some of those many had such an intention of expressing all necessary truths and some of them had not how could S. Luke vndertake the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand Could he vndertake contradictoryes to deliver and not deliver all necessary Points But as I sayd whatsoever you will imagine those men to haue intended in particular there is no necessity that S. Luke should be obliged to doe whatsoever they proposed to performe as we see he hath not set downe all the particulars which are recorded by the other three Evangelists We haue heard S. Ambrose expressly affirming that S. Luke wrote non omnia not all and that he purposely omitted things written by others and yet we may say truly speaking in generall that all the foure Evangelists vndertook the same thing that is to write the History or Gospell of our Blessed Saviour and therfor we might say if there were any need to say so that S. Luke may be sayd to vndertake the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand though he did not set downe all the particulars which you may fancy they intended to write If S. Ambrose could say and the thing of itself is cleare that S. Luke did not write all that himself with diligence had learned and belived why will you oblige him to write all that those vnknowne people had written or designed to write Especially considering that indeed he doth not commend but rather insinuates a dislike or disallowing of their purpose and performance as wanting either necessary care or sincerity or both as hath bene shewed aboue out of good Authors In which respect I had reason to say that we might well deny that S. Luke agreed even in the generall designe with those many whom he affirmes to haue gone about to compile a Narration of those things which haue been accomplished among vs. I will therfor conclude with putting you in mynd that you begg the Question in regard your Demand must go vpon a supposition that all necessary Points are to be contayned in scripture Otherwise vpon what ground can you affirme that all they who intended to write the Gospell of Christ were to set downe all particular Points necessary to be believed
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
by Catholiques or Protestants according to your grounds for the reason which I haue given 151 By what I haue sayd all your other demands or objections are answered If say you every one of them haue not in them all necessary doctrines 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 Or how haue they not deceived vs in giving them such titles 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 152. Answer Heer is nothing but begging the Question in supposing without any proofe that the designe of the Evangelists was to write not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man that is all things necessary to salvation which is the very Point in Question and a contradicting your self in saying that the designe of the Evangelists was as the titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it and yet you say expressly that you vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that which makes vp the covenant between God and man which is but a part of the Gospell which containes many Historyes and truths not necessary to salvation Yea we see that S. Matthew begins his Gospell in an Historicall not a dogmaticall way saying The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ S Mark saith The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ and then passeth to the History of the appearing baptizing and preaching of S. John Baptist S. Luke after the Preface to his Gospell which Preface is a brief history or narration begins his Gospell with History There was in the dayes of Herod the King of Jewrie a certaine Priest named Zacharie c. S. John indeed begins his Gospell with a sublime point of doctrine In the beginning was the word c. against Ebion one of your progenitours who denyed Christ to be the Son of God consubstantiall to his Father and accordingly sayes Cap 20.31 These are written that you may belieue that Jesus Christ is the son of God which shewes that his purpose was not to make a Catechisme or set downe all points of Faith but to confute that particular Heresy and yet even this blessed Evangelist through divers verses of the same first Chapter relates how S. John gaue testimony of our Saviour to shew that his purpose was to write the History of Christ as the other three did and not to make a Catechisme as I sayd 153. But then say you How haue they complyed with their owne designe which was as the titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it Or how haue they not deceyved vs in giving them such titles 154. Answer I have often told you that they haue written the whole Gospell and not a part of it for all that was to be written and written by them in order to that End which by instinct of the Holy Ghost they proposed to themselves Neither do the Titles of their Books signify any thing more and therfor not the titles deceyue you but you deceyue yourself and wrong the Holy Evangelists by framing a fictitious and false meaning of true Titles by your interpreting them to signify all particular Points necessary to salvation Thus S. Luke doth fully comply with the Title Acta Apostolorum The Acts of the Apostles though he speak nothing of some of the Apostles by name yea litle of any except of S. Paule nor all that might haue been said of him because he sets downe all that he intended to write according to the direction of the Holy Ghost And S. Chrisostome about the same Title of The Acts of the Apostles Lib. cont Gentil teacheth that Booke to be so called not that it contaynes all the Acts nor of all but only of one or two and even of those such as were easy to be set downe Nay if we speake in all rigour the word Evangelium which signifyes Good tidings is verifyed though one write not all good tidings and so Evangelium secundum Mattheum signifyes good tidings delivered by S. Matthew or the Book of good tidings written by S. Matthew which is litterally true though that Booke containe not all necessary Points The same I say of the other Evangelists And this observation doth clearly make voyd all your Arguments 155. But in this place also a difficulty offers it self which I bebelieue you will not answer otherwise than by acknowledging some contradiction and which turnes vpon yourself that which you impose vpon vs as if it did follow from our Doctrine that the Evangelists wrote not the Gospell but only a part of it wheras yourself alone are guilty of such a sequele where you say By the whole Gospell I vnderstand not the whole history of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Wheras therfore the Gospell according to your owne Division may signify two things and containe two parts namely The whole History of Christ And all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man that is all things necessary to salvation you restraine the Gospell to the second part and so you must answer your owne Objection How haue they complyed with their onwe designe which was as the Titles of their Bookes shew to write the Gospell of Christ and not a part of it You say then they write not the Gospell but a part of it And yet you also saie that their designe was to write the Gospell and not a part of it which is a plaine contradiction as I toucht aboue Againe you and every one must affirme that the Title Gospell c. as it signifyes the History of Christ is not taken vniversally for the whole History of Christ and then how can you with any shew of probability proue that the same Title must be taken vniversally as it is referred to Points necessary to be believed The titles themselves say not vniversally the whole or all the Gospell of Christ but indefinitely Gospell of Christ and by what Authority can you draw them vnto an vniversall signification and an vniversall of your owne to witt of all necessary Points 156. And here I make the same Argument which I made about the word all in S. Luke and aske whether the Gospell of Christ signify absolutely all things both necessary and profitable or els only things necessary or only things profitable or lastly at least all things necessary as Pag. 112. N. 43. You demand Whether in the Text of the Acts All things which Iesus began to doe and teach must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things You cannot say without contradicting S. John that the Gospell of Christ signifyes absolutely all things both necessary and profitable or only things necessary it being manifest that the Evangelists haue written
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
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
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 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
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
not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this Argumēt and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce But good Sr. seing that the Canō of
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
belieue the Divell with an infallible Assent for his owne Authority in saying there is one God vnless I belieue him to be infallible But if he proue what he sayes by some evident demonstration I do not belieue him for his Authority but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself proved by such a demonstration and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent yea and as I may say feeles to his cost that there is a God but whether you can belieue him with certainty when exteriourly he vtters that or any other Point meerly for his Authority is nothing to our purpose though it seemes you can best diue into his intentions by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue where you say The Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keepe him constanâ— to it or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe you should add and as yourself did before you were a Papist and be afrayd of following Luther as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion it having bene done already in a litle Treatise intituled Heantomachta or Mr. Chillingworth against himself and in an other called Motives Maintayned Certainly you haue not observed that saying We must not bely the Divell 19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian whom in those things which he demonstrates we do not belieue for his Authority but for evidence of his demonstration which is infallible neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority that he hath written such a Booke but by evidence and infallibility offense And here you should remember your owne words Pag 325. N. 2. Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and somthing more but he that believes many tymes does not know nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue he doth never know Therfor according to your owne Doctrine he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration doth know and not belieue for the Authority of another And who sees not that if I belieue a thing for some other reason and not for the Authority of him who affirmes it I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority but I assent to it for that other reason Yea if we consider the matter well when I know one affirmes a thing and yet do not belieue it for his Authority but for some other Motiue or reason I may be sayd of the two rather to disbelieue then belieue him at least I do not belieue him at all for that Point but either some other Person or for some other Reason Wherfor You do but trifle when Pag 138. N. 36. You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words You say we cannot belieue the Church in propounding Canonicall Books if the Church be not vniversally infallible if you meane still as you must doe vnless you play the Sophister not vpon her owne Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition If you meane not at all and that with reason we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it In these words I say you do but trifle For you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority which is so true that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister and what then shall we think you play in imputing to him such a sense wheras you deny not but that his words may be taken in a good sense as indeed they could not be taken otherwise Beside I do not at all belieue the Church when I chance to belieue that which she proposes if I belieue it for some other reason and not for her Authority and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say I belieue the Church at all when I belieue for some other reason as I haue declared aboue You say Pag 35. N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any one thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd If now one should turne your owne words against yourself and say Indeed if you had sayd we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake I should willingly grant your consequence But if you meane not at all I deny it Would you not say that he did but cavill Remember then Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne seceris But let vs goe forward 20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes and both those kinds of Protestants is this You say Pag 87 N. 94. The Scripture is not so much the words as the sense If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture to them it cannot be Scripture nor the infallible Word of God But I haue proved that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes or Rule Therfor we must inferr that by pretending to follow Scripture alone they do not rely vpon any certaine ground and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule And this being true even in respect of the learned the Faith of the vnlearned who depend on them cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes believing their Pastors who rely on the Church which both is and is believed to be infallible their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible The like Argument may be taken from Translations Additions Detractions and Corruptions of Scripture of which the learned Protestants can haue no certainty and much less the vnlearned and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you touch the very generall grounds of your Faith and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one 21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man desirous to saue his soule whether in Prudence one ought not to preferr the Roman Church and those who agree with Her before any companie of Sectaryes who disagreeing among themselves cannot all belieue aright and yet none of them is able to satisfy why their particular sect should be preferred before others who pretend Scripture alone no less then they Of
attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures or by the Law written in our harts or by immediate extraordinary lights but by the Ministery of the Church and therfor Ephes 4.11.12 Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministerie vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Which declares that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture will grant that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction or as Potter Pag 139. speakes the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church to prepare induce and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes to imbrace the Faith to reade and belieue the Scriptures 71. It remaymes then that not Scripture but the Church which was before Scripture and from which we receaue it must be the necessary meanes in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith and decide Controversyes in Religion and consequently must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine Pag 35. N. 7. that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing 72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 2. N. 23. Pag 69. If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule let them first produce some Text of Scripture affirming that by the entring therof infallibility went out of the Church 73. To this you answer Pag 104. N. 138. In these words As no Scripture affirmeth that by the entring of it infallibility went out of the Church so neither do we neither haue we any need to do so But we say that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures so long as Christ and his Apostles were living and then departed God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides Gertainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintaine it We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therfore it is infallible Some what like to his discourse that said it could not be proved out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therfore he is still Living Me thinks in all reason you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men which is to be subject to errour you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you otherwese you know the Rule is vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur presumitur pro libertate 74. This Answer is easily confuted First I must returne it vpon yourself with thankes for your voluntary express grant That no Scripture afsirmes that by entring of it infallibility went out of the Church Remember your owne saying that there are only two Principles common to Christians Reason and Scripture Seing then it is evident that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture that infallibility went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture what remaines but that you haue no proofe at all for it And since that you directly grant infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures and that neither by reason nor Scripture you can proue that it ever departed from Her we must of necessity conclude that she still enjoyes that priviledge most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith You say God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides But we haue proved the contrary That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith and though it were so yet yourself confess in this place that infallibility in the Church may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture and therfore you cannot inferr scripture is sufficient therfore the Church is not infallible You teach Pag 101. N. 126. That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament had nothing superfluous for it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes and be teslifyed by divers witnesses Therfore the Testimony of the Church if she were supposed to be infallible might be profitable although Scripture were cleare and sufficient Protestants pretend that we can proue matters belonging to Faith only by Scripture Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture that infallibility dyed as I may say with the Apostles or never affirme herafter any such groundless voluntary and pernicious Proposition From Scripture we learne that with out repentance are the gifts of God Rom 11.29 And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason Melior est conditio possidentis God once bestowed vpon the Church the gift of infallibility and therfore without some evident positiue proofe you are not to depriue her of it And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument except to plead Possession which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary And you being the Actor and we the Defendents not wee but you must prove and performe what you exact of vs to shew some express warrant c though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden I belieue you will loose your jeast whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument we can know by Scripture alone whether the King of Sweden be aliue or dead but we know by Scripture he was once Living and know not by any Scripture that he is dead Therfore for ought we know he is aliue and so your example returnes vpon yourself that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church and that by no Scripture which with you must be the only proofe in this case you know that it ever departed from Her you must belieue that still she enjoyes it As for vs we challeng no Priviledges but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church and which we proue by the same Arguments wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority as shall be shewed herafter and the Rule Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur praesumitur pro libertate
in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare as of themselves alone to convince 2. He teaches That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary but such as belong to the substance of Faith publike Doctrine and things necessary to salvation and we haue heard him say ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet sive in Doctrina sive in cultu That whatsoever the Church holds either in Doctrine or in worship belongs to the fundation of Faith and that all things defined by the Church are as if they were primary principles of Faith and so according to him all things defined by the Church belong to the substance of Faith and are necessary to salvation 98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground and against truth For Pag 161. he saith Stapleton hath a new pretty devise that the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the Conclusion And Pag 169. he saith Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary De Concil Lib 1 Chap § Dicuntur igitur that Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations But Mr. Doctour to speake truth Bellarmin leaves Stapleton just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning Bellarmin teaches That Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations And does not Stapleton purposely teach and carefully proue the same And does he not doe it even in the first and Third Notabili which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile out of which you pretend to draw that which you call a new pretty devise How then can you say that Stapleton teaches that the Church is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion seing he teaches expressly the contrary Nay doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite expressly say Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens The doctrine of the Church is not simply Propheticall or depending vpon immediate Revelations Who would haue believed that in matters of so great consequence you could vse so litle sincerity Dr. Stapleton teaches the same and proves very learnedly Princip Doctrin Contr 4. Lib 8. C. 15. Which very Chapter you also cite and yet make no conscience to tell vs that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton But how then doth Stapleton say the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion Answer We haue shewed that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall And besides he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina which you leaue out and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio quarto Argumentis produximus for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments In which Arguments he proved that the Church is infallible and cannot erre because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost as the Prophets were and in this agrees with Prophets though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words with this difference that the Prophets had immediate Revelations which the Church pretends not to haue but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost to imbrace and declare former revelations made to the Apostles vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely and not vpon discourses or inducements 99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the conclusion What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton Which say not that the Church depends vpon immediate Revelation but the direct contrary as we haue sayd and his Parenthesis and so infallible is also a falsificarion as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle as we haue seene This being supposed that Stapleton teaches the Church to haue no immediate Revelations and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost not vpon humane disceâ—â—se and inducements or Premises the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself He Objects pag 168. A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes and results from them But this is not to the purpose seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton Conclusions only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes not because they are formall Conclusions essentially as such depending on Premises Neither doth it follow that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse if the Church be infallible in the sense I haue declared Thus the Apostles in their Councell Act. 15. did vse diligence and as the Scripture saith there was made a great disputation and they alledged the working of Miracles aÌ„d other Arguments of Credibility and yet no Christian will deny but that the Apostles were infallible So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence and discourse that all things on her parte may be done more sweetly in order to the perswading of others but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy Scriptures in which every reason discourse Text and word are infallible which we need not say of Councells though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite de Concill Lib 2. Chap 12. and yet as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine inferrs against Stapleton who fully agrees with Bellarmine that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100. Many other Arguments might be brought to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide and Ecclesiasticall Traditions from Scriptures Fathers Theologicall Reasons which I omitt referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 2. and 3. and in this whole Worke I haue vpon many occasions proved the same For this point is so transcâ—â—dent and necessary that we must meete with it almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion This I must not omitt that I having answered and confuted all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity
is the only thing in question Thus hee 33. To which I answer That the state of the Question being whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation in their severall Faiths and Religions and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith though of themselves they be not Fundamentall and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved seing they hold the Creed and all Fundamentall Points as they conceaue and therfore if they be in errour it is only in Points not Fundamentall Charity Maintayned said that Potter never answered to this Point clearly directly and constantly as he ought to haue done that is he never declared whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance or of one Church and Religion in such manner as one might absolutly say Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith This Potter never did nor in policy durst doe because saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 3. He was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation if they deny it to vs he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose Besides if once he grant that difference of belief though it be only in Points not Fundamentall destroy the true Faith Church and Religion he could not pretend that Protestants disagreeing among themselves could be all of one Church or substance of Faith and Religion and capable of salvation What remedy then but that he must contradict himselfe accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity or contrariety of difficultyes and so by vttering contradictions say Nothing at all to the maine question or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories For what implyes contradiction implyes only nothing But let vs go forward and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth his other words Pag 21. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any errour by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold in words that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded is sinfull and damnable and destroyes the fundation of Faith being as Chilling saith P. 11. no less than to giue God the ly 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds yea and in express profession they and other Protestants do and must maintayne the contrary vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves in Points of heigh concernment for their cause This I proue by these considerations 35. First The World knowes that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants than that they all hold the same substance of Faith and retaine the essence of a true Church because they agree in Fundamentall Points which they are wont to proue because they belieue the Apostles Creed and the foure first Generall Councells and Potter in particular Pag 216. teaches that the Creed of the Apostles as it was further opened and explained in some parts by occasion of emerfent Heresyes in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople Ephepsus Chacedon and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths and from thence inferrs Pag 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls and Pag 241. he saith the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths wherin consists the vnity of Faith and of the Catholique Church But these assertions were very false and impertinent if it be damnable and even Fundamentall against Faith to belieue any errour repugnant to Divine Revelation though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself For what imports it to belieue all the Articles of the Creed if in the meane tyme they deny some other truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such for example innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters Fundamentall of themselves As certainly some Protestants must doe seing two contradictoryes cannot be true Or why do they deceaue men in telling them that by believing the Creed they cannot erre Fundamentally seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour If therfore they will keepe this ground that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation because they agree in Fundamentall Points they must affirme that disagreement or errour in a Point not Fundamentall doth not destroy the substance of Faith or depriue men of hope to be saved nor is a Fundamentall errour as Potter and Chilling somtyme say it is as we haue seene and Chilling saith in particular Pag 131. N. 9. If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you he meanes vs Catholikes Wherfore vpon the matter if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded be a Fundamentall errour de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another according to Chillingworths owne words If it be not a Fundamentall errour the contrary Truth is not necessary and so one may be saved though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded which is the thing I intended to proue 36. Secondly Learned Protestants are very desirous and even ambitious that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman and this meerly vpon necessity and for their owne sake least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing from which Potter vtterly disclaimes Pag 59. saying Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the old the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion And Pag 63. The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions And adds that The very Anabaptists grant it But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs who they say are defided with horrible errours and corruptions if every errour in any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall destroyes the substance o Faith and Church and possibility of salvation If then they will speake with consequence to themselves they must affirme that errours in Points not Fundamentall
do not exclude salvation 37. Thirdly Protestants teach that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall and yet remaine a Church but cannot erre in Fundamentalls without destruction of herselfe Now if sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall be damnable Fundamentall and destructiue of salvation they also destroy the essence of the Church and therfore Protestants must either say that the Church cannot erre in any Point though not Fundamentall as she cannot erre in Fundamentalls or else must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall are not damnable or Fundamentall or destructiue of salvation according to their grounds 38. Fourthly Protestants are wont to say and by this seeke to excuse their Schisme that they left not the Church of Rome but her corruptions and that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe But if every errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed be destructiue of the substance of Faith and hope of salvation the Roman Church which you suppose to be guilty of such errours hath ceased to be a Church and is no corrupted Church but no Church at all nor doth exist with corruptions but by such corruptions hath ceased to exist and so you departed not only from her corruptions but from herselfe or rather she ceasing to haue any being your not communicating with her was totall and not only in part or in her corruptions and if you departed from her as farr as she departed from herselfe seing she departed totally from herselfe you also must be sayd to haue departed totally from her which yet you deny and therfore must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall destroy not the Church nor exclude hope of salvation If therfore Protestants will not destroy their owne assertions v.g. That they left not the Church but her corruptions that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe that they left not the Church but her externall Communion that Protestants agree in substance of Faith because they agree in Fundamentall Points that their Church is the same with the Roman that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall but not in Fundamentalls if I say Protestants will overthrow these and other like assertions they must grant that sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not the substance of Faith nor exclude salvation and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary ād so are guilty of Schisme which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary as we haue seene out your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. 39. But yet let vs see whether Protestants do not confesse that sinfull errours not fundamentall are compatible with salvation as we haue proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles You say Pag 307. N. 106. That it is lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church require the beliefe and profession of them And Pag 281. N. 67. We say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errours vnfundamentall vnless it exact withall either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errours And N. 68. Neither for sin nor errours ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoyne them Therfore say I we must immedintly inferr that errours not Fundamentall do not destroy Faith Church salvation For if they did ipso facto the Church which holds them should cease to be a Churche and so she must necessarily leaue all Churches ād all Churches must leaue her shee loosing her owne being as a dead man leaves all and is left by all And here let me put you in mynd that while Pag 307. N. 106. aboue cited you seeme to disclose some great secret or subtilty in saying that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church requires the beliefe and profession of them you do but contradict yourselfe For if the Church erre in the substance of Faith or but does not impose the belief of them why are you in your grounds more obliged to forsake her than a Church that erres in not Fundamentalls and does not impose the belief of them Especially if we call to mynd your doctrine that one may erre sinfully against some Article of Faith and yet retaine true belief in order to other Points in which why may you not communicate with such a Church Also Pag 209. N. 38. you say You must giue me leaue to esteeme it a high degree of presumption to enioyne men to beleeue that there are or can be any other Fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ than what himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresyes but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes Therfore we must inferr that seing errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to those prime verityes they cannot in your way be esteemed damnable Heresyes and if not damnable Heresyes they cannot be damnable at all since we suppose their malice to consist only in opposition to Divine Revelation which is a damnable sin of Heresy Potter Pag. 39. saith Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolves not the vnity of Faith And P. 40. Vnity in these matters Secondary Points of Religion is very contingent and variable in the Church now greater now lesser never absolute in all particles of truth From whence we must inferr that errours not Fundamentall exclude not salvation nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church or els that men must still be forsaking all Churches because there is never absolute vnity in all particles of truth Whitaker also Controver 2. Quest 5. Cap. 18. saith If an Heretike must be excluded from salvation that is because he overthroweth some foundation For vnlesse he shake or overthrow some foundation he may be saved According to which Doctrine the greatest part of Scripture may be denyed But for my purpose it is sufficient to observe that so learned a Protestant teaches that errours in Points not Fundamentall exclude not from salvation Morton in his imposture Cap 15. saith Neither do Protestants yeild more safty to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoever Heretiks whose beliefe doth not vndermine the fundamentall Doctrine of Faith Therfore he grants some safety even to Heretiks if they oppose not Fundamentall Articles and yet they must be supposed to be in sinfull errour against some revealed truth otherwise they could not be Heretiks Dr. Lawd Pag 355. teaches That to erre in things not absolutly necessary to salvation is no breach vpon the one saving Faith which is necessary And Pag 360. in things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also men
may differ and yet preserue the one necessary Faith And Pag 299. he saith I do indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church but so as that which I grāt to Romanists is not as they are Romanists but as they are Christians that is as they belieue the Creed and hold the foundation Christ himselfe not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Roman Church Behold a cleare confession that the pretended errours of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths Therfore errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to salvation 40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises that errours in Points not necessary or Fundamentall are not damnable but that one may be saved in them Dr. Lawd hath done it for vs Pag 133. in these words The whole Church cannot vniversally erre in absoute Fundamentall Doctrines and therfore there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church And Pag 196. he teaches that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be setled Vnity and Certainty of Beliefe in Necessaryes to Salvation and in Non necessarijs in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation And Pag 129. That the whole Church cannot vniversally erre in the Doctrine of Faith is most true so you will but vnderstand it s not erring in Absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t is true also that there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Certainly Luther did not follow this advise who began and maintayned a Contention to Separation from the whole World from which Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme But this is not all For Pag 226. he sayth Suppose a Generall Councell actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross as that forthwith it must needs be knowne to private men And doubtless till they know it Obedience must be yielded Nay when they know it if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall Verity in which case a Generall Councell cannot easily erre I would haue all wise men consider whether externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded For if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit Why then say a Generall Councell Erre and a Erring Decree be ipso jure by the very Law itself invalid I would haue it wisely considered againe whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell that Honour and Priviledge which all other Great Courts haue Namely that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees as well as of the Lawes of other Courts before priuate men take Liberty to refuse Obedience For till such a Declaration if the Councell stand not in force A. C. Sets vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which is the thing he so much cryes out against in the Protestants Therfore it may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till Evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it For as for Morall Certainty that 's not strong enough in Points of Faith How many Points do these words containe in favour of Catholikes against Protestants 41. 1. That knowne Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not only to be tolerated but that Obedience is to be yeelded to the Church or Councell even concerning such Points and Errours How then can Luther be excused from Schisme who was so farr from yielding Obedience to the Church that he opposed himselfe to and made a publike Separation from all Churches And how can Protestants be now excused from Schisme who follow his example defend his doctrine and persist in the Separation and breach which he made 42. Secondly That to profess externally errours in Points not Fundamentall excludes not salvation For to do any thing repugnant to salvation I am sure no wisdom can thinke fit to vse his owne Words And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church for avoyding the profession of Errours not Fundamentall and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schisme 43. Thirdly He doth not only affirme but endeavours to proue that externall Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Councells because if Controversyes arise in the Church some end they must haue or theyil teare all in sunder Which he sayth no wisdom can thinke fit Which proues very well that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary and is directly opposite to Chillingworth who affirmes that there is no necessity of such a Judg because it is not necessary that all Controversyes be ended But then 44. Fourthly It followeth evidently in true Divinity that if such a Judge be necessary He must be infallible in all things belonging to Faith and Religion For seing to dissemble in matters of Faith or profess one thing and belieue the contrary is a grievous sin and a most pernicious ly no man can yield externall Obedience against the judgment and dictamen of his Conscience and yet it being also true that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of Generall Councells we must of necessity affirme that they are infallible and cannot Decree any Errour in Faith Otherwise I must either disobey or speake against my Conscience in matters of Faith which is intrinsecè malum and can never be excused from a damnable sin To these straights Protestants are brought by denying the infallibility of Gods Church May Councells be disobeyed Then there will be no meanes to end Controversyes and theyil teare all in sunder Must they be obeyed Then in case they decree an Errour against Faith as they may doe if they be fallible men must proceed against their Conscience What then remaynes but to belieue that they are infallible and so we securely may and necessarily must obey their Decrees because I am sure that they haue both infallibility not to erre and Authority to command Thus our beliefe and proceeding is cleare smooth and most consequent wheras our Adversaryes denying the said infallibility are forced to great impietyes against God and manifest contradictions with themselves Besides seing he confesses that Morall Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith the Judge of Controversyes in such Points must be absolutely infallible otherwise we cannot receiue from him Certaintyes strong enough for Points of Faith And if Controversyes must be ended by Generall Councells as he affirmes their Decrees must be of more than Morall Certainty 45. Fiftly Wheras he sayes that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Errour be manifestly against Fundamentall Verity he ought to consider
that the chiefest malice in Heresy consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object or Truth great or little Fundamentall or not Fundamentall but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall And therfore he must either say that Obedience is to be yielded in both which were most absurd or in neither And that it may be securely yielded in both we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which Catholiks belieue to be infallible but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants affirming them to be fallible even in Fundamentall Points and consequently private men are neither obliged nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith for which Morall Certainty is not strongh enough but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture or reason and may oppose their Decrees nor can ever obey them against their Conscience And if all Councells be fallible what greater certainty can I receaue from the second than from the first if we meerly respect their Authority For if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration I am not mooved for the Authority of the Councell but for that Reason which seemes good to mee And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells 46. Sixthly He saith A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity From whence I inferr that seing Luther opposed the whole Church and so many Generall Councells held before his tyme he is to be presumed to haue opposed them not for any manifest Fundamentall but at most for Errours not Fundamentall to speake as Protestants do For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind in which Points not Fundamentall he sayth men are to yield Obedience and therfore He and all those who formerly did and now do follow his example are to be judged guilty of Schisme 47. Seaventhly He saith It may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants that Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points For if evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration may be so inevident or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours which in the grounds of Protestants are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing when they talke of evidence of Scripture but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident which he desires should be so And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind as not to see that which is evident And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells I will not vrge what he meanes by a Demonstration when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable and as I may say an Evident Evidence and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith it must be evidence of naturall Reason which is common to all men And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce But as I sayd Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word which they make vse of to their purpose Besides Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall than it is in some which are Fundamentall and therfore all who belieue Scripture are obliged to belieue those no less than these vnless men will say that it is not damnable to belieue and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture and therfore in this there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture in which case it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some and I hope it appeares by what I haue now said out of it that we may be saved that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs against Protestants as we can desire and they feare 48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose who speaking of Generall Councells saith Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake As also we will consider Potters words Pag 165. speaking thus We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally 49. But let vs proceed in proving that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall not to be of any great moment and much less to be destructiue of salvation It is cleare that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith nor hinder thē from being Brethren and of the same Church And why because such Points are small matter as Whitaker speakes Cont ◠Quest 4. Cap 3. Things in different and tittles as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle Matters of no great moment as Andrewes Respons ad Apolog Bellarmin Cap 14. No great matters Apology of the Church of England Matters of nothing as Calvin calls them Admonit Vlt Pag 132. Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr in locis Classe 4. C. 10. § 65. Formes and phrases of speech as Potter speaks Pag 90. a curious nicity Pag 91. 50. Out of all which we must conclude both out of the words deeds and principles of Protestants First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not
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
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
consisted of the Apostles who determined not only what others but what themselves were to belieue if they had not believed it already as de facto they did belieue it before the Councell and so the Apostles had determined what the Apostles were to belieue The same may be applyed to Generall Councells who determine even what they themselves are to belieue and vniversally if we do conceiue any congregation to be infallibly assisted by God they may declare what themselves and others are to belieue though that congregation be nothing but an aggregation of such Believers Yourselfe confess that the Governers of the Church may determine Rites Ceremonies c for the whole Congregation and so for themselves according to your inference yea if you vnderstand the matter as you should in determining Rites c they determine what every one is not only to practise but to belieue also as I sayd aboue and so all believers may determine in this sense what they are to belieue But the truth is you erre even in Philosophy not considering that when a thing is determined by a Community endued with sufficient Authority to command and define the obligation falls not vpon the whole collectiuè compared with the whole that is adaequate with it selfe but as the whole respects a particular member or part from which it is truly distinguished as includens ab incluso and the whole a singulis partibns in the manner that a mans soule is distinguished from a man Besides the precept of Faith or Believing is not a pure Ecclesiasticall precept but a Divine command obliging All and Every one to belieue whatsoever the Church propounds as revealed by God which therby becomes an Object of Faith And I hope you will not deny but that although it were granted that a man cannot oblige himself nor a community it self by their owne Authority or command yet God may and doth oblige all and every one to belieue whatsoever is propounded as a Divine truth by such an infallible Propounder as the Church is which in that sense may truly be sayed to determine what all are to belieue We may also add that by the Church are vnderstood the Pastours and Prelates therof who are not the whole Church collectiuè but may command and define for the whole Church Lastly what doth this your answer belong to the Point of which Charity Maintayned spoke That there is a greater necessity of some infallible authority in the Church of Christ than in the Synagogue of the Jewes because the Lawes Rites c were more particularly and as I may say minutely determined in the Old then in the New Law which therfore stands in need of some Living Judge to determine for all the many varietyes and different occasions that may present themselves 48. Your N. 143. is answered in three words that when S. Paul 1. Cor. 16.11 sayd All these thinges chanced to them in figure Every body sees that he meant not of the temporall but of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall state of the Jewes and so if they had one high Priest who was endued with infallibility much more ought we to belieue that there is such an infallibility in Gods Church And the Reader by comparing the words of Charity Maintayned with your Objection will of himselfe see that you labour to seeke but can find no solide matter against him Neither did he ever say that the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Jewes was a Patterne for the Ecclesiasticall Government to Christians as you would make him speake but expressly that the Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ for those are his words Now to be only a type and figure argues imperfection To be a Patterne expresses perfection as being a Rule modell and an idea of that in respect wherof it is a Patterne 49. You needed not in your N. 144. pretend to doubt what discourse Ch. Ma. meant when in the beginning of his N. 24. he sayd This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus For it was easy to see that he spoke of that discourse which he held in his immediatly precedent N. 23. His discourse was that the Church of the Old and New Law did exist respectiuè before any Scripture was written as there he shewes at large and consequently that Tradition and not scripturedid then beget faith which is also clearly confirmed by the place which Ch. Ma. cited N. 24. out of S. Irenaeus whose meaning you do pervert against himselfe and even against yourselfe The words of the Saint Lib 3. Cap 4. are What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which order many Nations yield assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receaue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what If there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question These be the words of S. Irenaeus cited by Charity Maintayned which declare that Tradition is sufficient and powerfull to produce Faith even with facility as S. Irenaeus expresses himselfe though no Scripture had beene written And this he affirmes not by way of conjecture or discourse what God would haue done if there had beene no Scriptures but that de facto there was existent such a powerfull Tradition as to it not one nor some nor few but many nations did yield assent without letters or inke that is without Scripture And in this Chapter N. 159. you say Irenaeus tells vs of some barbarous Nations that believed the doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing From whence you inferr That a man may be saved though he should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God if he belieue Christian Religiō wholly and entirely and liue according to it If this be true doth it not follow that Scripture alone is not the only nor a necessary Rule of Faith seing by tradition alone men may be saved though they should not know or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God And that by this concession you directly blott out the very title of this Chapter which is Scripture the only Rule wherby to judge of controversyes 50. Now let vs heare what you can Object against Charity Maintayned in this matter You say N. 144. In saying what if the Apostles had not left Scripture ought we not to haue fellowed the order of Tradition And in saying that to this order many Nations yield assent who
Controversyes Sir I beseech you when you write againe doe vs the favour to write nothing but Syllogismes for I find it still an extreme trouble to find out the concealed propositions which are to connect the parts of your enthymems As now for example I profess vnto you I am at my wits end and haue done my best endeavour to find some glue or sodder or cement or chaine or thred or any thing to tye this antecedent and this consequent together and at length am forced to giue it over and cannot doe it 54. Answer If you were in a condition to reply I would advise you to write not Syllogismes or enthymems but with truth Christian modesty and humility If there be any obscurity in Charity Maintayned you did not find but make it by breaking the thred of his discourse and disjoyning into severall Numbers of Sections or Yours that which is delivered in that one continued N. 16. which you impugne For having proved that according to the grounds of Protestāts they before they address themselves to the Church must know what Points are Fundamentall they learne not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her And then to confute this Doctrine of Protestants he saieth S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saieth he Epist 118. the Church through the whole world practice any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness And in an other place he saieth Lib 4. de Bapt Chap 24. That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councells but hath alwaies been kept is most rigthly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority Now Sr. I beseech you doe vs the favour to declare whether these words of S. Austine doe not proue that we are to learne of the Church and her Traditions and not presume to teach her Which was the very thing which Cha Ma affirmed and proved not by any Syllogisme or enthymem but by a continued discourse as men are wont to doe which yet might be easily drawne into a Syllogisme or some other Lawfull Forme of Logicall Argument if need were as any true Discourse may be so reduced 55. All that you haue N 44.45.46 containes no difficulty which may not be answered out of the grounds which I haue Laied heretofore Tertullian is rightly alledged for Traditions in generall but to the Church belongs the office of judging in particular what be Lawfull and Apostolicall or divine Traditions and not humane invētions Neither can it be prejudiciall to Traditions in generall that some haue bene lost as I hope you will not deny some Bookes of Scripture to be Divine though some haue bene lost and some conterfaited In your N. 46. you thought it best to dissemble what Ch. Ma. alledges out of Withaker De Sacra Script Pag 678. concerning an Authority of S. Chrysostom for Traditions I answer that this is an inconsiderate speach and vnworthy so great a Father 56. In your N. 47. you spend many words about a sentence of S. Austine which that you may overcome with more ease you with a pettie policy divide from the other places which Ch Ma in the same N. 16. cites out of the same Saynt one place strengthening an other Whosoever reades with due consideration your long discourse will finde that your ayme was covertly to vent your Socinianisme against the Church and openly contradict S. Austine while you pretend to answer the sentences which Cha. ma. cited out of him which are these Epist 119. the Church being placed betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good life you say That because S. Austine sayes the Church doth not approue nor dissemble nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life Ch. Ma. concludes that it never hath done so nor ever can doe so And then you add But though the Argument hold in Logick a non posse and non esse yet I never heard that it is would hold back againe a non esse ad non posse The Church cannot doe this therefore it does it not followes with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall neuer doe it this I belieue will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same I anuarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remaines that the thing you enquire of must he of that third kind of things which are different in diverse places Let euery one therfore doe that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why do you not infer from hence that no particular Church can bring vp any custome that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former 57. Answer S. Austines meaning to be that the Church neither doth nor can approue any thing against Faith or good life appeares by the very Epist 1 18. next before to the same Iannarius as you speak where he saieth If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnes Where you see the Saynt speakes not only de facto but de jure what ought to be done and therfore as I saied no wonder if you divided the Sentences of S. Austine which you found set downe by Charity Maintayned in the same N. 16. Besides you should know that in matters belonging to doctrine of Faith an indefinite Proposition ordinarily is equivalent to an vniversall as for example God approves not sinne the Church ere 's not in fundamentall Points of Faith Works of Christian Piety require the assistance of Gods Grace He that believes not shall be damned c And indeed how could S. Austine say vniversally of all tymes and places without limitation the Church doth not this but by supposing that it is certaine she will never doe it which must implie some particular Priviledg of Divine assistance securing her from doing it For if he spoke only of a casuall and contingent thing for a determinate tyme he could not be sure of what he affirmed seing it might be done in some place without his knowledg and whosoever vnpartially considers these words The Church does not this will confess that they signify she never does it and that something is attributed to Her which agrees not to private persons casually not doing a thing Which also appeares by the Antithesis he puts betweene the Church and chaffe and cockle that is imperfections or superstitions of which he speaks Your Argument taken from a particular Church is of no force For you confess S. Austine speaks of things indifferent and rhen I grant that no particular Church can bring vp any custome against Faith or good manners as long as she practises only
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
Church and your labour and paines taken therin are lost in order to any other effect except contrary to your desires to stregthen the saying of Charity Maintayned which was That our very difference about the meaning of these Texts shewes the impossibility of agreement in matters of Faith by Scripture alone To which purpose He setts downe what sense Catholiques giue them and the different interpretation of Protestants from Catholikes and from one and other While therfore you profess to confute the interpretation of Catholikes but indeed impugne also that of most Protestants and of Dr. Potter in particular what doe you els but make good the saied Affirmation and intention and proofe of Cha Ma that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret it self And you could not but see that Charity Maintayned did not alledg any Text to proue the Churches infallibility but only to shew the difficulty of Scripture taken alone by those examples which he alledges and Protestants interpret in a different sense from Catholiques and in which you differ from both So that even by your disagreeing from Catholiques in the meaning of those places you in fact and Deeds proue the truth of that which your adversary affirmed and the more you object against Charity Maintayned the more you prejudice yourself and make good these his words If words cannot perswade you that in all controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church at least yeald your assent to Deeds Which thing considered I haue no obligation at all to examine your Objections against the interpretation of those Texts in favour of the Churches infallibility for which purpose they were not produced by Charity Maintayned but only to proue by an Argument drawen from Experience and Deeds or matter of fact that there must be some Living Guide to interpret Scripture and you were wise enough not to take notice of this Argument which was evident by experience but dissemble the matter and divert the Reader with discourses no less repugnant to Protestants than Catholiks and therefore your interpretations proue nothing because they proue too much even in the common grounds and tenets of Protestants Nevertheless by way of supererogation I will examine all that you can object 72. N. 69. you bring certaine objections in a different letter as if they were made eypressly by Ch Ma and yet I finde them not in him whatsoever they be in themselves Then N. 70. you say The Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not privaile against her 73. Answer you know we deny this and in diverse occasions haue given good reasōsfor our denyall And what cā be more incōsistēt with being of a true Church than errour against Faith which Faith is the most essentiall constitutiue of the Church or congregation of Faithfull people Yourself teach that every errour repugnant to Divine Revelation is damnable of itself and what can set the gates of Hell more open than damnable sinnes Neither can you flie to ignorance whereof you cā haue no certainty especially for the whole vniversall Church and yet we are certaine by our Saviours Promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her whereof we could not be certaine if the Church may erre damnably and be excused only by ignorance which as I saied is an vncertaine hidden thing Beside The Church being appointed by our Saviour Christ to be the teacher of all Christians it is essentially necessary that she cannot erre even by ignorance but must be believed to be infallible in all matters belonging to Faith seing otherwise we cannot belieue her with certainty in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall as you confess in this Chapt. N. 36. that vnless the Church be infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing Now that the office of the Church is to teach all Christians you teach Pag. 119. N. 164. in these words Though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes ad to this Revelation things superfluous nay gurtfull nay in themselves damnable And in this Chapter N. 78. you say That the true Church alwaies shall be the maintainer and Teacher of all necessary truths you know we grant and must grant for it is the Essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defectiue in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that has some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it haue many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice Out of these sayings of yours this argument offers it self The Church is essentially a Teacher of all necessary truths And consequently we are to belieue her in such points But the Church cannot be believed in necessary points vnless we belieue her to be infallible in all that she proposes as matter of Faith This also is our Doctrine Therefore we must belieue her to be infallible in all points So that in denying the vniversall infallibility of the Church you contradict both truth and your owne Assertions 74. And heere I must put you in minde of your saying that there is difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infalllible Guide in Fundamentalls and yet we haue heard you say that the Church is an infallible Teacher of so much as is necessary for salvation and what is to be an infallible Teacher or Proposer but to be an infallible Guide And then further seing you say P. 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed we must necessarily infer that de facto the Church which is an infallible Teacher and Guide is infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed 75. This is not all that I am to deduce from your saied Assertions You say in this same Page and Number No Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certaine Denomination To which Proposition I subsume But we haue heard you say that it is of the essence of the Church to be a Teacher of all necessary Truths and that she shall alwayes without faile propose so much as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven Therfore you must grant that there is some infallible Church of one denomination which is the direct contradictory of your Title to this
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
In your N. 21. you endeavour to answer some Fathers alledged by Ch. Ma. N. 18. to proue that separation from the visible Church is a mark of Heresie namely Uincentius Lirinensis saying Lib. Advers Her Chap. 34. who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church And S. Prosper Dimid Temp. Chap. 5. A Christian communicating with the Catholique Church is a Catholique and he who is divided froâ—â— her is an Heretique and Antichrist S. Cyprian Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make themselves divers conventicles they haue forsaken the head and Origen of truth 20. To these Authorityes you answer That the first and last are meerely impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from vniversality Consent and Antiquity And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your owne grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church vpon mâ—ere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an vnjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 21. Answer I haue often put you in minde and the thing is evident of it self and still to be repeated that Luther separated not only from the Roman Church but from all true Churches of the whole world who all agreed with the Roman as also from all true Churches of many precedent Ages which if you once suppose to haue erred against the Word of God the Rule of those Fathers That separation from the Church is a mark of Heresy had bene plainly impertinent and of no vse at all For still the Question would haue remayned whether the Church of all Ages had erred as well as the present Church since we cannot know what the Ancient Church taught except vpon the credit and Tradition of middle ages till our tyme which passage if it be stopt and bridge broken we must liue in ignorance and not be able irregularly and per saltum to reach immediatly from the last to the first Besides you hold all Churches of all Ages to be fallible and not to deliver vniversally any other point except that Scripture is the Word of God and therefore it is a meere evasion in you to make a difference for matters of doctrine betweene the whole present visible Church and the Churches of all Ages and if separation from these be a mark of Heresy separation from that must also be such Yea S. Cyprian speakes expressly of the then present Church Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred aftherwards while they make themselves divers Conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of Truth As for S. Prosper you do not defend but impugne him But I wonder you will offer your Reader such toyes as you produce for good Arguments against the words of that Saint which are both evidently true and coherent with themselves For as whosoever communicates with the vniversall Church in Faith and externall communion is a Catholique which was the first part of S. Prospers sentence so it is vniversally true that whosoever is divided from the Church in Faith and externall communion is an Heretique as S. Prosper affirmes in the latter parte of his speach and which you know is the thing which Charity Maintayned intends to proue and which makes your talking of meere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy to be wholy impertinent seing we treate of division both in Faith and externall communion though it be also true that Schisme is wont to end in Heresy as Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 5. N 3. declares out of S. Hierom and others No less impertinent is your objection taken from persons divided from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication which is a kind of Division in many respects far different from separation by Schisme or Heresy as hath bene declared heretofore at large and which is not incurred at all in the sight of God if the Excommunication be vnjust Agreable to this doctrine of these Fathers is that excellent document of S. Optatus Lib. 1. contra Parm. how to judg who be Schismatiques and Heretiques Uidendum est quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit quis foras exierit quis cathedram sederit alteram quaeante non fuerit quis altare contra altare erexerit quis ordinationem fecerit salvoaltero ordinato were there not Protestant Bishops set vp in the place of Catholique Bishops yet living in England quis jaceat sub sententia Joannis Apostoli qui dixit multos Antichristos foras exituros quia non erant inquit nostri nam si nostri essent mansissent nobiscum If you examine the proceeding of your first Protestants by the Rule of this holy and ancient Father you cannot but condemne them of Schisme and Heresy 22. Your N 22. being but a passage to the next Section I neede only saie that there is great difference between Catholiques and Protestants in order to the admitting or rejecting some doctrine of some particular Fathers seing we for interpreting Scripture and all Points of Faith acknowledg an infallible guide to whom even the Fathers themselves humbly submit but when you forsake the Fathers be they never so many the comparison runnes not betwene them and Gods Church but betwene them and every single Protestant and who will not sooner belieue the Holy Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture than such men as can neither agree amongst themselves nor with the whole Church of God And if you will but heare what your owne knowledg and conscience tells you you will confess that you acknowledged the ancient Fathers to stand for vs. 23. Your N. 23. is employed in answering some Authorityes alledged by Ch. Ma. out of S. Hierom wherein you shew the litle reckon you make of the holy Fathers since you do covertly or rather expressly tax this blessed Saint of writing over-over-truths and you know what it is to write beyond truth which in true Philosophy consist in indivisibili and what is beyond it must be against it The words of S. Hierom Ep 57. ad Damas. are these I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter I know the Church is built vpon that Rock Whosoever shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is profane If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And Lib. 1. Apolog. which doth
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
words 22. Your N. 30.31.32.33.34 doe only demonstrate that you vndertake to declare the Doctine of Protestants about good works repentance justification c without any commission from them which you could not but see and therfore are forced N. 33. to say If this doctrine about justification by Faith onlie be otherwise expounded then I haue here expounded I will not vnder take the justificatioÌ„ of it And therefore you had no reason to affirme that C Ma spoke without sense in saying that according to the rigid Calvinists Faith is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weake and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For seing that Faith which Calvinists hold to be justifying can never be lost if once it be gotten this Disjunctiue must needs be evidently true either it cannot be gotten or if it be gotten it cannot be lost That which you vntimely talk heere of the subject wherein God hath placed the Authority of defining matters of Faith hath bene answered already as much as this Work can permit without descending to particular Controversies against the purpose and Intention of Cha Ma who yet Part 2. Chap 5. N. 15.16.21 answers all the particular Authorities of Catholiques which Potter objects about this matter and shewes his ill dealing in alledging them But this is not the first tyme that you dissemble what Cha Ma delivers in his second Part though yet you make vse of it when it may serue your turne which certainlie is no just kind of proceding But to returne to your defense of other chiefe Protestants whereas Cha Ma saied heere N. 12. out of his Chap 3. N. 19. that justification by Faith alone is by some Protestants avouched to be the soule of the Church the principall Origin of salvation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest yet you say heere N. 32. For my part I doe hartly wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should euer preach or print this Dostrine that Faith alone justifies vnless he joynes these together with it that vniversall obedience is necessary to salvatioÌ„ if the Commandments cannot be kept how can the observation of them or vniversall obedience be taught as necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith without the works of the Law mark heere how impertinently Protestants apply the Authority of S. Paul against justification by works seing Mr. Chillingworth declares that he speaks of the works of the law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them So diffideÌ„t are you of this soule of the Church this principall origen of salvation of Protestants Your last lines are so obscure and confused that after consideration by myself aÌ„d with others I can drawe from them nothing but non-sense and for such I must leaue them Concerning our greater safety I haue touched in the Preface to the Reader some Points taken from your express doctrine and words which heere I judge needles to repeete 23. For Conclusion of my Book I disposed myself to giue a particular Answer to the conclusion of yours wherein you are not ashamed to say that you are well assured that Ch. Ma. had in his hands your Book twelue-months before it was published which vpon my certaine knowledg is must vntrue But vpon carefull examination thereof I finde that labour to be needless You would make the Reader belieue that Ch Ma omitted to answer some materiall points of Dr. Potters Book and that you had observed all the Directions which were given in that litle Treatise intituled A Direction be to observed by N. N. If he meane to proceede in answering the Book intituled Mercy and Truth or Charity Maintayned by Catholiques c But both these affirmations are fully and truly answered by an absolute deniall that either of them is true as any man will judge who shall consider the Answer of Cha Ma to Dr. Potter and this my answer to you And as for the latter in particular How can it be denied that you procede in a destructiue way which in that Direction you were warned to avoide who deny Christian Religion to be infallibly true And how can Christian Faith be supernaturall if it be only a probable Conclusion evidently deduced from evident probable Premises And I wonder with what face you can say heere § And lastly that thefe archer of all hearts knowes that you had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm the truth of the divine and infallible Religion of our dearest lord and Saviour Christ Iesus seing you haue endeavoured nothing more through your whole Book than to proue that Christian Religion is not infallible That you haue contradicted Dr. Potter hath bene shewed heretofore in severall occasions And the same I meane that you haue not observed those Directions might be demonstrated in everie particular if it were worth the labour but for that Direction which was not to contradict yourself you haue trangressed it so notoriously as I should never haue believed if my owne experience had not convinced me thereof which made it as hard to giue an answer to your Book as it is to make on coate fitting the moone in all its changes which is your owne similitude which I confess was one of the greatest difficultyes in answering to find you so various obscure contrary and contradicting yourself accordingly as you were prest with different Arguments that I could not but often say with much Truth Quis teneat vultus mutantem Protea Nodus FINIS INDEX In which Pr. signifieth the Preface I. the Introduction C. the Chapter N. the Number P. the Page A. Absolution validly given by an Heretique if he be a true Priest and hath intention to administer the Sacrament C. 4. N. 42. P. 377. 578. Absurdityes in Catholique Faith falsely supposed by I hil c. 1. n. 76. p. 90. but proved by his owne tenets to be truly in his Faith N. 77. and p. 97. n. 84 seq Accidents dispose to effects more noble then themselves yea held by many to be reall â—uses of substances c 1. n 79. 80. p 94. 95. Acts proper to necessary Powers must needs be produced if the meanes to worke be compleate but free Powers may with compleate meanes suspend the act c 11. n 65. p 694. seq The essence of acts ignorantly discoursed of by I hil c 12. n 21. p 721. seq Advertisements for whomsoever shall vndertake to answere this Booke not to follow I hil his stepps in commencing new controversies Pr. n. 5. 6. p. 2. 3. If the Apostles could erre in any poynt of Religion they can be certainly believed in none c. 2. n. 95. p. 200. c. 12. n. 47. p. 742. alibi Out Saviours Words to them as
when one allthings considered believes one parte only he is so farre from believing things which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions that he is certaine not to belieue contradictions because he sees that he believes one parte only of the contradiction and rejects the other and is also certaine that as I saied contradiction must involue two parts And heere I would demand wherher you belieue indeed that contradictions can be true If you belieue they may be true then Christian Religion may teach Scripture may contayne God may reveale aÌ„d must assent to contradictions seing he cannot but assent to all truth And are not these blasphemyes If you belieue contradictions cannot be true how will you haue it possible for any man to belieue that which he believes not to be true You saied in your first Reason Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must belieue And certainly I may better say Whatsoever a man believes nor to be true that he neither may nor can belieue and therfore seing all men in their right wits belieue that contradictoryes cannot be true it is impossible that they should belieue them But let vs procede to your 28. Fourth Reason Some men say you may be confuted in their errours and perswaded out of them but no mans errour can be confuted who together with his errour doth not belieue and grant some true principle that contradicts his errour For nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men know any rationall discourse but out of grounds agreed on by both parts Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certaine that the same man at the same time may belieue contradictions 29. Answer First If it were lawfull to vse such an expressioÌ„ it might well be saied that it seemes fatall for you to be at variance with your self For I pray you suppose one to belieue that contradictions may be true How will you perswade him out of his errour By shewing him that he grants some true principle that contradicts his errour But if contradictories may be true and one may at the same time belieue them nothing will force him to leaue his errour though it appeare to contradict some principle which he grants because he may belieue both his supposed errous and that principle to betrue yea he neede not beleeue it to be an errour though it contradict some true principle seing both parts of contradictories may be true Chuse which you please May contradictories be true or be believed or no If they may then this Reason of yours proves nothing as I haue shewed Can they not be true nor be believed then to make good this Reason you denie that for which you alledg it and must say that one cannot at the same tyme belieue contradictions and that if he could do so this Reason were of no force A new kind of Logick to bring a Reason to proue a Conclusion which must be fals if the Reason or Proofe for it be of any force That is â—o proue that contradictions may be believed you vse an Argument which to haue any force must suppose they may not be believed How will you driue one from that which he believes by proposing a principle which even by your doctrine he conceyves may consist with that from which you would driue him So still that which I saied is true That your Arguments if they proue any thing must suppose or proue the direct contrary of that which you intend to proue by them and so not help but overthrow yourself Secondly If your Reason be of any force it can only proue that by ignorance one may hold contradictoryes which was needless to be proved it being a thing which no man denyes And then you must either acknowledg a contradiction or els acknowledg that you intended to proue that one may assent to express and knowen contradictions but that your Reason proved not so much as you did meane to proue by it For if your purpose was only to proue a possibility of assenting to contradictoryes not knowen to be such you contradict yourself in saying N. 47. Men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe so seing it is evident in case of probable or invincible ignorance a man may and ought to belieue them and it were vnreasonable to doe that which all the Reasons that he can consider tell him that he is to doe as he does and that it is not in his power to discover his errour by any reasons that can represent themselves to his vnderstanding It cannot be denyed but in that case he proceedes prudently and safely and therefore not vnreasonably but as he should doe and yourself confess that men may innocently as you speak be ignorant of the contradiction Yourself tell vs in your next Reason that we cannot without extream madnesse and vncharitablenesse deny that you belieue the Bible and yet we belieue that some part of your doctrine contradicts the Bible Now seing this last is certaine by evident experience of Protestants who interpret Scripture so as what one affirmes an other denyes to be the meaning thereof you must either grant that men may rationally belieue that kind of contradictions of which we speak or els with extreame madness and vncharitableness say that no Protestant who contradicts an other about the sense of Scripture does as he should doe but is vnreasonable in so doing Chuse then I returne to say whether you will say your meaning was in this fourth Reason to speak of express contradictions and confess that it comes not home to that purpose or els that you spoke not of such express contradictions and confess that in this N. 46. you contradict your N. 47. wherein you say One should not belieue contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe so 30. Your Fifth Reason we haue mentioned already That Protestants belieue all that is in the Bible to be true and yet we say that they belieue divers Doctrines against the Bible and consequently that they belieue Contradictions But seing this Reason if it proue any thing proues only that men may assent to Contradictions not knowen to be such it is already answered and confuted and demonstrated to be guilty either of insufficiency or to subsist by a manifest Contradiction to that for which you alledg it as I aÌ„swered to your fourth ReasoÌ„ 31. Your Sixth Reason is equally full of impiety malice and ignorance and is answered in a word That we absolutely are certaine there is implied no Contradiction in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and therfore it cannot serue to proue that men may belieue Contradictions And seing it speaks only of Contradictions not expressed in termes but only involved it is liable to all the same exceptions which I haue declared against your Fourth and Fifth Reason Neither can any expect or even indure that heere I should write a Book of Transubstantiation You know learned Catholike Writers haue answered all
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
schisme is a division fro that church with which one agrees in matters of faith they doe not distinguish betweene points fundamētall ād not fūdamēntall in order to the negatiue precept of not disbelieving any point sufficiētly proposed as revealed by God ād so in fact all points being fūdamētall in this sense as both you and Potter are forced to confesse more then once though in other occasions you contradict it as even in this place you make such a distinction and vpon it ground your objection whosoever agree truly in all Fundamentall points in this sense agree in all points of truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such If Protestants will faine to themselves another kinde of points not fundamentall in order to the Negatiue precept of Faith Charity Maintayned is not obliged to side with them but may and ought to say that if Protestants pretend to agree with vs in fundamentall Points they must a parte rei agree with vs in all Points sufficiently proposed as divine Truths and that agreement supposed while they depart from our Communion they becocome most formall Schismatiks as Schisme is distinguished from heresy Thus your Sillogisme which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch Ma is answered For when you say He that obeyes God in all things is innocent Titus obeys God in somethings Therefore he is innocent Your Minor should be Titus obeys God in all things as they who agree in fundamentall points of Faith must agree in all things that is they must not disagree in any revealed truth for to agree in that sense is fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian as Potter confesses By this also your N. 79. is answered Neither doe your N. 80. and 81. containe any difficulty which is not answered by a meere denyall I wish the Reader for his owne good to reade what you omitt in the N. 29. of C Ma where he shewes that Luther was farr enough from intending any reformation with some other points which you omitt or involue in darkness and which being read in him answer all your Objections 23. Your N. 82. gives as great a deadly blow to Protestant Religion as no adversary could haue givē a greater C Ma sayd that Luther ād his Associates did wholy disagree in the particulars of their reformatiō which was a signe that the thing vpon which theyr thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Relig ō but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome This you not only grant but proue that it could not be otherwise saying to Ch Ma. Certainly it is no great marveile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation Nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise And why You giue the reason in these remarkable words the Declination from which originall purity of religiō some conceaving to haue begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to haue shewed itselfe more openly others againe believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some ayming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times others thinking they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fift ages some taking their direction in this worke of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the decrees of Councells of the first fiue Ages certainly it is no great mervaile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow I know not whether the vncertainty or misery of Protestant religion could haue been described in more lively colours then you haue set it out For if they be vncertaine from whence to beginne their Reformation and for that cause you confesse it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars therof it followes that now they haue no certainty what Reformation is true or whether a Reformation ād not rather a Deformation or falshood And indeed the different heades even as you propose them are so confused that it is not easy to vnderstand what they meane and then how hard must it be to take them for a distinct rule how to proceed in the Reformation of the whole world If the principles be doubtfull the conclusion can not be certain You make your Progenitours to resemble perfectly the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers who not agreeing in their Principles proue vaine and ridiculous in their predictions You are like to a certaine man who not long a goe in a citty which I could name apprehending himselfe in his climactericall yeare could not be induced to eate as despayring to passe that Criticall time till he was told by a witty Physition that he must count his age from the time of his conception not of his nativity as he had done according to which rate finding as he thought his fatall yeare to be past was presently cured Truly whosoever advisedly and seriously considers this Number of yours can not but forsake Protestantisme if he meane not to forsake his owne soule You endeavoured to perswademen that by the ordinary meanes which are left vs a Church collapsed may be restored to purity which certainly you make impossible to be done by the Doctrine you deliver here Seing confessedly ther is no certainty vpon what Grounds or by what settled directions such a Reformation should proceed nor from whence it should beginne It is also strange to heare you say They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow What doe you now tell vs that there be traditiue interpretations of Scripture A thing disclaymed by you through your whole booke denying all other Traditions except that wherby we accept Scripture as the word of God but not the interpretation of it it being as you saie evident of itselfe and ther being no infallible Judge to declare it or any points of Faith which are not contained in it Moreover by what commission or coherence to yourself say you Pag 375. N. 56. That the Bible I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Seing you tell vs here that some of them tooke their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of the Councells for the first fiue Ages and that they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written
Tradition Heere yourselfe expressly distinguish those who tooke their direction only from Scripture from others who tooke it from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of Councells c. The truth is you vndertooke to defend Potter and Protestants only to haue the occasion of venting Socinianisme and covertly overthrowing Protestantisme and vpon grounds which indeed overthrow all Religion You say Let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better Answer in matters of Faith of two disagreeing the one must be in an errour against Divine Testimony and the other in the right I hope you will not say that the difference betweene an Assent of Faith and an errour against Faith is not between good and bad but between good and better as if errour against Faith were good but not so good as Faith Now those different capitall Principles of which you spoke cānot chuse but produce different and opposite conclusions and Doctrines of which one must be an errour 24. In your N. 83.84.85.86.87.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.96 you spend many words with much vnnecessary fervour against the answers which Ch. Ma. gives to two similitudes which D. Potter brings to excuse Protestants from the guilt of Schisme which similitudes you alledge in a cursiffe letter but add words of importance which the Doctour hath not His words faithfully alledged by Ch Ma. P. 194. N. 30 taken out of the Doctours P 81. 82. are these If a monastery should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline when others would not in this case could it in reason be charged with Schisme from others or with Apostasie from its rule and order Or as in a Society of men vniversally injected with soxie disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therfor sayd to separate from the Society so neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme from the Church seing all they did was to reforme themselves You say this argument is pressing and vnanswerable But Examples and similitudes are commonly sayed rather to illustrate then demonstrate and are often more captious then solid and convincing You haue no reason to accuse Ch Ma for perverting them for he first set downe the very words of Potter and then sets downe the case with application to our present purpose never affirming that the Doctour sets it downe in the manner and in those words but contrarily shewing that it should be so set downe which appeares by his express words N. 31. Before you make your finall resolution heare a word of advice And N. 32. Let me set before you these considerations All which words in both these places declare manifestly that Ch Ma did not pretend to set downe verbatim the Doctours case but to signify what he ought to haue considered and set downe and what de facto past in the division of Luther from the Church And lastly he shewes that the case being set downe as it ought to haue been made against the Doctour in favour of his adversary That all this is true will appeare by reading the discourse of Ch Ma N. 31.32.33.34 25. And it was easy for Ch. Ma. to retort the similitudes out of these grounds which he had proved That there is a most strict divine command not to forsake the communion of Gods Church Dr. Potter Pag 76. sayes Whosoever professeth himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole and therfor her the Roman Churches communion we forsake not no more then the Body of Christ And that externall communion is essentiall to make men members of the same Church which he Ch. Ma. shewes Pag 155. N. 5 and I haue proved heretofore For out of these two grounds it followes That it is de Jure Divino not to forsake the communion of the Church which according to Dr. Potter were to forsake the body of Christ and that to forsake the externall communion which is essentiall to the Church is to forsake the communion of the Church Now the similitudes of the Doctor to be of any force must suppose that ther is no divine command to remaine in that Monastery or company of those infected persons or else that to leaue their externall communion were not to leaue them and so in one word the parity must be absolutely denyed seing it is supposed that ther is no divine precept for remayning in that Monastery or Hospitall of sick people or else that to remaine in their company were not essentiall to be a member of such communities and therfor you say very irreligiously N. 84. That as it is possible to forsake other Societies that is their externall communion so also it may be Lawfull to forsake the communion of the Church for her pretended faults and corruptions But let vs see what you can object and I must here againe entreate the Reader to read Ch Ma. and not take his answers not only at a second but at an adversaries hand For here you practice an art first to divide the Reasons of Ch. Ma. and then to set vpon every single one a parte wheras there is such a connexion between his reasons that one receaves light and strength from another It seemes you haue a minde to cavill when you would seeme to make a difference between one Monasterie compared with other Monasteries of the same order and one or some few persons compared with the one Monasterie in which they liue Wheras you cannot but judge that there is the selfsame proportion and that the reason which may excuse or accuse in the one may doe the like in the other or rather indeed it is but one and the selfe same case for as much as belongs to our present purpose 26. You N. 85. in stead of āswering the case as C. Ma. puts it professe to alter it and to put it not just as Ch. Ma. would haue it Well even taking the case as you put it I say that if there were as ther is in our case a divine command not to part from such a community those observances which you suppose to be obliging would cease to oblige if they could not be kept without forsaking such a community yea though they did still oblige it were not Lawfull to leaue that community as I declared heretofore in case of minoris mali and perplexity But indeed Ch. Ma. speakes not of observances the omitting wherof did import sinne but in express termes of a case wherin a Monastery did confessedly obserue their substantiall vowes and all principiall Statutes or constitutions of the order though withsome neglect of lesser Monasticall Observances Neither is the streame of Casuists against Ch. Ma. in this nor S. Paul whome you cite while he sayes that we may not doe the least evill that we may doe the greatest good Seing in