the whole wheresoever it is spred but is found separate in some parte it is manifest that they are not in the Catholik Church Therefore it is not sufficient for salvation only to belieue that Christ is the sonne of God 64. The example of men of Beroea Act 17. V 11. who were searching the scriptures if these things were so is of no force in many respects First Heere is no least insinuation of any vniversall precept to reade or search the scriptures but only a narratioÌ„ of what those meÌ„ did and if the fact of some may be alledged as a command for all to reade the scriptures why may not the example of others who belieued only by hearing S. Paule and the other Apostles preach and seeing them worke Miracles and propose excellent reasons and arguments of Creâ—â—â—bility be alledged for a command that men should belieue without delaying their conversion till they reade scriptures Secondly they did not search the scriptures with any intention to find all the particular Mysteryes of Christian Faith evidently expressed in them which is our question but only that mayne poynt which was preached to them by S. Paule that this is Jesus Christ whom I preach to you V. 3 other particular poynts they would easily learne by further instruction of the Apostles being once assured in generall that they were persons worthy of all credit and Messengers of God Thirdly The scriptures which they did search were the Bookes of the Old testament in which all the necessary particular poynts of Christian Faith are not evidently contayned since Protestants teach that all necessary poynts are contayned in scripture only after the whole Canon of the Bible was ended yea the word searching shewes that euen that article of the true Messias was not evidently contayned in the Old testament but that the finding of it required labour as in the like case I shewed aboue out of S. Chrissostome and others about the word scrutamini search Fourtly Although the search of scriptures and consonance of them with s. Paules wordes might help the conversion of those meÌ„ yet who can doubt but the preaching and viva vox interpretation and explication of scripture alledged vrged and illustrated by S. Paul did also cooperate and operate more then the only reading of scriptures which many did reade and yet were not converted Which shewes their obscurity even in this Fundamentall Article concerning the Messias as we reade Act. 13.27 Not knowing him nor the voyces of the prophets that are read every sabboth And Luc. 24.44.45 it is sayd These are the words which I spake to you when I was with you that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moyses and the Prophets and the Psalmes of me Then he opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstaÌ„d the scriptures Wherfor the example of the Beroeans is not to the purpose vnless it can be proved that they redd the scripture without the assistance of such other meanes as I haue mentioned and that they found theÌ„ so â—â—ident that they needed no other help which certainly is wholy impossible to be proved Even Cartwright in whitg Def. P. 784. confesseth that Vnless the Lord workes miraculously and excraordinarily the bare reading of the scriptures without the preaching caÌ„not deliver so much as one poore sheepe from destruction Therfor scripture is not evident in all necessary Poynts otherwise it might deliver men from destruction Fiftly I say that not only those men had no obligation to read the scripture before they believed S. Paul but as the rhemes testameÌ„t vpon this place wisely observes they were bound to belieue the Apostle aÌ„d obey his word whether he alledged scripture or no or whether they could reade and vnderstand it or no. Therfor this example cannot be alledged to proue that all necessary Poynts of Faith are evident in scripture alone Sixtly This example is wholy impertineÌ„t if the Beroeans did search the scriptures only for their greater comfort aÌ„d confirmation in the Faith which they had already embraced by the preaching of S. Paul aÌ„d not by searching the scriptures as Cornelius à Lapide holds and to that purpose alledges the Text itself which sayth V. 11. And these were more noble theÌ„ they that are at Thessalonica who receyved the word with all greediness daily searching the scriptures if these things were so Where first it is sayd they receyved the word and then were searching the scriptures And this also is the judgment of the Rhemes TestameÌ„t 65. Besides the places which I haue answered Protestants are wont to alledg the words of the Apocalyps 22. V. 18.19 I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecie of this Booke If any man shall add to these things God shall add vpon him the plagues writteÌ„ in this book And if any man shall diminish of the word of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part out of the book of life aÌ„d out of the holy citie aÌ„d of these things that be writteÌ„ in this booke But what is this to the purpose of proving that we are obliged to reade and seek out of the Apocalyps alone for of it only S. Iohn expressly declares himself to speake all necessary Poynts of Christian Faith or that it contaynes evidently all such points in particular So farr was this sacred booke from having been written for a Catechisme or an entire Rule of Faith that it is a Prophecy or revelation of things to come so hidden and sublime and profound that S. Hierome sayth Tot habet SacrameÌ„ta quot verba Every word is a Mystery The curse which S. John interminates falls vpon such as either would add any thing contrary to this book or corrupt it by fathering on it some apocriphall writing or Revelation or diminish it by some part or which is worst of all quite abolish it as not Canonicall as in old tyme Marcionistae Alogiani Theodosiani as witnesseth Epiphan Lib. 2. Heres 51. did And Erasmus Lutherus Brentius and Kemnitius doe The Author of the Commentary vpon this booke bearing the name of S. Ambrose saith that He curses Heretikes that vsed to add somwhat of their own that was false and to take away other things that were contrary to their Heresyes But God forbid we should interpret Him to exclude the Authority of the Church and lawfull Pastours since S. John himself as long as he lived was a Living Rule or Iudg for matters of Faith besides the word written in the Apocalyps or in other Canonicall scripture and so no scripture was then the only Rule of Faith Yea S. John after the sayd curse adds two verses more and Cornel. a Lapide Quest Proaemialib in Apocalypsim saith it is cleare that S. John wrote the Apocalyps before he wrote the Gospell For this he wrote being retourned from his banishmeÌ„t of Patmos where he wrote the Apocalyps as S. Hierome teaches in Catal. script Ecclesiast and Eusebius Lib. 5. Hist C. 24.
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
a Gentile wherby one would apprehend that S. Paule judged it necessary at least per accidens because all knew that his father was a gentil that Timothy should be circumcised and yet contrarily Gal. 2. N. 3. it is sayd but neither Titus wheras he was a Gentil was compelled to be circumcised It is therfor very cleare that this Poynt which you alledg as clearly expressed in Scripture ought rather to be numbred amongst difficult and obscure places and directly against your inference that there is no need of an infallible guide shewes the necessity of such a guide because this determination about the Mosaicall Law was a Definition of a Counsell ād must be declared by the practise of Gods church as being concerning some things not to be alwayes observed but intended to be ordered by the sayd Church without whose authority how should we know when and in what manner the keeping of the Mosaicall Law became both vnnecessary and damnable mortua and mortifera dead and deadly since we see some part therof observed by the Apostles after our Sauiours ascension and sending the Holy Ghost 36. But at least though you haue erred in the first part of your example concerning the evidence of Scripture that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary to salvation yet you haue vndoubtedly proved your purpose in the other part That good works are necessary to salvation 37. To this I answer It is strang you should hold this point of the necessity of good works to salvation to be so evident in Scripture that every one who believes the Scripture hath sufficient meanes to discover and condemne the contrary heresie seing you know the common Tenet of Protestants that it is impossible to keep the commandements and the doctrine of many of them that all our actions are sinnes Can the breach of the commandements be a good worke Or can sinfull works be necessary to salvation That is can it be necessary to doe that which is necessary for vs not to doe as every one is obliged not to sinne How then can you say the Scripture is cleare in this poynt since so many of your chiefest brethren must mayntayne the contrary and divers of them do in express termes deny good works to be necessary yea and call it a Papisticall errour yea worse than is the Papists Doctrine as is exactly sett downe in Brierly Tract 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis 4. And see in the same Author Tract 3. Sect. 7. N. 7. The necessity of good works contradicted for new Papistry as pernicious as the old by Illyricus in Praefat. ad Rom. and many others And all this they pretend to doe vpon the warrant of evident scripture 37. And heer I am to obserue that Pag 157. N. 50. you having alledged some poynts as clearly contayned in scripture and in particular concerning Faith Repentance and Resurrection of the body which we haue demonstrated not to be clear without assistance from Gods Church and to be controverted even amongst Protestants add these remarkable words These we conceyue both true because the Scripture sayes so and Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell wherof our Sauiour sayes Qui non crediderit damnabitur Therfor say I scripture alone is not cleare even in Fundamentall points which directly overthrowes the whole Foundation of Protestants religion And because heer you name expressly the Resurrection of the Body and not only that all men shall rise againe at the last day as you spoake Pag. 101. N. 127. I would gladly know how it is a Resurrection of the Body which never rises againe but another celestiall body is created to succeed it And what reckoning do you make of the 39. Articles of the English Church since Art 4. it is sayd Christ did truly rise rgaine from death and tooke againe his body with flesh bones and all things appertaining to the perfection of mans nature wher with he ascended into Heaven and there sitteth vntill he returne to judg all men at the last day 38. You see then that he hath produced Fundamentall poynts as cleare in scripture which are proved not to be so Of poynts not Foundamentall he chuseth in the same place one example so pregnant and certaine in his conceypt that he hopes we will grant it to be such namely that Abraham begat Isaac But this text is not so cleare as he supposes For how will he be sure if we take those words alone that Abraham was Isaacs Father and not grandfather or yet higher We reade in S. Matthew 1.8 Ioram begat Ozias three Kings being left out For Ioram immediatly begat Ochozias Ochozias begat Ioas Ioas begat Amazias Amazias begat Azarias or Ozias for he had two names as is manifest 1. Paral. 3.11 and 12. and 2. Paral. 22.9 seqq he therfor left out three to wit Ochosias Ioas and Amazias as also Matth. 1.12 frequently in the Latin copy one generation is left out for with S. Epiphanius and others it is thus to be supplyed and read Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren and Jeconias begat Jechonias in the transmigration of Babilon For now we haue only Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon On the contrary where Genes 11. V. 12. it is sayd Arphaxad begat Sale as the Hebrew and Caldaean text haue both in this place and also 1. Paral. 1.18 24. the Septuaginta both heer and there put Cainan between For they saye Arphaxad begat Cainan and Cainan begat Sale S. Luke rollowes the Septuagint Chap. 36. saying Who was of Sale who was of Cainan who was of Arphaxad Besides all this what will he vnderstand by genuit he begat or fuit Filius he was the Son which may haue divers significations as Luc. 3.38 Who was of Henos who was of Seth who was of Adam who was of God Where we see Filius a son must be taken in a different sense as it is referred to Henos Seth and Adam and as it is referred to God vvhose naturall son Adam vvas not But I may seeme to haue sayd too much of such a matter as this vnless it did shevv clearly the difficulty of scripture even in texts vvhich scarcely seeme capable of difficulty 39. Sixtly vvhatsoever effect Protestants yield to Sacraments at least it is necessary they be maintayned and not quite abolished and taken from the true Church of vvhich Protestants teach the right administration of Sacraments to be an Essentiall Note Yea seing there vvant not learned Protestants vvho hold Baptisme to be necessary to salvation if the scripture be not cleare in vvhat concernes this Sacrament it is not cleare in a necessary poynt as I sayd Novv the very vvord Sacrament taken in this sense according to Protestants is not found in scripture yea Socinians teach that it is an abuse of the vvord Sacrament to apply it to holy rites (a) Volkelius Lib. 4 Cap. 22. And in the definition therof Protestants cannot agree
given to his Church the Gift of interpretation and I suppose Protestants will not say that the spirit of God the Grace of God and the Gift of interpretation given by God is necessary only for things not necessary and that we can attaine to the knowledge of poynts necessary by our own naturall forces which yet we might doe if reading alone could suffice vs for vnderstanding the true meaning of all necessary Mysteryes of Faith And it is strange that Dr. Morton should say Apolog. part 2. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. That which is questioned is whether all such thinges as are necessary to salvation are so very plaine that the most vnlearned believers by the reading therof may be instructed to piety and heretiques though not learned may clearly enough be confuted by them aÌ„d he holds the affirmatiue part And so ProtestaÌ„ts must either confess themselves to be Pelagians if they hold Gods speciall grace and spirit not to be necessary for vnderstanding scripture aright or if they acknowledg the necessity of such particular Grace they must yeald that scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowne Which argument may be yet inforced in this manner 54. The gift of interpretation is not given to every private person as we gather from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor 12. To one is giueÌ„ by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledg to another interpretation of languages to another prophecy c which declare that the spirit of interpreting is not given to all in so much as Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Fol 63. teacheth that the Gift of Interpretation is not common to all no more then is the gift of healing and miracles aÌ„d therfor we can only be certaine that it is in the Church not in any private person Therfor the Scripture is not so evident that we can be sure of the meaning therof by the interpretation of any but of the Church 55. Which finally Protestants must either acknowledg or els pinfold themselves in an inextricable circle and labyrinth in this manner Scripture is evident only to those who are indued with the spirit of God and seing S. Iohn Ioan 1 Cap 4. V. 1. warnes vs. beleeue not every Spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God it followes that Protestants must haue some meanes to try this spirit before they can beleeue it which meanes with them must be only Scripture and therfor they must know the meaning of the Scripture before they can make vse of that spirit by which they are to know the meaning of the Scripture Therfor the same spirit is necessary to know the meaning of Scripture and Scripture necessary to try the truth of this spirit and so this spirit shal be necessary for attayning the meaning of Scripture which meaning of Scripture must be attayned before we can vse this spirit Therfore this spirit is necessary and not necessary for vnderstanding Scripture which we must vnderstand before we can try this spirit and Scripture necessary and not necesssary for trying this spirit which we must know to be from God before we vnderstand Scripture And in a word the spirit must depend on the vnderstanding of Scripture and the vnderstanding of Scripture must depend on the spirit and the finall conclusion will be that the same thing must depend on it selfe the spirit on spirit Scripture on Scripture and so both of them must exist both before and after themselves Neither is there any meanes to avoyd this Circle except by having recourse to Gods visible Church whose spirit needs no triall of men since God himselfe hath given a publike Approbation of Her spirit by obliging all to obey Her voyce and to receyue even Scripture it self from Her Authority and Testimony 56. Ninthly I now vrge more in particular that which heretofore I touched in generall that they can alledg no evident Text of Scripture declaring any command that we must haue recourse to Scripture alone for knowing the Objects or Articles of Faith and yet if the End which is Faith be necessary the only Meanes that is Scripture to attayne that End must also be necessary nor can they produce any evident Text proving that from Scripture alone we can learne all points necessary to be believed 57. The clearest and most effectuall way to proue the truth of this my Assertion wil be to examine such Texts as Protestants are wont to alledg and to shew how little they make to their purpose They produce these words Deut 4. V. 2. You shall not add to the word that I speake to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you Search the Scriptures Ioan 5.39 these things are written that yee may beleeue Ioan 20.31 And that of the Beraeans dayly searching the scriptures Act 17. V. 11. we haue the Propheticall word more sure 2. Pet. 1.19 All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke 2. Timoth 3.16 58. Now these Texts are so farr from proving evidently what is intended that it is evident that neither these nor any other can be alledged to proue that men are obliged to haue recourse to scripture alone The reason is because whatsoeuer can be alledged out of the old testament cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude the living Guides granted to that Church as Moyses the Prophets and writers of Canocall scripture nor out of the new testament to exclude the Apostles and preachers of the Gospell Therfor no scripture can be so vnderstood as to oblige vs to consult scripture alone Nay out of this ground I further infer that seing at that tyme Christians wanted not living infallible Guides they had no obligation at all to consult scripture and much less scripture alone and if they had no such obligation no Canonical scripture can with truth affirme that they were so obliged and consequently it is an injury to scripture to interpret it in that sense This my deduction is confirmed by a doctrine of Chilling Pag 116. N. 159. that God requires of vs vnder payne of danatioÌ„ only to belieue the verityes therin in scripture contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin they are coÌ„taynâ—d By which assertion he doth not only disoblige meÌ„ from having recourse to scripture but also froÌ„ believing it to be the word of God when the contents therof caÌ„ be learned by other meanes as they might while those visible guides were living Therfor no text caÌ„ be brought to proue that men were or are obliged to haue recourse to Scripture for matters of Faith though they are bound to belieue them to be the infallible word of God as in due tyme I will proue against his pernicious doctrine to the contrary delivered in this same page and number 59. But beside this there is another fundamentall
ground of Protestāts which being well pondered will make it a hard task for them to alledge any text of scripture to the purpose in hand They teach that only after the Canon of scripture was perfited it became a sufficient Rule of Faith and consequently before that tyme we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therin Therfor do I infer no scripture could affirme that scripture contaynes all necessary poynts except that book yea text which was written last and did make vp the whole Canon and all precedent parts of scripture could only speake in the future tense and as it were by way of prophecy that other books of scripture were to be written and that then the scripture would be sufficiēt for all necessary points For which propheticall kind of meaning Protestants do not alledg scripture as for example that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New or that one part of the new contaynes a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow which to affirme were groundless and ridiculous And who can say that the scripture which was written last affirmes the sufficiency of scripture alone If Protestants haue any such assurance let them shew vs in that last booke or text the words which evidently contayne such a meaning and asseveration For on that last text alone they must rely for the reasons alledged that without that text the Canon was not complete Add yet further that it being not certaine what part of Canonicall scripture was the last they cannot with certainty alledg any one text of the whole Bible to proue their purpose And much will be added to their difficulty if we consider that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonicall or no for example the Apocalips the second and third Epistle of S. John which by some Protestants are expressly put out of the Canon And then how can they so much as offer vs any proofe from the old Testament since it is impossible to be done out of the new as hath bene proved 60. Tenthly Although what I haue sayd were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants to alledg any text of scripture for their purpose yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader in a matter of such moment mēt I will as I sayd aboue examine the texts vsually alledged ādshew that they are neither evidēt nor probable nor pertinent Wherby I shall not only confute all their proofes but joyntly bring a convincing argument for vs against them whose Doctrine must needs fall if they be demonstrated to faile in their allegation of scripture for this maine poynt And it is to be observed that Chilling seemes in effect to acknowledg that it is hard to alledg any effectuall text for his purpose while he is very sparing in producing scripture but makes perpetually vse of Topicall arguments and discourses as for example if scripture were not evident in all things necessary we could not be obliged to belieue them ād the like being indeed conscious that the places of scripture commonly alledged by Protestants are of small force 61. To the words objected out of Deut 4.2 You shall not add to the word which I speak to you I answer they cannot signify that all things which the Iewes were obliged to belieue or practise were contayned evidently in scripture alone as if the writing of Moyses did exclude the ordinary living Rule permanent amongst the Iewes to witt the Definition of the Priest of which it is sayd Deut 17.8 If thou perceyue that the judgmēt with thee be hard and doubtfull c or as if it excluded Moyses himself or the rest of this veryfourth chapter out of which the objection is taken or other chapters which he wrote afterward even in that book of Deuteronomy which hath in all 34. Chapters or the last Chapter which could not be written by Moyses but Esdras or Iosue disciple ād successour to Moyses as appeares by the same Chapter V. 5.6 where the death and buriall of Moyses is described and it is sayd Deuter 34.6 no man hath knowne his sepulcre vntill this present day or the commāds which the Prophets somtyme gaue as 1. Reg. 15. or some solemnityes or Feast instituted for thāksgiving for some benefit or as if after those words of Moyses ād after his death no scripture could be written by Iosue and other Canonicall writers amongst the Iewes in the Old or Christians in the New Law for feare of transgressing You shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you Therfor ethose words You shall not add to the word c must haue some other meaning then these mē would violently giue them against the express words themselves which are not You shall not add to the writing which I write to you but to the word which I speak to you which if we respect the letter signifyes rather vnwritten tradition than any thing written in scripture And that the Jewes had vnwritten traditions see Brierly Tract 1. sect 4. subdivis 6. citing both ancient Fathers and Protestant writers and so this text makes for tradition against the objectours rhemselves Besides You shall not add to the word may signify contrary to it by declining to the right or left hand as is sayd Cap 5. V. 32. especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor as it followes V. 3. or of some other new Deity or Idoll For Moyses in all this Chapter and frequently in deuter intends to exclude new Gods and Rites Thus the Hebrew al that is ad is taken for contra Psalm 2.2 and numbers 14.2 so Gal. 1.8 S. Paul denounces an anathema to those who evangelize aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit praeter beside that is contra against for he treates of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme This appeares in the words of the same verse you shall not add to the word which I speak to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the commandements of your God which I command you Which latter words signify that to add or take away from Gods word is to breake or doe somthing against his commādemēts ād not to doe somthing which is not commāded so it be not forbidden and otherwise may tend to Gods glory Otherwise the Iewes added many things to the Law of God as engravings the ornaments of the temple Dayes of lottes Esth 9.31 the Feast of fire given the Feast of the Dedication c. All which considered who doth not see what a strange Argument this is Moyses sayth to the Iewes thou shall not add to the word which I speake Therfor nothing must be believed or practised by Iewes or Christians which is not exprest in writing or scripture yea in the scripture of the old Law and what is this but to condemne the Law of Christ 63. Toar those words search the Scriptures spoken by
in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be āy Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes ād then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither cā you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehād the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequētly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all Protestāts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue
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
occasions teach proclaime and proue the necessity of Tradition and that scripture alone is not evident or sufficient without a living judg and the Gift of interpretation bequeathed by God to his Church Do they not even in their Annotations vpon this very first Chap of the Acts 14. and 15. verse purposely avouch and proue the same When therfor they say in their short marginall Note vpon these words all things Act 1. not all particularly but all the principall and most necessary things it is cleare their meaning is not that S. Luke had written all particular poynts necessary to be believed in Gods Church but only that he had set downe what was principall and most necessary for the End at which he aymed that is to proue our Saviour to be the messias and to oblige men to belieue so much as also to preserue vs from false or fayned Narrations And it is certaine S. Luke omitted nothing that was most necessary for these ends I might add that if we examine exactly those words All the principall and most necessary things they signify not all necessary things but all most necessary which may be very true though some necessary things be ommitted and left to the other Evangelists and Canonicall Writers or to Tradition and the Declaration of Gods Church and so the words of those Doctours do not make good your demand which concerned absolutely all principall and necessary things 132 Neither doth this any way hinder but that S. Luke and the Evangelists may be most truly and properly sayd to write the Gospell and life of Christ while he lived on earth in order to the ends which I haue declared as also because though they wrote not all but somthing of all as S. Ambrose speakes and we may say not singula generum but genera singuloruÌ„ yet every one of them wrote of our B. Saviours miracles of his Doctrine of his Parables of his promises of his sufferings of his Death c but not every particular that might haue bene recorded vnder these kinds or generall heads And this is a proper and literall explication both for the words of S. Luke which you object aÌ„d for what you alledg concerning the other three Evangelists to proue that every one of theÌ„ must express every necessary point of faith For if the Evangelists may be truly sayd to haue written for example the Miracles of our Saviour though neither any one nor all of them together haue written the twenty thousandth part of them as we gather out of S. John much more may every one of them be truly sayd to write the Gospell or History of Christ though they express not every particular point or object of Christian Faith taken in the whole latitude therof I hope you will not be objecting against the Evangelists how can they be sayd to write the Miracles of Christ of they write not the halfe nor fourth nor tenth no nor the thousandth part therof as you are pleased to object against vs and say Pag 210. N. 40. If every one of them Evangelists haue not in them all necessary Doctrines 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 part of it Good Sir are not the Miracles of our Sauiour a part of the Gospell and is not your vnderstanding by the whole Gospell as you declare yourself in the same place not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man which signifyes all necessary things a voluntary vnderstanding and a meere begging of the Question And by what I haue sayd in this occasion we may gather that although scripture should expresly affirme that it self contaynes all things necessary yet without a Living Judg and authenticall Interpreter we should remayneâ—ncertayne of the meaning of that very Text since the Annotations vpon the Rhemes Testament say that S. Luke wrote all the principall and most necessary things which Jesus began to doe and teach and yet yourself know that those learned Doctours were farr from conceyving that S. Lukes Gospell containes all Poynts necessary to be believed by Christians 133. 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith without the belief wherof no man can be saved be not the principall and most necessary things which I â—sus taught 134. Answer Omitting to repeate what I sayd about the difference of things principall and necessary I grant that the Articles of Faith without the belief wherof no man can be saved are the most necessary things which Iesus taught But you are perpetually begging the Question in supposing that all that Jesus taught concerning the Articles without the belief wherof no man can be saved are particularly expressly and evidently written either by S. Luke or any one or all of the Canonicall Writters which you know we deny 135. 12. Whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospell be not less principall and less necessary then all and every one of these 136. Answer I suppose you would make this Argument S. Luke hath written many things less principall and lesse necessary then those without the belief wherof no man can be saved therfor he hath written all those things without the belief wherof no man can be saved But why do you not say Not only the foure Evangelists but all and every one of the Canonicall Writers haue written many things which be less principall and less necessary then those without the belief wherof no man can be saved therfore they haue written all such necessary things You should consider that things may be principall and necessary compared to one end and not principall and necessary in order to another S. Luke hath not fayld to set downe all things necessary for that end which by inspiration of the Holy Ghost he proposed to himself which was beside other causes ver grat preventing false Narrations c to proue our Saviour to be the Messias for attaining of which end there was no necessity of expressing all other Articles of Christian Faith and therfor you cannot gather that he hath expressed all necessary Poynts because he hath written many things less necessary For those things less necessary to be believed by all may yet be more necessary in order to some particular end which the Canonicall Writer may haue prescribed to himself And therfor as the Writers of scripture wrote vpon severall ocasions and for different ends we must not determine what they were obliged to set downe by the nature of things in themselves but with relation to such diversity of ends otherwise we must say that the Saints Peter Paul James and John must of necessity haue expressed in their Epistles all Points necessary to be believed because they delivered some things less necessary in themselves than those which they wrote And who can deny but that the Evangelists omitted some Poynts more principall in themselves then some other which they
containe something against scripture For example whether according to the example of our Saviour the Eucharist were not to be celebrated after supper or at the tyme when we are wont to supp as Protestants commonly call it the supper which certainly you cannot avoyd by scripture alone but only by authority of the Church which practiseth the contrary And this is so great a doubt that Januarivs consulted S. Austine about it and S. Austine answers that we are to follow the custome of Churches though yet in the same Epistle Cap. 7. he saith Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio c. Some were moved with a probable reason that vpon one particular day in the yeare on which our Lord gaue the supper the Body and Bloud of our Lord might be offered ād receyved after meate as it were for a more remarkable commemoration The same I say of washing the feete and other circumstances which abstracting from the practise of the Church you can haue no certainty but that we are obliged to follow our Saviours example in them all And in particular for washing of feet our Saviour Joan. 13. V. 8. said to S. Peter If I wash thee not thou shalt haue no part with me And V. 14. you also ought to wash one anothers feet Mark the word ought which may seeme to sound a commād and was spoken not only to S. Peter but to all the rest Therfor vnless we rely on the churches practise Declaration and infallibility we must say that there is a command to wash feete either before we receyve the Eucharist or els absolutely without relation to that Sacrament because our Saviour sayd absolutely you ought to wash one an others feet Morover How will you assure vs that bread for the Matter of Consecration must not of necessity be vnleavened and the wine only of that kind which our Saviour vsed at that tyme Or if you may cōsecrate in any kind of wine why not in any kind of bread Which are things belonging not only to decency or circumstance but also to the substance of the Sacrament and though they belonged only to circumstance yet if they were forbidden or commanded in scripture the doing or omission of thē were damnable therfor S. Austine must suppose that the vniversall church cānot erre Neither cā he be thought to say these things are not vnlawfull but indifferent therfor it is madness to dispute against them if they be practised by the whole church but contrarily he must say the whole church practises them therfore they are lawfull ād it is madness to dispute against them which were not so if the whole church might erre neither had he sayd any more of the vniversall than of any particular church which ought not to be disturbed for things indifferent as you ibid Pag. 151. N. 42. deny not but it might be esteemēd pride and folly to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order partaining to the tyme and place and other circomstāces of Gods worship And yet S. Austine in that Epistle Cap. 2. having first mentioned things contayned in scripture adds these words But those things which we keep not as written but by tradition if they be observed through the whole world are vnderstood to be kept as recōmended and ordayned either by the Apostles themselves or by generall Councells whose authority is most wholsome in the Church and having given examples of things which are differētly observed in different places and countryes saith this kind of things is freely observed neither is there any better order for a grave and prudent Christian then that he doe as he sees done in that church to which he chances to come ād afterward he disallowes their proceeding who are cause of disturbance for things which can be decided neither by the authority of holy scripture nor by tradition of the vniversall church Therfor according to S. Austine if ōce we haue a tradition of the vniversall church we may ād ought to defend it without further dispute ād to impugne ād reject whatsoever practise or doctrine of any particular church or countrey though it may seeme to be occasion of trouble which we could not doe without pride ād folly vnless we were assured that the vniversall church cannot approue any vnlawfull practise or deliver any thing against faith ād therfor he saith Cap. 4. that he who alledges only the custome of his particular country will not speake out of scripture neither will he take his proofes frō the voice of the vniversall church dilated through the world Where we see S. Austine makes a difference between a particular and vniversall church and constantly ioynes togeather the Holy Scripture and the voice of the vniversall church either of which whosoever can alledg he may confidently stand for what they deliver And for this cause cap. 5. he saith that Januarius to whom he wrote was to consider whether that of which there was Question be contayned in scripture or be vnanimously practised by the whole church or of the third kind which is different in divers places and countryes of which third kind he saith let every one doe what he findes in that church where he fynds himself But of the two first kinds he speakes as I noted aboue in another manner that there is no doubt but that we are to doe what the Holy Scripture prescribes as also whatsoever the vniversall church doth practise and that to dispute against any such thing is most insolent madness What could haue bene spoken more cleare to shew that we are not to follow the vniversall church because we judg aforehand that what she practises is lawfull but because we learne by her practise that it is lawfull and so ought not to doubt quin ita faciendum sit that is ought to be so done and so we must learne of her both the practise and the lawfulness therof And consequently whatsoever is against scripture or the practise of the vniversall Church must not be ranked among the third kind of things of which he sayd none of those things are against Faith or Manners and contrarily whatsoever is of the two first kinds that is against scripture or the vniversall Church must be esteemed to be of a different nature and contrary to Faith or Manners and therfor saith he velemendari opportet quod perperam fiebat vel institui quod non fiebat Either that must be mended which was done amisse or that is to be ordayned which was omitted And therfor your saying here that it is not to be accounted pride or folly to goe about to reforme some errours which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate therby the substance of Gods Worship is directly against S Austine and you cannot avoyd the crime of schisme by parting from the Church vpon such false pretenses nor of Heresy even by this most pernicious Doctrine that the vniversall Church may erre 210. From these places of S. Austine and what we haue sayd
I confute as I haue done your other errours For if the Apostles somtyme deliver things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence we cannot belieue with certainty any thing they deliver vnless you con giue vs a certaine Rule how to discerne when they vtter such things and when they deliver Divine Revelations Yea according to your Principles who must proue all by Scripture alone you must giue vs such a certaine Rule out of some evident Text of Scripture As you teach that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men much more may you say that he may permit the Apostles to write their owne dictamen and judgment without declaring whether they write only such dictamens or els deliver divine Revelations 38. S. Paul in this seaventh Chapter which you cite V. 39 40. even according to the Protestant English Translation Anni 1622. sayth the wife is bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be marryed to whom she will only in the Lord. But she i◠happyer if she so abide after my judgment and I think also that I haue the spirit of God Now consider I pray you that S. Paul in these words advises a thing for widdowes which God hath not commanded and so might haue sayd in this place I speake not our Lord and then when he adds I thinke also that I haue the spirit of God I aske whether he speake these words out of humane prudence or by divine Revelation and inspiration If he speake by divine Revelation you haue no reason to say that he delivers not a divine Revelation whē 12. he sayes To the rest speake I not our Lord. But if S. Paul in these words I think also that I haue the spirit of God speake not out of divine inspiration but only out of a probable hope or perswasion that he had the spirit of God how can we belieue by divine infallible Faith that his writings are true in any Point Especially if you consider that he teaches widdowes would be more blessed if they remayned so for this very Reason that he advises it and that he thinks himself to haue the spirit of God which proofe supposes that he was indued with an vniversall infallibility and that therfor his counsell in this particular matter was best And this word I thinke might with greater shew of reason make men belieue that S. Paul was not certaine that he had the spirit of God then the reason which you alledg that he spoke out of humane prudence For what consequence is this Our Lord hath commanded nothing in this particular but I giue this advise or Counsell as the best Therfor S. Paul speakes not by divine inspiration Or thus by inspiration I say God hath not commanded therfore I speake not by inspiration in that which I Counsell as if God could not inspire both parts of this speach that is both his saying that God did command and yet that the thing not commanded was better than the contrary seing both those Propositions are true and so one excluds not the other but both may be inspired by the author of Truth Nay if you say he spoke by inspiration for one part that there was no command it is very inconsequent to affirme that be spoke not by the like inspiration in the other I judge it the better and if he spoke by inspiration in both he spoke only out of humane prudence in neither In those words I haue not a Command of our Lord for Virgins but I giue Counsell doth S. Paul say any more than that virginity is not commanded or necessary to salvation which I hope you will say is a revealed Truth but only I counsell it And by what art can you persvvade men that he spoke the first I haue not a command of our Lord by Revelation and not the second considering that S. Paul makes no such difference in his act of belief or as I may say ex parte subjecti but only in the Object for not being commanded but only counselled both vvhich as I sayd being true both might be vtterd by divine inspiration as indeed they vvere And those other vvords speake I not our Lord shevv only that our B. Saviour left povver to the Apostles and their Successours to advise Counsell ordaine or command some things as severall occasions might require vvhich he himself had not commanded in particular Which is a most certaine Truth and the ground of Obedience and subordination to Lavvfull Pastors in Gods Church and cannot be denyed by protestants themselves and therfor it is not only a dictate of humane prudence 39. All this will appeare more manifest if we ponder S. Paules words as they lye He sayth V. 5. Defraud not one another except perhaps by consent for a tyme that you may giue yourselves to prayer and returne againe togeather least Satan tempt you for your incontinency Where we may consider how in the first part of this Verse there is a command of God defraud not one another except perhaps by consent for a tyme that you may giue yourselves to prayer in the greeke and to fasting which is not a command but a counsell ād thirdly returne againe togeather which is neither a command nor a counsell but a permissiō or indulgēce to avoyd ā evill ād not as a thing which he judged to be best which he declares in the next Uerse 6. But I say this by indulgence not by commandement and then V. 7. declaring what he judged to be the best he sayth For I would all men to be as my self and V. 8. But I say to the vnmarryed and to widdowes it is good for them if they so abide even as I also Behold then a Command a Counsell a Permission Now I aske whether in all these S. Paul spoke by Revelation or only out of humane prudence Or how can you without any least reason imagine that in some of them he spoke one way in others another And if you say so you will only clearly confirme what I sayd that we can haue no certainty when he vtters things revealed or only his owne judgment For although in the words rehearsed he say not expressly not I but our Lord nor not our Lord but I yet he might haue sayd so seing he declared both a Commandement of God and so might haue saied not I but our Lord and a Conunsell and might haue saied not our Lord but I And therfor when he sayth V. 10. and 11. But to them that be joyned in matrimony not I giue commandment but our Lord that the wife depart not from her husband and if she depart to remayne vnmarryed or to be reconciled to her husband And let not the husband put away his wife And V. 12. For to the rest I say and not our Lord you cannot infer that he speakes by another spirit or motion then in the precedent verses where he might haue vsed
your flying to such poore signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause than consent and constancy of many therin while we see others change alter and contradict one another and even the same man become contrary to himself who yet in all other humane respects haue the same occasion ability and reason of such consent and constancy Tertullian Praescript Chap 28. saith truly Among many events there is not one issue the errour of the churches must needs haue varied But that which among many is found to be one is not mistaken but delivered And the experience we haue of the many great and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture and interpretation therof is a very great argument that the church which never alters nor disagrees from herself is guided by a superiour infallible Divine Spirit as Christians among other inducements to belieue that scripture is the word of God alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another 60. Before I passe to your next Errour I must aske a Question about what you deliver Pag 141. N. 28. where speaking of some Bookes of scripture you say Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall And Pag 142. N. 29. If they some certaine bookes of scripture were approved by the Apostles this I hope was a sufficient definition How I say you who hold that Scripture is not a Point of Faith nor revealed by God can say that to propose bookes of scripture though they had bene proposed before is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles But as I sayd hertofore it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions 61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture and all Christianity is taken out of your Doctrine of which I haue spoken hertofore that the Bible was proved to be Divine by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men Which Assertions put togeather may giue occasion to doubt whether those Miracles wherby the Scriptute was confirmed were not to delude men and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God 62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered Pag 69. N. 47. which overthrowes all proof that can be takeÌ„ from Miracles for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God or that other articles of Christian Faith are true Thus you write For my part I profess if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one maine pillar for my Faith and for want of it I feare should be much staggered in it Doth not this assertion declare that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves to convince that a thing confirmed by them is true or good vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment that the things in themselves are such which is not to belieue the Miracles or God speaking and testifying by them but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men wheras contrarily we ought to judge such things to be good because they are so testifyed and not belieue that Testimony to be true because in our judgment independently of that Testimony the things are good in themselves which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstaÌ„ding Do not you in divers places pretend that this reason is aboue all other God sayes so therfor it is true and further do you not say Pag. 144. N. 31. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth sayes S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should ly and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed how comes it that your Faith could be staggered notwithstanding the working of such Miracles if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles as the Apostles did if the belief of those Points so proved must stand to the mercy of your judgment which as I saied may vary vpon divers occasions and yet this diversity of judgment you must according to this your doctrine follow even against any point though confirmed by Miracle It is therfor cleare That in your Principles you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture nor of the contents threrof although it were supposed that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed 63. Your 8. Errour consists in this that beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour that you impeach the certainty of scripture by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it and for whose Authority we belieue it I find you do the same in other places You say P. 144. N. 30. The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one has free will and is subject to passions and errour Change the tearmes and say The infallibility of the Apostles depended â—pon the infallibility of our Saviour and this dependance was voluntary for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule being nothing but a number of men of whom every one has freewill and is subject to passion and errour and that we way be sure of this last in the very next N. 31. you teach That the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice aÌ„d P. 137. N. 21. to tinadvertence or prejudice you add or some other cause which gives scope enough to censure the Apostles continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding
his defence of Hooker teachers the same Doctrine and neither you nor any Protestant in the world can haue any ground to thinke that it is possible to convince them of fal shood in this matter and therfor this vncertainty which you impute to vs falls heavy vpon yourself and other Protestants if indeed they administer Sacraments without such an intention as all Catholikes aÌ„d some chief ProtestaÌ„ts belieue to be necessary 33. Now as for the Doctrine itself of Catholikes about the necessity of Intention it is so reasonable and cleare that it is strang any can call it in Question For I beseech you if a madman or a foole ar a drunken man or an infant or one in his sleepe should chance to cast water vpon one and pronounce the Forme should such an one be baptized or if he were baptized already were such an action of such persons a rebaptizatioÌ„ If one with purpose only to learne the manner of baptizing did practise the pronouncing the words and applying the Matter should that be true Baptisme If one by chance reading or disputing or for some other end should pronounce the words of Consecration out of Scripture and that without his knowlege there should chance to be bread aÌ„d wine with in a morall distaÌ„ce should he consecrate the Eucharist Or are men obliged never to pronounce those words in such occasions as I specifyed least they consecrate whether they will or noâ— Are not these foolish absurdityes If you say and it is all that can be imagined you can say that at least he who pronounces the words must exercise a deliberate humane morall free Action which madmen infants c. nor even men in their wits cannot exercise when they are ignorant of the morall presence of the matter that is to be consecrated but that it is not necessary besides the substance of a morall Action to intend also to administer a Sacrament I answer first This answer evacuates the ground of Heretiks who say That intention is not necessary because the words receive force only from the Will and Institution of God and therfor must not depend vpon the morality of that Action which morality depends vpon the intention of him that pronounces the words to wit that he intend to doe it seriously aÌ„d not in jeast or by way only of pronouncing the materiall words without their signification and so the salvation of soules must depend vpon a secret intention of which we cannot be sure as men exercise many indeliberate actions without any virtuall or actuall inteÌ„tion If for the validity of a Sacrament it be sufficient to exercise a deliberate action without any further reference or Intention one could not without a deadly sin wash an infant already baptized and for devotion say I wash the in the name of the Father c as meÌ„ are woÌ„t to say I doe this in Gods name because according to this answer it would be repabtization 2. I answer if one be supposed to intend the performance of the Sacramentall action for the substance no reason can be imagined why he should not inteÌ„d to doe as others do in such an action for example if the child be brought to be Christened and the Minister deliberately apply water and pronounce the Forme ether can be no cause which can moue him at least not to intend that which there are wont to do in the like case and to thinke the contrary may easily or almost possibly happen argues only in you an excessiue desire to impugne by whatsoever arguments our Catholique Doctrine 34. And here I must of necessity make a diversion rather than a digression and answer some Points to which you referr yourself in this Pag 94. N. 109. in these words All which things as I haue formally proved deâ—end vpon so many vnâ—ertaine suppositions that no human judgment can possibly be resolved in them For although what you pretend to haue bene formally proved hath bene in effect answered already yet I thought sit to examine every point in particular that so the Foundation of your assertions in this place being overthrowne all the superstructions which you and other Protestants are wont to make may evidently appeare false and ruinous and so fall to the ground 35. Cha Ma Part. 1. Chap 2. N. 16. having shewed out of Brierly Tract 1. Sect 10. subd 4. joyned with Tract 2. Chap 2. Sect 10. Subd 2. That the Translations of Scripture made by Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basill Castâ—lio Calvin Beza and Geneva Bibles as also the English Translation are mutually condemned by Protestants themselves respectiue as corrupting the Word of God and the Authors as Antichrists and deceivers Wicked and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost sacrilegious Ethnicall making the Text of the Gospell to leap vp and downe vsing violence to the letter of the Gospell adding to the Text changing the Text deserving either to be purged from those manifold errours which are both in the Text and in the margent or els vtterly to be prohibited in the Translation of the Psalmes in addition substraction and alteration differing from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least and such as is doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe therto depraving the sense obscuring the truth deceiving the ignorant in many places detorting the Scripture from the right sense and that the Translators shew themselves to loue darkness more than light falshood more than truth taking away from the Text adding to the Text to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost c. This I say Charity Maintayned having shewed adds these words Let Protestants consider duly these Points Salvation cannot be hoped for without the true Faith Faith according to them relyes vpon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre and no greater evidency of truth than that it is evident some of theÌ„ embrace falshood by reason of their contrary Translations What then remayneth but that truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of Divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therfor if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwayes visible Church against which the gates of Hell can never so farr prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceyue the Christian world with false Scriptures 87. Against these words Pag 76. N. 63. you speak in this manner This Objection though it may seeme to do you great service for the present yet I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged it against vs as a fault that we make mens salvation depend vpon
and reall necessity therof You perceaving the impossibility are necessitated to say it is not of importance but needless They in actu exercito you in actu signato shew it impossible to be done You I say teach it to be needless because you find it to be impossible as Protestants would make the world belieue that Miracles are ceased because they can worke none which if they had hope to do they would soone chang their Doctrine as you and they would quickly teach a Catalogue to be profitable and necessary if you could make one The truth is such a Catalogue is necessary in the principles of Protestants who deny the Authority of the Church and yet being indeed impossible to them as we see by experience in their differences and your express confession it shewes in what desperate case they and you are But heere I must by the way note a contradictiō of yours We haue heard you say Pag 134. N. 13. that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to an other is not so Which is repugnant to what you say Pag 13◠N. 20. Points Fundamentall be those only which are revealed by God and commanded to be preached to all and believed by all For if Fundamentall Points be such only as must be believed by all it is cleare that they which are necessary to be believed not by all but by some only cannot be Fundametall You also contradict Potter who Pag 21◠teaches that by Fundamentall Doctrines we meane such Catholique verities as are necessary to be distinctly believed by every mark every Christian that will be saved 7 Now That such a Catalogue is needless you would shew as I sayd because who soever believes the Scripture which is evident in all necessary Points and in many which are not necessary shall be sure to belieue all that is necessary and more 8. This evasion I haue confuted allready yet in this particular fit occasion I must not omitt to say somthing 9. First then in saying a Catalogue is needless you contradict other Protestants to whom I suppose you will deferr so much as to thinke their opinion not voyd of all probability and consequently your owne not to be certaine which were only to any purpose For if the contrary chance to be true and a Catalogue be really necessary your Doctrine denying both that it is necessary or that it can be given must be very pernicious to soules deceaving them with an opinion that that is neither necessary nor possible which yet is absolutely necessary for their salvation In the very sentence or Motto before your Booke you alledg Casaubon saying Existimat ejus Majestas c. His Majesty judges that the number of things absolutely necessary to salvation is not great and therfore that there is not any more compendious way to make an agreement than carefully to distinguish between necessary and vnnecessary things and that all endeavour be vsed to procure an agreement in things necessary Do not these words signify both a possibility and necessity of distinguishing between necessary and vnnecessary Points And yet we haue heard you say that it is both impossible and vnnecessary in direct opposition to your Motto And you say in your Epistle Dedicatory to the King that your Booke is in a manner nothing else but a superstruction vpon that blessed Doctrine where with you haue adorned and armed the frontispice of your Book and which was recommended by King James as the only hopefull meanes of healing the breaches of Christendome A strang cure by that meanes only which you hold to be vnnecessary and impossible And here by occasion of mentioning Casaubon I cannot omit to declare for a warning to others that I haue it vnder the hand of a person of great quality and integrity that that vnhappy man finding himselfe in danger of death dealt with the sayd worthy person to procure the presence and help of a Catholick Priest but his intention being discouered or suspected he was so besieged by his wife and a Protestant English Minister that it was not possible to be effected A fearfull example for all such as check or choak the Inspirations of the holy Ghost and procrastinate their conversion till they finde that common but terrible saying when it concerns Eternity to be true He who will not when he may shall not when he will 10. 〈◊〉 by this reason of yours there is no necessity of giv 〈…〉 even a Definition or Description of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall or of even mentioning such a distinction seing in practise you cannot by any such description or distinction know when they offer themselves in particular and you are sure not to misse of them by believing all that is cleare in Scripture Especially if we adde your words Pag 23. N. 27. That Protestants giue you not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls it is not from Tergiversation but from Wisdome and Necessity And when they had done it it had been to no purpose There being as Matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are And yet all learned Protestants harpe vpon nothing more than vpon this distinction of Points Fundamentall and vpon the definitions or descriptions of them as particularly may be seene in your client Potter Pag 211.213.214.215 which is a needless paynes if this your evasion be good and solid 11. Thirdly Though one be obliged not to disbelieue any Truth revealed in Scripture when it is knowne to be such yet he is not bound to belieue explicitly all such Truths For by this Fundamentall and not fundamentall points are distinguished as Potter P 213. saith Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith In other Points that Faith which the Card Perron Replique Liur 1. Chap 10. calls the Faith of adherence or non-repugnance may suffice to wit an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared Now if I cannot sever or distinguish these two kinds of Points I shall either be obliged to know absolutely all and every Truth contained in Scripture which is a voluntary and intollerable obligation or none seing I cannot tell in particular what they be which I am obliged to know and so be in danger to be ignorant of fundamentall Articles without the actuall and express knowledg wherof I cannot be saved And this difficulty is encreased by the doctrine which you deliver Pag 195. N. 11. That there is no Point to any man at any tyme in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme in the same circumstances necessary to be believed Seing then no point of Scripture can at any tyme in any circumstances be disbelieved it is necessary at all tymes in all circumstances to be believed And much more this must follow if we cannot know what points be Fundamentall except
may be excused For no body can intend evill but for some motiue of Vertue profit or pleasure And since their pretended reformation did consist as they gaue out in forsaking the corruptions of the Roman Church the Reformation of themselves and their Division from vs fall out to be one and the selfe same thing and so if it was not lawfull to forsake vs it was not lawfull to reforme themselves by forsaking vs. Besides we see the they disagree infinitely in the particulars of their pretended Reformation and therfore the thing vpon which their first thoughts did pitch was not any particular Modell or Idea of Religion but a conceipt that their most necessary and as I may say immediate Reformation did consist in forsaking the Roman Church 12. An other argument Charity Maintayned N. 35. sets downe in these words It is evident that there was a division between Luther and that Church which was visible when he arose but that Church caÌ„not be sayd to haue divided herselfe from him before whose tyme 〈◊〉 was and in comparison of whom she was a whole and he but a Part therfore we must say that he divided himself and went out of her which is to be a Schismatique or Heretique or both By this Argument Optatus Milevitanus proveth that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a Schismatique saying Lib 1. cont Parmen For Caecilianus went not out of Majorinus they Grandfather but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter or Cyprian but Majorinus in whose Chayre thou sittest which had no beginning before Majorinus Since it manyfestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner it is cleere that you are heyres both of the deliverers vp of the Holy Bible to be burned and also of Schismatiks The whole Argument of this Holy Father makes directly both against Luther and all those who continue the division which he began and proves That going out convinceth those who go out to be Schismatiks but not those from whom they depart That to forsake the Chayre of Peter is Schisme yea that it is Schisme to erect a Chayre which had no origen or as it were predecessour before it selfe That to continue in a division begun by others is to be heyres of Schismatiks and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church as that of S. Cyprian was is sufficient to make a man incurre the guilt of Schisme and consequently that although the Protestants who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church do thinke by that Heresy to cleere Luther from Schisme in disobeying the Pope Yet that will not serve to free him froÌ„ Schisme as it importeth a division from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocesse Church and Countrey where he lived Thus Charity Maintayned And to this purpose Optatus saith excellently Lib 1. The business in hand is concerning separation In Asrica as in all other Provinces likewise there was but one Church before it was divided by those who ordayned Majorinus in the Chaire vpon which by succession thou art sett The matter therfore to be r consider 〈◊〉 which of the two partyes has remayned in the roote with the â—â—â—le world Which of them went out Which of them is sett vpon a new Chayre which hertofore was not in being Which of them has raysed an Altar against an Altar Which of them made an Ordination during the life tyme of him who was before ordained Lastly which of them is obnoxious to the sentence of S. John the Apâ—â—â—e who fortold that many Antichrists would goe out of the Church 13. In confirmation of this Argument we may alledge Dr. Andrewes Respons ad Epist 1. Molinaei Pag 171. commending Molinaeus in condemning Aërius for opposing the consent of the vniversall Church The words of Molinaeus were quod in re pridem vbique recepta ausus sit opponere se consensui Vniversalis Ecclesiae Which the first Protestants did by opposing themselves to the whole Church extant before them and consequently to the consent of the Church vniversall In like manner we haue heard Dr. Taylor Pag. 327. saying That to separate from the Bishops makes a man at least a Sâ—hismatick And Pag 329. that it is also Heresy Now who does not see that the first Protestants did separate themselves from all Bishops and therfore must be both Schismatiks and Heretiks Let men therfore pretend as much as they please to shed teares and be ready even to shedd their bloud for procuring vnity amongst Christians their thoughts and endeavours will be in vaine vnless they resolve to returne to that Body from which they separated themselves and being but parts made a Division from the Whole A truth so cleare that even the wisest of our adversaryes acknowledge it and in particular one of the most erudite eloquent experienced and learned Protestants Hugo Grotius confesses that Vnion cannot be hoped for in the Church except by being conjoyned with those who are Vnited with the Sea of Rome His words are these Rivetiani Apologetici Discuss Pag 255. Restitutionem Christianorum in vnum idemque corpus semper optatam a Grotio sciunt qui eum norunt Existimavit autem aliquando incipi posse a Protestantium inter se conjunctione Postea vidit id plane fieri nequire quia praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia ferme omnium ab omni pace sunt alienissima Protestantes nullo inter se communi Ecclesiastico regimine sociantur quae causae sunt cur factae partes in vnum Prótestantium corpus colligi nequeant imò cur partes aliae atque aliae sint exsurrect urae Quare nunc planè ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes interse jungi nisi simul jungantur cum ijs qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Ideo optat vt ea divulsio quae even it causae divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum canonas fatente Melanctone qui eum Primatum etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam vnitatem Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subijcere Pontificis libidine sed reponere ordinem sapienter institutum 14. And this Argument drawen from the grievous sinne and deformity of a Part in forsaking the whole was of force to moue that bold and obdurate hart of Luther in the middest of his full cups and sensuall pleasures and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Bloud of our Blessed Saviour attentively to ponder and vnpartially to apply to their owne conscience what this man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he Tom 2. Germ Jen Fol 9. Tom 2. Witt of Anno 1562. de abrog Miss privat Fol 244. did my trembling heart beate within me and reprehending me object against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Do
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
the Church haue no Charity and therfore that it is manifestly vntrue that if Charity be wanting the vnity of the Church is disturbed her vnion dissolved seing men may be members of the Church though they want all Charity and consequently if Charity be wanting it is not necessary that the vnion of the Church must be dissolved Or if you grant to Potter that Charity is the cause that the vnity of the Church is not disturbed and Her vnion not dissolved what is this but to say with Charity Maintayned That All the members of the visible Church are by Charity vnited in one mysticall Body Why is Her vnion dissolved if Charity be wanting but because by Charity it is conserved You say Pag 273. N. 56. That if we suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all Points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoined himselfe to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in externall Communion which was impossible but by the vnion of Faith and Charity If one should aske how do you know that Luther had Charity or whether he might not haue been a member of that imagined Church though he had been in deadly sin what would you answer sure I am whatsoever you answer for Potter ād yourselfe will confute your objection against Charity Maintayned and shew how familiar Contradictions are with you as in our present case you must either grant that Luther if he chanced to be in deadly sin could not vnite himselfe to that imaginary Church or els that Charity is not necessary to constitute one a member of a Church and consequently that one may be a member of the Church and free from the sin of Schisme though he want that Charity which is incompatible with deadly sin and inseparable from justifying Grace vpon condition that he be innocent of that vice against Charity which we call Schisme and puts a man so farr out of Charity with the Church or with his neighbour as a member of the Church as not to communicate with him in Sacraments Liturgy and publike Worship of God Neither is there any necessity that whosoever offends against a vertue for example Charity must offend in all Excesses or Defects or other offenses that may be committed against it To be a good Man a good Citizen a good Magistrate are considerations very different and separable one from another And therfore Charity Maintayned Chap 5. N. 3. told you that our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to an other or as all concurre to make one company or congregation which we call the Church And who sees not that a man who is in state of deadly sin and therfore loves not God aboue all things may loue his neighbour in such a degree as not to wish or procure his death as also one may want Charity to an other as a private person without separating from him as a member of one Church in which they agree ād communicate 99. Object 6. Pag 255. N. 5. You cite the words of Charity Maintayned as if he sayd All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours do coucurre to make one company which is the Church And then you add these words Which is false For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 100. Answer It were strang if you did not know that in this particular we haue no common or vniversall Tenet neither can there be any difficulty in the thing it selfe but the Question must haue much only de nomine and Bellarm teaches Faith to be necessary that one may be sayd to be vnited by internall vnion to the Body of Christ which is the Church And though he holds that secret infidells belong to the Church yet he expressly declates that some other Catholique Writers are of a contrary opinion and Lib 3. de Eccles Cap 10. He saith We follow the manner of speaking of the greater number declaring therby this Question to be only de modo loquendi of the manner of speaking So farr is he from judging the contrary to be repugnant to our grounds as you intolerably overlash But suppose it were as you say Where I pray you doth Charity Maintayned say that the Catholike Church signifyes one company of Faithfull people faithfull I say by internall Faith and not only by the externall profession of it He saith no such thing as appeares by his words cited in the beginning of your Objection And therfore seing he doth not express whether they must be faithfull by true internall Faith or only by externall profession of the true Faith but his words being generall they are certainly true in all opinions to witt that Faith is required to make one a member of the Church not determining whether that Faith must be internall or whether an outward profession be sufficient to that effect Sure I am this is no faithfull dealing in you 101. Object 7. In this same Pag 255. N. 5. You alledge Charity Maintayned as if he sayd All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours do concurre to make one company which is the Church And then you add these words which is false For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 102. Answer Charity Maintayned never said that all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours do make one company which is the Church But these be his words Part 1. Pag 152. N. 3. Our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to another or as all concurre to make one company or congregation which we call the Church Is not all this evidently true May not our neighbour be considered either as he is a private person or as a member of the Church concurring with other members to make one congregation De facto diverse persons concurre to make one Church and therfore they may be so considered But where doth Charity Maintayned say all those which a Christian is to esteeme his neighbours do concurre to make one Church This particle all and the words is to esteeme are your falsifications not the words of Charity Maintayned who spoke of Heresy and Schisme which can happen only amongst Christians And therfore allthough even Pagans and infidells ought to be esteemed our neighbours yet they cannot concurre to make one congregation which we call the Church which were the words of Charity Maintayned And so they could not enter into this consideration but we may say in this case what is it to me to judge of them that are without 1. Cor 5.12 103. Object 8. Charity Maintayned Part 1 Pag 154 N. 4. saith The Catholique Church signifyes one Congregation or Community of faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them faithfull believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them
Fundamentalls I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point or parte from her Communion If you thinke it impossible not to sorsake her Communion in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall and yet belieue that you must not forsake her which is a plain Contradiction there remaines only this true and solid remedy against such an inextricable perplexity that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points be they Fundamentall or not FundameÌ„tall which is a certaine Truth and followes from the very Principles of Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls if they vnderstand themselves though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth Yea my inference that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points even not Fundamentall if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls is your owne Assertion P. 148. N. 36. Where you expressly grant that vnless the Church were infallible in all things we could not rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted 127. You say the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose But I would know what other Church could be such an vnerring Church except the Roman and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach Certainly there was none such and therfore since Protestants profess that the vniversall Church is infallible we must say it was the Roman togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion This Ground being layd and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe let vs now examine in particular your other Objections 128. You aske Pag 164. N. 56. Had it not been a damnable sin to â—rofess errours though the errours in themselves were not dâ—mnable Then N. 57. You goe about to proue that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things haâ—â—ng no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded And therfore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall and totall This you confirme with a Dialogue which adds nothing to the reason which now I haue cited in your owne words saue only that it proves at large that which we chiefly desired to be granted That if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles as Protestants say she is we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points In the end of this Dialogue you say It may be very great imprudence to erre with the Church if the Question be whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 128. In the N. 60. You say Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible And N. 61. For the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre you know no such tenet And N. 62. God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the Limits of the Churches Power then the Church herselfe And N. 63. That some forsaking the Church of Rome haue forsake Fundamentall Truths was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome for els all that haue forsaken that Church should haue done so which we Protestants say they haue not but because they went too far from her It is true say you in the name of Protestants if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to leaue it But we protest and proclaime the contrary And N. 64. You say It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa But their errour was that they held de factâ— this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so vpon a vaine pretence separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required and directly opposite to the Churcheâ— Catholicisme You add morover that Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages neither hath proved but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth And N. 65. You say To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith but he which is an Heretike in one Article may haue true Faith of other Articles These be your objections which being diverse and of different natures the Reader may not wonder if I be somwhat long in answering them Therefore I 129. Answer In this Question whether it be not wisdome and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points we may either speake First of things as they are in themselves or secondly according to the grounds of Protestants or ad hominem or thirdly what we may or ought to inferr vpon some false and impossible supposition as this is that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall differently from an inference proceeding from a suppofition of a truth or fourthly what may or ought to be chosen at least as minus malum when there intervenes a joynt and inevitable pressure of two or more evills This Advertisment premised 130. I answer to your demand whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours though in themselves not damnable that a parte rei and per se loquendo it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith and for that very cause it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all But that I haue proved already that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants it is not damnable to do so if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth and consequently that they ought in all Reason to adhere to the
Protestants teach that the Roman Church doth not erre in any Point Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and this you say diverse tymes is not true 147. Answer I will not say as you Pag. 76. N. 63. speake to Charity Maintayned I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged this Point against Charity Maintayned but contrarily I hope that the Reader if he be not a Protestant will find just occasion to prayse God that the Answer to this your Objection will demonstrate to him in how safe a way we Catholikes are even by the confession of our Adversaryes and how much it imports him to place his soule in the like safety 148. I haue already vpon severall occasions mentioned some passages wherin you and Dr. Potter confesse that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation Now I will doe it more at large Potter Pag 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanisis as he calls vs the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learued Protestants yield them c. In proofe wherof he cites in his margent Junius D. Reinolds and sayes See the juagment of many other writers in the Advertisement annexed to the Old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaotists grant it Fr. Ichnson in his Christian plea Pa 123. So that with this one Testimony of Potter we haue many other even of our greatest Adversaryes And I desire the reader to obserue well that here P 62 he saith To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteâ—med a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholikes haue added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and vnwrâ—ten dogmaticall Traditions their Transsubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new Doctrines and Decrees canonized in their late Synode of Trent Vpon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we haue cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constatute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we belieue the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to containe all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therfore those Points of our Doctrine which he giues for instance are no Fundementall errours nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the Chiefest Points controverted betweene vs and Protestants even transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councell of Trent Therfore we are free from fundamentall errours by the confession of our Adversaryes Pag 59. The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the Old The Reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only clensed it from corrupt and impure qualityes If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the Old Church and if it were only clensed from corrupt qualityes without change of the substance the substance must be still the same that it was and that which was must be the same with that which is Pag 61. The things which the Protestants belieue on their part and wherin they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaryes themselves do avow and receaue them as well as they Therfore we Catolikes haue the life and substance of Religion Pag 60. In the prime grounds of Principles or Christian Religion wee haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Therfore you grant that we haue the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion Pag 11. For those Catholique Verityes which she the Roman Church retaines we yield her a member of the Catholike though one of the most vnsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholikes Behold we are members of the Catholike Church which could not be if we erred in any one fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholikes why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholique And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to vrge against vs and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugnes himselfe while he speakes against vs nor distinguishing between vniversall as Logicians speake of it which signifyes one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholique as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spred over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and vpon that vaine conceit telling his vnlearned Reader that vniversall and particular are termes repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholique cannot be affirmed of Dr. Potter nor Dr. Potter sayd to be a Catholike because a particular cannot be sayd to be vniversall or an vniversall Pag 75. To depart from the Church of RomeÌ„ in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation P 70. They the Roman Doctours confess that setting aside all matters controverted the maine positiue truths wherin all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to belieue and how to liue so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctours confesse that setting a side all matters controverted c. is very vntrue it being manifest that Catholikes belieue Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of Faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we haue all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledg and practise for vs to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherin we differ from Protestants saith Pag 74. If the mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and noveltyes he shall find in that which remaines little difference of importance betweene vs. Therfore de facto we belieue all things of importance which Protestants belieue After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes Pag 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may belieue his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse proue and the Objection which he rayses from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise
this Objection which he makes to himselfe were clearly impertinent and foolish if he could haue dispatched all by saying we erre in essentiall points which had been an evident and more than a just cause to justify their separation which yet appeares further by his Answer to the sayd Objection That to depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing neâ—essary to salvation And afterward in the next P. 76. speaking of the Church of Rome he saith expressly Her Communion we forsake not no more than the Body of Christ wherof we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member though corrupted And this cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates But if she did erre in any one Fundamentall point by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ and should be cut of from the hope of salvation therfore she doth not erre in any Fundamentall Point P. 83. we were never disioyned from her the Church of Rome in those maine essentiall truths which giue her the name and essence of a Church You must then say that she erres not in any Fundamentall Point For the essence of a Church cannot consist with any such errour And that it may appeare how desirous he is that it should be believed Catholiks and Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion he adds these words immediatly after those which we haue last cited wherof if the Mistaker doubt he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholique Writers One of France who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved as be believes the Hugonots and Catholikes of that Kingdome to be all of the same Church and Religion because of the truths agreed vpon by both And another of our Country as it is sayd who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors both Papists and Protestants who are all of the same mynd Thus you see he ransacks all kind of proofes to shew that Catholikes and Protestants differ not in the substance and essence of Faith and to that end cites for Catholike Writers those two who can be no Catholiks as Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. Pag 104. shewes the former in particular to be a plaine Heretike or rather Atheist Lucian-like jeasting at all Religion Pag 78. he saith we hope and thinke very well of all those Holy and devout soules which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome Nay our Charity reaches further to all those at this day who in simplicity of heart belieue the Roman Religion and professe it To these words of the Doctour if we subsume But it were impossble that any can be saved even by Ignorance or any simplicity of heart if he erre in a Fundamentall point because as by every such errour a Church ceases to be a Church so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Churchs the Conclusion will be that we do not erre in any Fundamentall point Nay Pag 79. he saith further we belieue it the Roman Religion safe that is by Gods great Mercy not damnable to some such as belieue what they professe But we belieue it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as profess it when they belieue or if their hearts were vpright and not perversely obstinate might belieue the contrary Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved we are even safe vpon condition we belieue that Faith to be true which we professe and for which we haue suffered so long so great and so many losses in all kinds which if we did vndergoe for extetnall profession of that Faith which we do not inwardly belieue to betrue we should deserue rather to be begged for fooles than persecuted for our Religion In the meane tyme every Catholike hath this comfort that he is safe even by the confession of an Adversary if he be not a foolish dissembler which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant or any other Even the profession of a truth believed to be false is a sin But I returne to say it were impossible for any Roman Catholike to be safe vpon what condition soever if we erre in any one Fundamentall Article of Faith Here I must briefly note that wheras Dr. Potter in the words now alledged saith It is not damnable to some and then to declare who those some are adds such as belieue what they profess Chillingworth Pag 404. N. 29. leaves out the distinction or comma placed betweene some and such and puts it after damnable Thus Not damnable to some such as beleue what they professe which words may signify that it is not safe to all such as belieue what they professe which may much alter the sense of Potters words as the Reader will perceiue by comparing them 149. Now Sir who will not wonder at your so often declaiming against Charity Maintayned for saying Dr Potter taught that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Points But what if your selfe say the same It is cleare you do so For wheras Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 15. N. 13. saith Since Dr. Potter will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as greed with her when Luther first appeared I desire him to declare whether it do not follow that she hath not erred Fundamentally because every such errour destroyes the nature and being of a Church and so our Saviour Christ should haue had no visible Church on Earth To these words which you thought fit to set downe very imperfectly you answer Pag 16 N. 20. In this manner I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was a part of the whole which we grant And if she were a true Part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sense therfore of the word Fuudamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally But in your sense of the word I feare she did That is she held some thing to be Divine Revelation which was not some thing not to be which was You haue spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church and not only affirmed but proved that she did not erre in any Fundamentall
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
one cannot be saved without Repentance vnless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse For in that case of contrary beliefe one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or revelation sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by an infallible Propounder which opposition to the Testimony of God is vndoubtedly a damnable sin whether otherwise the thing so testifyed be in it selfe great or small Now what can be more evident than this consequence and conclusion And yet you say The conclusion is true though the consequence of it from the former Premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discerne it and then you add the difference may be concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the Partyes at variance and esteemed to be so And lastly you set downe the wild collection I spoke of and deliver it in these words God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all controversyes in Religion necessary to be decided this meanes is vniversally infallible Therfore of two that differ in any thing which they esteeme a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can find any connexion between these Propositions I belieue will be able to find good coherence betweene the deafe plaintiffes accusation in the Greeke Epigramme and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe judges sentence and to contriue them all into a formall categoricall sylogisme Thus you But Charity Maintayned never pretended to make a syllogisme and his words which I haue even now alledged cleare him from your vaine imputation and fond collection He sayd expressly vnless ignorance plead excuse which makes the errours against Divine Revelation to be sinfull and damnable seing he speakes of persons not excused by ignorance Neither hath he those words which you add necessary to be decided nor those other which they esteeme a matter of Faith yea he spoke formally and expressly of two men dissenting in matters of Faith and not in Points which they only esteemed to be matters of Faith And because you thinke it impossible to contriue his discourse into a formall categoricall syllogisme which indeed would be impossible to doe with your Additions let vs suppose some Truth to be revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to the vnderstandings of two by a Propounder infallible in himselfe and by them certainly believed to be such which is the direct supposition of Charity Maintayned and that one of them contradicts the other and consequently by so doing opposes a Truth testifyed by God and sufficiently propounded as such And then what say you to this syllogisme Whosoever opposes a Truth witnessed by God and for such sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding by a propounder believed by the party himselfe to be infallible committs a grievous sin and so cannot be saved without repentance but in the case proposed one of the two contradicting partyes opposeth a Truth revealed by God and sufficiently propounded to his vnderstanding by such an infallible propounder Therfore he committs a grievous sin Yourselfe here N. 13. grant that they cannot be saved who oppose any least part of Scripture If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or haue no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contayned as it happens in our case wherin we suppose that the erring party is in sinfull errour by reason of opposing an infallible Propounder of Divine Truths whosoever that Propounder be This very thing you grant also in the N. 11. where you say Indeed if the matter in agitatiō were plainly decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversyes and the partyes in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissension this were in one of them direct oposition to the testimony of God and vndoubtedly a damnable sin Which is the very thing that Ch Ma clearly affirmed And now you haue lost your jeast out of the Greeke Epigramme turned by you into a Satyre Thrice happy had it beene for you to haue been deafe dumbe and blind rather than to haue ever heard or spoken any thing or that others should haue seene those vast absurdityes and wicked Heresyes of yours which openly destroy Christian Religion But there is a just judge who is neither deafe nor dumbe nor blind but heares and sees and punisheth all pride contempt and Heresy and the Approbators of them if they do not repent and in tyme declare to the world such their Repentance 17. You speake N. 11. to Ch Ma in this manner You may hope that the erring Part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or vnavoydable prejudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes only what you knowe to be the word of God and he might know were he voide of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often Concerning which words I aske how can that be a sin which proceeds from some excusable Ignorance or vnavoidable prejudice For if the cause of the errour be vnavoydable and consequently invincible and as you expressly say excusable how can the errour itselfe be sinfull Or if it be a fault as you say it is how is it not a grievous fault consisting in a culpable opposition against Divine Revelation which you perpetually profess to be damnable Or how can a grievous and damnable fault be incident to good and honest men 18 To your saying N. 12. That it is against Charity to affirme that mē are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions I answer as yourselfe and every one must answer to the like objection in a hundred other occasions that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions if their not seing those consequences proceede from some voluntary vincible roote as ignorance and errours against divine Faith are sinfull and damnable when they are Effects of sinfull causes 19. In the N. 13. I will only touch in a word that in saying S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contayned in Scripture You either grant that it is not a Point of Faith That Baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid Wherin for ought I know you contradict the chiefest number of Protestants and in particular your English Church or els that somthing may be a Point of Faith which is not contained in Scripture 20. In your N. 14.15.16.17 there is no difficulty Only it is cleare that you voluntarily alter the state of the Question wherin Ch Ma alwayes supposed that speech was of Points contained in Scripture and that a man opposed the Scripture culpably For which cause N. 17. he sayd According to Protestants Oppose not scripture there is no errour against Faith Oppose it in any least Point the
were present and to which they gaue consent namely the Councell of Lateran vnder Innoc 3. Anno 1215. The Councell of Lyons vnder Gregory the 10. Anno 1273. The Councell of Florence Anno 1438. And you must consider that the Grecians hold Generall Councells to be Rules of Faith Of this matter Brierly Tract 1. Sect 7. Subdiv 2. Marg 11. Pag 202. speakes very well and shewes even out of Protestant Writers the beginning of the Errours of the Grecians and their defections from the Roman Church and in particular saith that twelue tymes or therabout hath the Greeke Church reconciled itselfe to Rome and afterwards fallen from thence being the rupon now at last wholly oppressed with barbarous Turcisme And here I may well alledge the saying of S. Antonin Part 4. Tit 11. Cap 7. that since the Grecians divided themselves from vs they do daily more and more faile in Wisdome in temporall power in good life neither hath any of them wrought miracles And yet notwithstanding all this even the Schismaticall Grecians do agree with Catholikes almost in all the Points in which the Protestants disagree from vs as Brierly in the same place demonstrates out of Protestant Authors And the same is set downe in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. N. 48. citing in particular Potter who Pag 225. denyes not but they belieâ—e Transubstantiation By all which it appeares that of the Greeke Schismaticall Church you say to vs against truth all that there is not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your owne Seing by the novelty of Her Errours her Alterations Contradictions and Heresy she must want Antiquity Unity Perpetuity Vniversality for tyme and place as is obvious to every one to Judge by what we haue sayd 79. You say N. 165. Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend that Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole Church in matter of Faith 80. Answer we haue lately heard you say N. 152. Perhaps you may be in a dreame and perhaps you and all the men in the world haue beene so when they thought they were awake and then only awake when they thought they dreamed Which it seemes proves to be your owne case who pretend to be awake and yet dreame of men in the Moone agreeing with Luther when he first arose which either is a dreame or all those learned Protestants who are cited by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. N. 9. and N. 12. were in a dreame As he who sayd It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell And I may say that far greater impudency it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe and other Cristian Catholique natious and consequently that it is the greatest impudency to deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spredd over the whole world As he who affirmeth it to be ridiculous to thinke that in the tyme before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine as he who sayd if there had beene right bâ—lâ—evers which went before Luther in his office there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation as he who sayth The Truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Vldericke Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospell As he who saith We say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniversall Apostasy overspredâ— the whole face of the earth As he who teacheth that from the yeare of Christ three hundred and sixteene the AntiChristian aÌ„d Papisticall Raigne had begun raigning vniversally and without any debateable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty yeares that is till Luthers tyme As he who affirmes thâ— it the true Church was interrupted by apostasy from the true Faith As Calvin who saith of Protestants in generall we haue beene forced to make a separation from the whole world As Luther who saith At the first I was alone The particular names and places of these Protestants may be seene in the now cited place of Charity maintayned with more other speaking to the same purpose With what modesty then caÌ„ you say that it is not easy to be determined that Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole Visible Church in matters of Faith If any will interpret your words so as that you do not deny but that Luther opposed the whole Visible Church it being evident that he did so but that the things wherin he opposed Her were not matters of Faith this interpretation will serue only to make good that Luther was inexcusable in dividing himselfe from the whole Church for matters not belonging to Faith CHAP XII THE ANSWER TO HIS THIRD CHAPTER ABOVT FVNDAMENTALL AND NOT FVNDAMENTALL POINTS 1. WHosoever peruses the Third Chapter of Ch Ma and considers vnpartially with what clearnesse and methode it is written and compares with it your Answer cannot but judge that you proceed with much confusion snatching at words or periods and amusing men with fond vnlearned subtiltyes and by Points as if your chiefe care had beene to divert or as I may say hood winke the Reader for the maine Controversy by petty diversions In proofe of what I say I beseech the Reader to run over the first fiue numbers or Sections of Ch. ma. and he will find I doe you no wrong 2. I wonder you will always be taking pleasure in toyes and vntruthes First N. 4. you affirme that if we say we agree in matters of Faith it is ridiculous and that we define matters of Faith to be those wherin we agree So that to say you agree in matters of Faith is to say you agree in those things wherin you do agree And then N. 5. That we are all agreed that only those things wherin we do agree are matters of faith which you put in a distinct letter as out Doctrine and then add these words of your owne And Protestants if they were wise Could do so toâ— wheras you know it to be both ridiculous and vntrue that we haue any such saying and that we define matters of Faith to be all those Objects which are sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God without dependance of any mans agreeing or disagreeing in them though it be true that by consequence whosoever agrees in such truths must agree among themselves for those truthes as proportionably Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunteadem interse And our deduction is this Whosoever agree in the beliefe of all things revealed by God agree in all matters of Faith Catholikes agree in the beliefe of all things revealed by God Therfore they agree in all matters of Faith But we are not so foolish as to say that if a Catholike should inculpably deny a thing revealed by God and so disagree from other Catholikes that therfore our Faith were changed because all do not agree
se loquendo of two dissenting in matters revealed by God one must oppose his divine revelation and Veracity which is evidently true but also that de facto it is so in many millions yea in the far greater part of Protestants who therfore erre culpably against the divine Testimony and committ a deadly sin not because others as you speak belieue a thing to be revealed by God which Ch. ma. never sayd nor dreamed but because they themselves ought to haue believed that same thing to be revealed which others did belieue to be such and indeed was such Thus then you ought to reforme your distracted Syllogisme Whosoever disbelieves any thing knowne and which ought to be knowne by himselfe to be revealed by God imputes falshood to God and therfore errs fundamentally But some Protestants you say millions yea the greater part disbelieue those things which others belieue to be testifyed by God and which are and ought to be knowne by themselves to be so testifyed Therfere some Protestants yea millions and the greater part of them impute falshood to God and erre Fundamentally 9. But yet that it may further appeare how much you wrong Ch Ma I must set downe his words which Chap 3. N. 3. are these The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know as the distinction ought to be applyed but that some of them disbelieue and directly wittingly and willingly oppose what others belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Because till Points Fundamentall be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against Faith to reject them or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them And the like is of Points not fundamentall which as soone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths they can no more be denyed than Points Fundamentall propounded after the same manner What could be sayd more clearly to shew that Ch Ma spoke not of whatsoever kind of Objects but expressly of such as are really testifyed by God and not only believed to be such by others but also sufficiently proposed to a mans selfe as Divine Truths and which therfore bring with them a most strict obligation to be believed Your little respect to truth hath forced me to be longer in this point than I expected or desired to be And I hope it appeares that you had no other cause except want of Charity to Charity Maintayned to feare that his hart condemned him of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing Fundamentall and damnable errour to disagreeing Protestants because forsooth some of them disbelieue and wittingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God Seing Cha Ma expressly required that what others believed to be testifyed by God should also be sufficiently proposed to ones selfe before he could be obliged to belieue which sufficient proposition being supposed yourselfe do not deny but it is a damnable errour to disbelieue any such truth 10. Your N. 18. hath two good propertyes Falshood and Confusion or Obscurity You cite Ch. Ma. speaking thus The difference among Protestants consists not in this that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant or not bound expressly to know and there you stop but Charity maintayned added these words but that some of them disbelieue and directly and wittingly and willingly oppose what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall c Now I pray is there not a maine difference between ignorance or a not knowing or Nescience of a thing which another believes and a positiue opposition or actuall beliefe of the contrary to that which another believes How many truths are there which men do not know and yet erre not against them be cause their very ignorance keepes them from any judgement concerning them by way of Affirmation or negation but they carry themselves privatively or in a certaine manner passively or abstractively as if there were no such objects 11. But let vs heare what you object against so manifest a truth You say I would gladly know whether you speake of Protestants differing in profession only or in opinion also Answer I vnderstand not well what you meane by differing in profession only or in opinion also Do you meane that they make profession of differing in opinion when indeed they do not differ This were to dissemble and ly in matters of Religion But whatsoever your meaning be I answer that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Protestants differing in opinion one disbelieving what another believes as you confesse out of His words But you are willing to raise difficultyes where otherwise none could appeare 12. But then you say If they differ in opinion then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions It being impossible and contradictious that a man should know one thing to be true and belieue the contrary or know it and not belieue it And if they do not know the Truth of each others opinions then I hope you will grant they are ignorant of it If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held I answer this is nothing to the convincing of their vnderstandings of the truth of them and these remaining vnconvinced of the truth of them they are excusable if they do not belieue 13. Answer Though it be much against my inclination yet truth commands me to say that here you shew either great ignorance or else write directly against your owne knowledge where you will needs confound pure ignorance with positiue Errour the difference of which I shewed even now and what Logician is ignorant of the division of ignorance into Ignorantiam purae privation is and Ignorantiam pravae disposition is that is a meere want of knowledge of some truth or a positiue errour contrary to it And by your leaue your saying If they differ in opinion they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions is so far from being true speaking of pure ignorance that it implyes contradiction to say He who errs is ignorant seing to be purely ignorant in the sayd division of ignorance is one member into which ignorance is divided and one membrum dividens cannot in good Logicke include the other and therfore errour cannot include pure ignorance For it were to say one hath no knowledge at all and yet hath a false knowledg or a privation is a positiue entity and a Nothing a Something Your objection He who errs knowes not the contrary Truth and if he knowe not the truth he is ignorant of it is a meere mistake or equivocation For that he who errs knowes not or is ignorant of the contrary by a pure
ignorance or Nescience I deny That he is ignorant by a positiue errour or ignorance prauae dispositionis I grant and so when you assume He who knowes not the truth is ignorant of it you must distinguish according to the double sense of ignorance which hath beene declared and not speake with such confusion This same distinction I find in Dr. Potter Pag 243. where speaking of some Fundamentall Articles of Faith he hath these words These are so absolutly necessary to all Christians for attaining the end of our Faith that is the salvation of our soules that a Christian may loose himselfe not only by a positiue erring in them or denying of them but by a pure ignorance or nescience or not knowing of them Where you see he distinguishes between error and not knowing and therfore one may be ignorant of what another believes and yet not erre against it or disbelieue it As it is one thing not to be hot and another to be hold Now Charity Maintayned expressly distinguishes between pure ignorance and errour and therfore you do very ill first to confound them and then vpon that affected mistake frame your Objections The same equivocation you haue Pag 25. where you make a shewe of great subtility but indeed the Reader will finde nothing but vanity as I shewed in that place 14. You say to Charity Maintayned If your meaning were they were not ignorant that each other held these opinions or of the sense of the opinions which they held c I answer that this saying of yours is nothing to the purpose For though de facto Protestants are not ignorant what opinion other Protestants hold and therfore their disagreement is more patent and not only against the opinions by whomsoever they might chance to be held but also against opinions knowne to be defended by them whom they will needs call Brethren Yet indeed it is meerly accidentall and in no wise necessary to our present purpose that one Protestant should be conscious or know that he differs in opinion from another For if it were revealed to some in the Indyes that Christ is God and Saviour of the world and he did assent to that truth while another in Europe did dissent from the like Revelation sufficiently proposed this second doth truly disbelieue what the former believes no lesse than if he had knowne that the other believes it And therfore Charity Maintayned said Protestants disbelieue and wittixgly and willingly oppose what others do belieué to be testifyed by the word of God without saying vnnecessarily that they disbelieue what they know others belieue because as I sayd this knowledge is not necessary for our present purpose concerning the disagreement of Protestants in matters of Faith Much lesse to the purpose yea directly against syncerity is your saying That if their vnderstandings be not convinced they are excusable if they do not belieue Seing Charity Maintayned did speake of objects sufficiently proposed as revealed by God which are his expresse words in this very number which you impugne 15. In your N. 19.20.21.23 nothing occurrs of difficulty which hath not beene answered elswhere And you falsify Ch. Ma. when N. 20. you say he concludes that there is nodifference betweene errours in Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall wheras he expressly saith in his N. 3. which here you answer and N. 4. that they do not differ in this that both of them are against Gods Revelation and damnable which yourselfe often grant yet you know that in other respects he puts a maine difference betweene them even in the number next precedent and declares the matter at large Surely this is no good dealing 16. In your N. 22. you still voluntarily mistake the state of the Question though Charity Maintayned had stated it very clearly N. 3. as we haue seene i. e. that when we treate whether errour excludes salvation we speake of Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God and not in case of invincible ignorance want of instruction or the like This being presupposed Charity Maintayned N. 4. saith thus Dr Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction doth sinally overthrow it and yields as much as we can desire Speakinge Pag 211. of that measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved he saith It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a generall and as it were a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed or contradicted Now our question is in case that divine truth although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted and therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation Thus Charity Maintayned whose words you cite very imperfectly in this manner It is enough by Dr Potters confession to belieue some things negatively i.e. not to deny them therfore all denyall of any divine Truth excludes salvation Thus say you omitting these very next words of Charity Maintayned now our question is in case that divine Truths although not Fundamentall be denyed and contradicted And therfore even according to Him all such denyall excludes salvation And that Dr Potter alwayes supposes a sufficient Proposition before one can be obliged not to deny or contradict those Points of which he speakes is evident because one could not be obliged vnder sin not to contradict them if they be not sufficiently proposed Which Proposition he requires Universally in matters of Faith And in this very place he saith There is a certaine measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved but every thing revealed belongs not to this measure And then he adds the a foresayd words It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith or by a negatiue Faith wherby they are not denyed Where it appeares that as no man is obliged to belieue those Fundamentall Points without the beliefe wherof none can be saved vnless they be sufficiently proposed so none can be obliged not to contradict Points not Fundamentall if they want sufficient Proposall And this is yet further demonstrated by Charity Maintayned who immediatly after the words of which you take notice and cite as His though imperfectly saith thus After He Dr Potter speakes more plainly in the very next Pag 212. It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall in regard of the divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him marke whensoever the knowledg therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. he saith where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded obserue sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus conuinced is an Heretike and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Galat 5.20.21
House of God a Gate of Heaven why may he not say of the Church that it is a House of God a Pillar of Truth What greater repugnance is there betwene a House and a Pillar than betwene a House and a Gate If men may take the liberty to interpret holy Scripture by such light subtilityes what certainty can ever be gathered from any Text What difficulty is there to conceiue that the Church should be the House wherein Gods resides and raignes by infallibly assisting it and yet be a Pillar of Truth to teach others Especially seing God assists the Church to the end she may teach others Passiuè taught Actiuè teaches as yourself avouch heere N. 78. that it is the essence of the Church to be alwayes the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But yourself profess not to relie vpon this interpretation and therefore 88. Secondly you put vs in mynd that the Church which S. Paul heere speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and not the Roman and such we will not haue to be vniversally infallible 89. Answer Although S. Paul spoke to Timothy who conversed in the particular Church of Ephesus whereof he was Bishop yet he puts him in mynd of his duty by a Motiue and Reason more vniversall and certaine as Proofes are wont to be than could be taken from that particular Church alone that is he gaue a Reason which did concerne it as a member of the vniversall Church which being the Pillar and Ground of Truth could not but exact of Him and every Bishop a zeale to imitate with care and vprightness their mother the Church in conserving for their parte that Truth which the Church teaches and from which she cannot swarue To which very purpose Cornelius à Lapide vpon these words Quae est columna firmamentum veritatis saieth Addit hoc Apostolus vt innuat Timotheo magno cum studio ad haereses errores devitandos refellendos purae veritati intelligendae praedicandae in Ecclesia sibi incumbendum esse adeoue se non judaizantium aliorumue Novantium sed Ecclesiae fidem sequi praedicare debere vtpote quae sit basis veritatis And so I may retort your Argument and say S. paul speakes of a Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth but Protestants teach that no particular Church is such a Pillar even for things necessary to salvation as they saie the vniversall Church is Therefore S. Paul speaks not of a particular but the vniversall Church And by this I confute what you answer 90. Thirdly N. 77. That many Attributes in Scripture are not notes of performance but of duty and teach vs not what the thing or Person is of necessity but what it should be Ye are the salt of the Earth said our Saviour to his Disciples Not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue bene so of necessity and could not haue bene otherwise in vaine had he put them in seare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground that is the Teacher of Truth of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet she may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 91. Answer Even now it hath bene saied that Potter and other Protestants commonly teach that the vniversall Church cannot erre in Fundamantall Articles as a particular Church may and yet every particular Church by duty is a teacher of all Necessary Points Therefore the vniversall Church must be more a teacher by duty and performance Your Proofe that to be the salt of the earth which was spoken to the Apostles signifyes only that it was infallibly certaine they should be so tends plainly to Atheisme if the denyall of Scripture and all Christianity must bring to Atheisme as certainly it must For take away infallibility from the Apostles what certainty can you haue that in fact they haue not neglected and violated their duty as you say the Church may You still fall into the same mistake that God cānot effectually moue vs to the performance of a thing without necessitating our will Neither doth it follow that in vaine our Saviour put them in feare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour c For when God doth promise a thing he doth not exclude meanes or our endeavour to the application of which he can also moue vs effectually without prejudice to the freedom of our will The Apostles in the Councell which they held at Hierusalem were certaine not to determine any Errour and yet they vsed great diligence examination and dispute Act 15.7 I suppose you will not deny that S. John was infallibly assisted in writting his Gospell and yet S. Hierom in praef in Evangel Matth saieth that he could not be intreated to set on that holy Work but vpon condition that indicto jejunio in commune omnes Deum deprecarentur the Christians should haue a fett fast and all should joyne in prayer to God Do you not belieue that God did so assist the Writers of Canonicall Scripture that they were infallible in their writings and yet that they might exercise an act of obedience and freely though infallibly follow the Direction of the Holy Ghost It is cleare that you must either deny freedom of will to the Writers or infallibility to their writings or grant that free will and infallibility are not incompatible I might add to all this that men may loose themselves not only by error in Faith but also by an ill life whereby Preachers destroy by deeds what they pretended to build in words Which Answer would evacuate the force of your Argument but I haue saied enough of this matter 92. Fourthly N. 78. you answer that we must proue that by Truth in the saied Text is meant all Truth both Fundamentall and profitable and that you grant it to be the Essence of the Church to be a maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But this evasion hath bene confuted already out of your owne assertion that we cannot belieue the Church in Fundamentall Articles vnless she be infallible in all and this vrges most clearely in your opinyon who profess it impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall And I beseech you cōsider that S. Paul speaks of the primitiue Church of those tymes which you will not deny to haue bene infallible ād therefore if he speak of the vniversall Church as in this Fourth Answer you suppose he doth you must grant that Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points And so this Text cannot be restrayned to Fundamentall Truths 93. Your N. 79.80 Pretends to answer the Argument taken out of S. Paul Ephes 4. He gaue some Apostles and some prophets and
that were not enough to shew that it must haue it in this which is very true For to be affirmed in Scripture but once is as much as to be affirmed a mill yon of tymes and seing you can giue no certaine Rule whether I must vnderstand that one place by those many or contrarily the greater number by that one it appeares even by this how hard a thing it is to know the true sense of Scripture without a Living Guide which was the end for which Charity Maintayned alledged that Text Ephes 4. and the other places of which we haue spoken all which though indeed they be cleare enough for the infallibility of the Church yet we see what evasions you seek to the contrary yea and pretend that your interpretation is evidently true and the interpretation both of Protestants and Catholiques manifestly false 101. The rest of N. 80. about the sufficiency of Scripture alone hath bene confuted in divers occasions Your instance that if Galen Euclid c. had writ compleat bodies of the sciences they professed perspicuously and by Divine inspiration we would then hau granted that their works had beene sufficient to keep vs from errour and from dissention in these matters is but a begging of the Question that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith and because exceptio firmat contrariam regulam and that Scripture is not the totall Rule of Faith we must retort your argument against yourself and say that by Scripture which alone is not a compleat comprehension of all necessary points we cannot be kept from errour and dissention in matters of Faith Besides those Authors might preserue vs from errour and dissention in vertue of Demonstrations evident to naturall Reason wherein all men agree But the Objects of Faith are obscure and Scripture not able to interpret itself though it were supposed to containe all matters of Faith as it doth not and therefore a Living interpreter is necessary besides the written word 102 Your N. 81. containes nothing but Passion with the quintessence of Socinianisme seing you expresly profess that you are willing to leaue all men to their liberty and therfore needs no answer except what hath bene given hertofore You do but cavill at this saying of Charity Maintayned all which words or Texts wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church seeme clearly enough to proue that the Church is vniversally infallible as if it had indeed seemed to him that those Texts did only seeme to proue whereas it is evident and so He expresly declared himself he saied so because he did not bring them for proofes but only to shew how hard and impossible it is to determine matters by Scripture alone seing that which seemes to one to be the plaine meaning of Gods Word seemes not so to an other though indeed the saied Texts do effectually proue the necessity of an infallible living Guide But as you began vpon a direct mistake to examine the Texts which Charity Maintayned alledged so it was very congruous you should conclude with the like errour 103. I might omitt the following Numbers as contayning no reall difficulty which hath not bene cleared hertofore Yet I will note some passages to prevent all suspicion of guiltiness tergiversation or artificiall dissimulation of what I could not answer Only I intreate the Reader to reade the words of Charity Maintayned in himself if he chance to find any difficulty In your N. 84. you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned which are N. 23. Scripture is to be vnderstood literally where you leaue of but Charity Maintayned adds as it sounds and you cannot deny but according to the sound of the letter or words our interpretation of our Saviours Promises without any limitation is more agreable to the sound of the words which express or sound no restraint than that of Potter which restraines them to fundamentall points And therefore your telling vs that to literall is not opposed Restrayned buâ— Figuratiue is impertinent seing Charity Maintayned expresly spoke only of what did most sute with the sound of the letter which whosoever restraines without evident necessity doth as ill or worse than if he reduced it to a figuratiue sense yea a reality and a Figure may stand together as limited and vnlimited cannot 104. I say to your N. 87. that you and Dr Potter do not agree about those Texts concerning the infallibility of the Church as I haue shewed and in divers other matters which is a signe you haue no certaine cleare Rule or meanes for interpreting Scripture as also appeares by the innumerable other disagreements of Protestants which experience noe man will deny to be a good proofe But say you If there be no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst we are left to ourselves then it is impossible that Protestants should agree in your fense of them that the Chureh is vniversally infallible Answer You cannot as long as you are left to yourselves be assured with an infallible Act of Faith what the meaning of those Texts is by help only of those Meanes which Protestants prescribe for that purpose seing they cannot exceed probability as Protestants confess whereas we rely vpon other infallible meanes as Tradition and Authority of the Church which we proue to be infallible independently of Scripture which you also profess to receiue from the Church and then we may find in Scripture Texts which being interpreted by the true Church may beare witness to particulars concerning her for there can be no better reason to belieue one than a belief that he is infallible as you will not deny but that if once we belieue Scripture to be the word of God we may proue by it felf truths concerning itself as that it is divinely inspired that it is profitable to teach to correct c. as also you must grant that the Apostolicall primitiue Church which you hold to be infallible could beare witness to it self 105. You vrge Charity Maintayned with this Demand Why then saied you of the selfe same Texts but in the Pags next before these words seeme cleerely enough to proue that the Church is vniversally infallible A sirange forgeâ—fulness that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seeme cleerely enough to proue such a conclusion true and yet that three indifferent men should haue no possible meanes while they follow their owne reason to agree inche truth of this conclusion 106. Answer is it not a strang thing that you should not distinguish betwixt videri and videre seeming and seeing seeming doth not signify certainty or evidence as seeing doth and he who sees the sunne shine at midday will not say that it seemes cleare enough that the Sunne shines but his very Act of seeing makes it certaine and evident to him that he sees And if this be not true that Charity Maintayned did not absolutely affirme but only saied it seemes cleare enough c. Why
that men may be of the same Church and hope for salvation for the only belief of fundamentall points though they differ in non-fundamentalls you contradict yourself and Dr. Potter who saieth it is infidelity and damnable and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point sufficiently propounded as revealed by God So that vpon the whole matter you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne and overthrow Potter Yourself and Protestants whom you vndertake to defend To all this I add that Charity Maintayned might haue saied not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House so the belief of only fundamentall points cannot make a Church but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any point revealed by God as we haue seene in Potters assertion it followes that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith and of a Church and so cannot pretend to so much in order to a Church as a foundation is in respect of a House You say that Ch. Ma. Pag 131. takes notice that Dr. Potter by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary But by your leaue in this you falsify both the Doctor and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved In which words you see the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly and explicitely and so he speaks Pag 213. Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith Now I hope Protestants will not deny that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point to be believed by an express and actuall Faith Therefore necessary and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor doe not signify the same thing nor are of the same extent 44. In your N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63 you shew so much choler bitterness and ill language that the best answer will be to apply my selfe only to the matter desiring the Reader to consider the points which I shall set downe and he will finde your objections answered by only applying my considerations to them as they come in order 45. First Before you can refer any considering man as you speake to the Scripture for his satisfaction you must assure him that it is the word of God which you confesse we can only learne from the Church and then if he be indeed a considering man it will instantly inferr that the Church must be infallible or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God nor of any one truth contained therin and as you say he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall so by the like Tradition he may know what she holds in points of Doctrine and either belieue her in them or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture Seing in the principles of Protestants he cannot learne any such precept except from Scripture itselfe and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture that there is such a precept which as I sayd is against the principles of Protestants Moreover yourself teach that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith and therfor a man must first learne the Church and of the Church before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions if he will not contradict himselfe For Pag 139. he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree and consequently the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith vpon Nouices and we speake of such weakelings and doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with and vnderstand the Scripture Therfore men must first be referred to the Church and not to the Scripture as Potter in the same place saieth expressly The Testimony of the present Church though it be not the last resolution of our Faith yet it is the first externall motiue to it 46. Secondly you say to Charity Maintayned To the next question cannot Generall Councells erre You pretend he answers § 19. they may erre damnably Let the Reader see the place and he shall find damnably is your addition 47. Answer Amongst the Errata or faults of the Print Charity Maintayned notes this in the Pag 136. Lin. 22. Damnably Corrige damnably I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter because it is not Dr. Potters word though it follow out of his doctrine All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata where you see he was scrupulous not to adde one word which was not expressly the Doctors though it be most true that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine as Ch Ma saieth but his words in this very place at which you carp signify no lesse yea more For Ch Ma cites these words out of Potter Pag 167. Generall Councells may weakely or wilfully misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture and so erre Now what difference is there to say a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying or misvnderstanding or neglecting Scripture and a Councell may erre damnably Is it not damnable wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand or neglect Scripture Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably because one may erre damnably if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes or for sloath humane respects of hope feare c. and yet not be so culpable as when it proceeds from wilfulness and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd that in the doctrine of Potter Generall Councells may erre more than damnably Haue we not heard the Doctours words Pag. 212. whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity And shall not a wilfull misapplying or neglect of Gods Word be damnable and more then simply damnable even infidelity The Doctour teaches that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally but he neither doth nor can say according to the doctrine of Protestants that Councells cannot erre fundamentally and if Fundamentally surely damnably But why doe I spend tyme in this Yourselfe here N. 53. confesse that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably is not false for the matter but only it is false that Dr. Potters sayes it A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth which he himselfe teaches and so finally Charity
from the sayings of ancient Fathers and moderne Divines can only in the opinion of him and all other Protestants be probable and so cannot oblige every one to know the Creed but men may keepe their liberty Melior est conditio possidentis And Potter himselfe confesses it to be only probable that the Creed containes all fundamentall points and so he cannot oblige men to know the Creed because it only probably containes all necessary Articles If then you cannot proue that any is obliged to know the Creed in vaine doe you say belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall but you must say the direct contrary Men are not in the Principles of Protestants obliged to belieue the Creed Therefore they are not obliged to belieue by it any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall You say Dr. Potter sayes no where that all the Articles of the Creed are fundamentall Neither doth Ch. Ma. ever affirme that he sayes so but the thing being of it self true and you expressly confess it to be true He had reason joyning it with other principles of the Doctor to frame such a Dialague as he did betwene Potter and some desirous to find the Truth And now I hope it appeares that you had no reason to accuse Ch Ma. of vn-ingenious dealing sit for a Faire or Comedy of sirang immodesty of adding to the Doctors words of injustice of blind zeale transporting him beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion and making him careless of speaking either truth or sense That he is a prevaricating Proxy That he patches together a most ridiculous answer That it appeares to his shame c and finally you say certainly if Dr. Potter doth Answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very foole But if he does not then But. I for beare you These be your modest epethitons You say that we Catholiques interpret those divine prescriptions Matth 5. to be no more than Counsells But I pray what Catholique ever taught that our Saviour delivered only a Counsell when he saied whosoever shall say to his brother thou foole shall be guilty of hell fire But all the rest of your acerbity is nothing to that fearefull denunciation which you vtter against Ch. Ma. that our errours as you call them you feare will be certainly destructiue to such as he is that is to all those who haue eyes to see and will not see 52. In your N. 64. you cavill that Ch. Ma. promises to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which he Ch. Ma. said before But presently forgetting himself in stead of answering the Doctors Arguments falls a confuting his Answers to the Argument of Ch. Ma. 53. Answer Ch. ma. N. 20. promises to answer not the Arguments as you say but the Objections of Dr. Potter against that which we had said before which be doth performe N. 21.22.27 and N. 23. he begins to answer the Doctors positive Arguments alledged to proue that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of Faith And the Confutations of the Doctors objections are so strong that you abandon your Client and tell vs that he rather glances at then builds vpon thē that they were said ex abundanti and therefore that you conceiue it superfluous to examine the exceptions of Ch. Ma. against them This is an excellent answer if it could be as satisfactory as it is easy I must intreate the Reader to peruse the N. 21.22.27 of Ch. Ma. and he will finde that Dr. Potter needed a Defence which will be suspected you did not giue because indeed you could not and therefore you fly to an other Answer which you will not find in Dr. Potter That Scripture is not a point necessary to be explicitely believed And How ought Protestants to accept this answer who teach that wee can belieue nothing belonging to Christian Faith but by Scripture alone which if they belieue not Actually nor are bound to belieue it how can they Actually believe or be obliged to belieue the contents thereof If the Church in your opinyon be not infallible and that mē are not obliged to belieue the Scripture to be the word of God and infallible which to them who belieue is not it all one as if it were not what certainty can Protestants haue either that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of simple beliefe or that those which it containes are true you say Gregory of Ualentia seemes to confess the Creeds being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it But Ualentia 2.2 Disp 1. Quest 1. Punct 4. saied only that the Creed containes those things which are in different places contayned in Scripture which is evidently true but he saieth not the Creed was collected out of Scripture which was written after the Creed was composed one thinghe saieth which had bene more for your purpose to obserue that in believing the Creed we are to regard the sence Non enim saieth he sufficit haerere in cortice verborum 54. Subtract from your N. 65. what hath bene answered already or may be answered by a meere denyall or which implies a begging of the Question there will remaine only your saying which yet I cannot say deserves any answer that Ch. Ma. speakes that which is hardly sense in calling the Creed an abridgment of some Articles of Faith For I demand say you these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therfore it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfore is not an abridgment of them If you would call it now an abridgment of the Faith this would be sense and signifie thus much That all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith are comprized in it For it is the proper duty of abridgments to leaue out nothing necessary and to take in nothing vnnecessary 55. Answer this your subtility is so farr from being of any solidity that it overthrowes all abridgments contradicts Dr. Potter and yourselfe and proves that the Creed performes not the proper dury of an abridgment as you say it is and therfor you are injurious to it and the composers therof First your objection may be made against every Abredgment by demanding whether it be an abridgment of those points that are out of it or of those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therfor it is not an abridgment of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therfor it is not an abridgment of them Secondly you contradict Dr. Potter who saieth Pag 234. The Creed is an abstract or Abridgment of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Seripture or collected ous of it And Charity Maintay saieth it is an abridgment of some articles and so the words of the Doctor are more restrained and limited than
divided in externall communion one of the which true Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practice but the other was stained with both For to finde this diversity of churches cānot stand with reds of Histories which are silent of any such matter It is against Dr. Potters owne grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall It contradicts the words in which he sayd Pag 155. The Church may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in Heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church Of these last words you say Let it be so I see no harme will come of it What indeed Is it no harme that it may be sayd with truth that your Protestants are proved bragging false Lyars in saying Luther reformed the whole Church But to omit this these words declare that Ch. Ma. speakes of two Churches wherof one did triumph over all errour and then adds to find this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with records of Histories c where the particles this diversity are referred to two kinds of Churches wherof one did triumph over all sinne and errour and yourselfe explicating the Doctors words say To triumph over errour is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it This supposed the objection is clearly of no force wherin you say To suppose a visible Church before Luther which did not erre is not to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnless you will haue vs belieue that May be and Must be is all one which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so And you would not make so bad Arguments vnless you will pretend you cannot make better But this whole objection is grounded vpon concealing the words of Ch. Ma. who spoke of a Church triumphing over all errour as we haue seene by his express words and therfor when in the very next consequent period he mentions a Church free from errour it cannot be otherwise vnderstood then of such a freedome as he spoke of immediatly before that is of a Church as indeed the true Church ought to be free from all danger of falling into any least errour against Faith Besides suppose he had spoken of a Church which defacto did not erre in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall from the Apostles time to Luther it had been no ill argument to inferr that she could not erre because morally speaking and without a miracle or particular assistance or infallible direction of the Holy Ghost it had been impossible for so many men in so many Ages of so different dispositions through the whole world to haue agreed in the same beliefe concerning matters not evident of themselves but farr exceeding the light of naturall reason and seeming contrarie to it and therfor if they had not been effectually preserved from errour no doubt but some would haue fallen into it which is so true that Dr. Potter sayth Pag 39. it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces and partiticles of divine truth The rest of this Number hath been particularly answered heretofore and your weakning the strength of Historie and tradition serves only to call in question all Religion in your ground who belieue Scripture for tradition 17. In your N. 57. you say to those words of Ch. Ma. N. 18. Our Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice 〈◊〉 Looke again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the world Answer Ch. Ma. doth not as interpreting our Saviours Parable Matth 31. saie that the field he speaks of is the Church but that he foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choise corne which is very true seing he expresly makes the parable of the kingdom of Heaven which is the Church saying The Kingdom of Heaven is resembled to a man c. and the amplitude of the word world doth not exclude the Church for which and her Pastours he gaue that wholesome Document Sinite vtraque crescere Let both grow vp and I pray where but in the Church can there be the wheat which our Saviour would not haue rooted out And because your owne guiltiness moves you in this occasion to tax Catholiques because they punish obstinate Heretiques you should reflect that the tares are not to be gathered when there is danger least by so doing the wheat may be rooted out and therfore a contrario sensu if there be no such danger yea that by sparing the cockle the good corne will suffer the cockle is rather to be taken away than the corne destroied In your N. 58. may be observed a strange kinde of saying that God is infinitly mercifull and therfor will not damne men for meer errours who desire to finde the truth and cannot Is it mercy not to damne men for that which is no fault And for which to damne one were injustice and therfor not to doe it is not mercy but justice 18. Your N. 59.60 haue bene answered at large in the Chap 7. about Schisme Neither can these propositions be defended from a contradiction The Church of Rome wants nothing necessary to salvation and yet it is necessary to salvation to forsake her For as I haue proved even he who believes she erred yet is supposed to belieue that notwithstanding that error still she wants nothing necessary to salvation and therefore the distinction of persons whereof one believes she errs and the other believes she does not erre cannot saue this contradiction 19. That which you say N. 61. is answered by these few lines Almighty God hath promised to giue his sufficient grace to avoyd all deadly sinne and consequently all damnable errour as you confesse every errour against any revealed Truth to be vnles ignorāce excuse it which cannot happen if as you affirme such an assistance is promised to vs as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very proficable truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours because this assistance supposed the Church if she fall into errour must be wanting to herselfe and her ignorance can not be invincible but culpable and damnable both in it selfe and to her and if her errours be damnable she wants some thing necessary to salvation that is the true assent of Faith contrary to that damnable errour and she hath something incompatible with salvation namely that damnable errour and so indeed that truth which you call only profitable becomes necessary and that errour which you suppose to be only hurtfull is destructiue if your Doctrine be ttue that God gives sufficient Grace to avoyd all sortes of errour and to lead to all very profitable truths
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
your saying is not only confused but false in the opinyon of Catholique Divines and much more in your opinyon 45. You say Thomas Aquinas vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated But against this provd Pelagian conceypt of yours I haue proved in the Introduction that Charity being a supernaturall Habit infused only by the Holy Ghost and not acquired by any naturall Acts cannot be knowne by humane experience to be present or absent and being a loue of God aboue all things cannot possibly consist with any least deadly sinne I desire the Reader to see of this matter S. Thomas 2. 2. Q. 24. a 12. Corp where he cites S. Aug saying Quòd homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur absente autem continuò tenebratur à quo non locorum intervallo sed voluntatis aversione disceditur 46. Concerning the second Reason of S. Thomas you say to C Ma Though you cry it vp for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne vs all into stone and insult vpon Dr. Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I find it a serious graue prolix and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main Question between vs that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motiue or rule or a necessary condition of Faith which you know we flatly deny and all that is built vpon it has nothing but winde for foundation 47. Answer What Reader will not conceiue out of your words that Ch. Ma. had vsed some such vaine brag as you express by Achilles Gorgons head insulting c Whereas he without any evenleast commendation saies positively that S. Thomas proves his conclusion first by a parity with Charity which is destroyed by every deadly sinne and then by a farther reason which there he setts downe at large in the words of that holy Saint 2. 2. Q. 5. A. 3. and is comprised in this Summe Ad 2. A man doth belieue all the articles of faith for one and the selfsame reason to wit for the prime verity proposed to vs in the Scripture vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therfore whosoever falls from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of Faith Your pride is intollerable in despising the Reason of S. Thomas as a serious graue prolix nothing and your saying is ridiculous that he beggs the main Question between vs about the infallibility of the Church For how could he begg that Question which when he wrote was granted and taught by all Divines But you do not vnderstand the force of his Argument which consists in this that if one assent to one Object for some motiue or Reason and assent not to another for which there is the same motiue or reason it appeares that he Assents to this other not for that motiue common to both but for some other particular Reason Now though S. Thomas specifie the authority of the Church because de facto she is the proposer of diviue Truths yet his argument is the same though it be applied to Scripture And therfore the same holy Doctor 1. Part. Q. 1. A. 8. Ad 2. without mentioning the Church saieth Innititur sides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt and we haue heard yourself saying Pag 23. He that doth not belieue all the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted Books of Scripture can hardly belieue any neither haue were ason to belieue he doth so Yea D. Lawd P. 344. saieth expresly We belieue all the Articles of Christian Faith for the same formall reason in all namely because they are revealed from and by God and sufficiently applied in his word an by his Churches Ministration 48. To this āswer which I haue confuted you add to vse your words a larg confutation of this vaine fancy out of Estius vpon 3. sē 23. dist § 13. But Estius is so farre from saying the Doctrine of S. Thomas to be a vain fancy that he saieth The Question is on both sides by the Doctours probably disputed Which is sufficient for our main Question that according to this Doctor the Protestants cannot pretend to be a true Church which must certainly and not only probably haue Divine supernaturall Faith which is absolutely necessary to saluation necessitate medij Besides his last express words shew that the Faith which remaines in an Heretique is not sufficient for salvation and therefore Protestants and all Heretiques even for want of necessary Faith cannot be saved His words are Neque tamen propterea fatendum erit Haereticos aut Judaeos Fidem habere sed Fidei partem aliquam Fides enim significat aliquod integrum omnibus suis partibus completum vt sit idem Fides simpliciter Fides Catholica Quae nimirum absolutè hominem fidelem Catholicum constituat Vnde Hereticus simpliciter infidelis esse Mark Fidem amisisse juxta Apostolum 1. Tim. 1. Fidei naufragium fecisse dicitur licet quaedam eâ teneat firmitate assensus promtitudine voluntatis qua ab alijs omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur Neither is the argument of S. Thomas sufficiently confuted by Estius in saying It is impertinent to Faith by what meanes we belieue the prime Uerity For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and preaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath bene given heretofore and is given still This discourse I say doth not confute the Argument of S. Thomas being vnderstood as I declared formally that whosoever disbelieves any article sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth the same man cannot belieue an other sufficiently propounded to him by the same meanes whatsoever that meanes be 49. To the other argument of S. Thomas taken from a parity of faith with the Habit of Charity which is lost by every deadly sinne Estius doth not answer and I am sure he would haue bene farr from saying as you doe that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is not quite extirpated And this Argument is stronger than perhaps appeares at the first sight For Faith hath no less connection and relation to the object of Faith than Charity to the object of Charity And therfore as Charity doth so loue God aboue all things that it cannot stand with any sinne whereby God is grievously offended so we must say of the habit of Faith that it is not compatible with any error whereby his Prime Uerity is culpably rejected and as it is essentiall to Charity as long as it exists to overcome all temptations against the Loue of God so Faith must of its owne nature beate downe and reject all errour against the Divine Testimony or Revelation that both for will and vnderstanding we may say
Thomas 1.2 Q. 33. art 2. proposes this Question vtrum delectatio causet sui sitim vel desiderium mark how he declares thirst to signify a desire and in corp answers si per sitim vel desiderium intelligatur sola intensio affectus tollens fastidium sic delectationes spirituales maxime faciunt sitim vel desiderium suiipsarum and adds cum pervenitur ad consummationem in ipsis Behold a desire of-things present and possest Which he declares by the words which I cited out of Eccles. 24. Qui bibunt me adhuc sitient and proves it Quia etiam de Angelis qui perfecte Deum cognoscunt delectantur in ipso dicitur 1. Pet. 1. quòd desiderant in eum conspicere Vpon which words Cornelius à Lapide saieth devoutely Angeli in Spiritum Sanctum prospicere desiderant id est desideranter cupidè prospiciunt desiderando satiantur satiando desiderant and cites to the same purpose these elegant words of S. Gregory 18. Morall C. 28. Deum Angeli vident videre desiderant sitiunt intueri intuentur Ne autem sit in desiderio anxietas desiderantes satiantur ne sit in satietate fastidium desiderant Et desiderant sine labore quia desiderium satietas comitatur satiantur sine fastidio quia ipsa satietas ex desiderio semper accenditur And these other out of venerable Bede Contemplatio divinae praesentiae ita Angelos beatificat vt ejus semper visa gloria satientur semper ejus dulcedinem quasi novam insatiabiliter esuriant 10. 2. You say to Ch Ma Whereas you say That in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever to preferre the spirituall good of the whole world before his owne soule in saying this you seeme to me to condemne one of the greatest Acts of Charity of one of the greatest Saints that ever was I mean S. Paul who for his brethren desired to be Anathema from Christ. And as for the Text alledged by you in confirmation of your saying what doth it availe a man if he gaine the whole world and sustaine the dammage of his owne soule It is nothing to the purpose For without all Question it is not profitable for a man to do so but the Question is whether it be not Lawfull for a man to forgoe and part with his owne particular profit to procure the vniversall spirituall and eternall benefit of other 11. Answer I must truly affirme that all the difficulty I can haue in confuting you is to conjecture what you would haue or how to reconcile your Contradictions Ch Ma saied In things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case to prefer the spirituall good of others before his owne soule And is not this evidētly true Hath not God committed to every man the care of his owne soule and commanded him not to damne it for all eternity And haue we not heard you saying N. 5. that the true Reason why one thing ought to be loved more then an other is because God commands vs so do so No man can be damned or forfeit his salvation except by sinne and I hope you will not say it is lawefull to sinne which were to say it were a sinne and yet were no sinne Even in this place to the saying of Ch Ma It is directly against Charity to ourselves to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvations you answer this is true But so this is also that it is directly against the same Charity to adventure the omitting any thing that may any way help or conduce to my salvation that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous I haue proved aboue this last part of your saying to be false but for the present I say if to omit any thing necessary to salvation be against the vertue of Charitie to ourselves it must be a sinne and therefore not to be committed in any case for any respect of the temporall or spirituall good of the whole world and so yourself contradict yourself and by saying it is against Charity to omit any thing that may any way conduce to our salvation a fortiori you make good the saying of Ch Ma that in things necessary to salvation no man ought in any case to prefer the spirituall good of the whole world before his owne soule In alledging that Text of S. Paul you doe as Heretiques are wont to doe impugning cleare truths or evident places of Scripture by some obscure and difficult Text as this of S. Paul is held by all Interpreters to be Sure I am that it can serue your turne in this sense only that S. Paul for the good of others did hartily effectually and all things considered wish to be deprived of salvation and separated from Christ and I am sure that this cannot be affirmed without blasphemy seing it must implie that S. Paul did effectually desire to commit a deadly sinne without the committing whereof he knew very well he could not de facto and effectually be separated from Christ and salvation Divers expositions of this Text may be seene in Cornelius à Lapide For the present it is sufficient to haue proved that it is very ill applied by you and which may seeme strang though heere you saie the desire of S. Paul was one of the greatest acts of Charity yet Pag 219. N. 49. you say On condition the ruptures made by them Errours might be composed I do hartily wish that the cement were made of my deerest blood and only not to be an Anathema from Christ In the same manner is confuted your evasion of the text Matth 16. V. 26. seing one cannot loose his soule except by deadly sinne and our Saviour in that Chapter doth expresly teach vs to carie our cross least otherwise we incurre eternall damnation and I hope you will not deny cut that we are obliged to avoide sinne and Hell nor that our Saviour perswaded to that which was both profitable ād best Indeed your boldness in interpreting Scripture is intollerable I will end this Number with observing First your little fervour and constancy in your owne Faith which you express in your next N. 6. in these words Sure I am for my part that I haue done my true endeavour to finde it true that obedience is due to the Roman Church and am still willing to doe so For is it possible that after so many changes and even after the writing of your Book you are yet ready to leaue Protestancy What account ought others to make of your Book since yourself are so willing to abjure it Secondly I must obserue your charity towards vs Catholiques of whom in the close of this N. 6. you say To liue and die in it the Roman Church is as dangerous as to shoote a gulfe which though some good ignorant soules may doe and escape yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries
n. 7 p. 462 seq Schisme vnlawfully begunn cannot be lawfully continued by others n. 96 p. 524. 525. Schisme may accidentally be more preiudiciall then Heresy n. 134 p. 555. It is ill defined by I hil n. 19 p. 470 and n. 23 p. 472. He falsly calls it a separation of some part of the Church n. 173 p. 589 seq Of Chill errours against Scripture toto c. 3. In his grounds it is of lesse assurance then prophane authours n. 44 p. 313. It is a materiall object of our Faith n. 2. p. 279 se even independently of its contents n. 20 p. 292. 293 seq with his contradictions Prorestants must beleeue it before they can beleeue the contents n. 21 p. 293. If they were not obliged to beleeue it they should not be obliged to beleeue the contents n. 4 p. 281. 282. Scripture affirmed by some Protestants to to be knowne by it selfe to be the word of God denyed by others c. 2. n. 88. p. 190. 191. It is hard to be vnderstood n. 27 p. 135 and n. 71 p. 174. where it is shewed by 2. Pet. 3.15.16 The reason why it is so touched n 71 p. 174. and declared in sequentibus Protestants would make men beleeue that it is cleare yet doe they assigne many rules necessary for the vnderstanding of it which few can possibly obserue n. 43 p 151. Nor are they sufficient as is demonstrated by the vnanswerable arguments of Dr. Hierome Taylour n 44 p. 152 seq and appeares by the irreconciliable disagreements amongst themselves n 91 P. 193 seq By their thinking that the ancient Fathers erred in holding Doctrine contrary to theirs by the agreeing of many chief Protestants with vs against their Brethren n 90. 91. p 192. 193. According to Chill every man though vnlearned must know every Text of Scripture yet he supposes that even the learned are not obliged to it n 26 p. 134. Out of his Tenets Scripture proved insufficient to be any Rule of Faith n 94 p 198 199 and c. 3 per totum In what sense it may be affirmed by Catholiques that Scripture containes evidently all things necessary c. 2 n 7. 8. 9. p. 124. 125. Scripture needs not be plaine to every privates mans capacity the Church being alwayes extant to interpret and direct c. 4 n. 9 p. 355. 356. The necessity of this Interpreter proved in the chief misteryes of Christianity c. 2. n. 30. 31 p. 136 seq The difference betwixt Scripture and the definitions of the Church c. 4 n. 99 P. 424. Scripture cannot be compared for matter of Faith to the corporall eye but the vnderstanding together with some supernaturall comprincipium of the act may c 11 n. 10 11 p 654 seq Sinne and indeliberation are inconsistent c 1 n 71 p 85. 86. It can neither be committed without knowledge nor repented whilst it is actually committing c 8 n 20 p 617 seq One sinne not repēted drawes on others 1. n 35. 36 p 24. 25. God gives fewer helps to people in mortall sinne then in the stare of grace n 38 p 25. 26. A mortall sinne is worse then the torments of hell n 47 p 34 Sinne in a thing not necessary necessitate medij is avoyded by following a probable opinion c. 16 n 16 p 941 About the edition of Sixtus 5. his Bible c. 3 n 56 p 325 The Socinianisme of Chill the way to Atheisme c 1 n 100 p 107 D. Stapleron vindicated from Potters falsification c 4 n 95 p 418 seq His Doctrine about the Churches infallibility Jb and n 99 p 424 T Temptations may be overcome by the grace of God but not without it I. n. 26 p. 20. 21. Texts of Scripture answeared Many concerning the chief points of Christianity alleaged by Chill to proue the evidēce of Scripture in things necessary shewed even by the errours of old and new Heretiques to require a living infallible judge c 2 n 32 p 140 seq Deut 4.2 Yee shall not add to the word c. answered c 2 n 61 p 161. 162 Act 17.11 of the Bereās deaily searching the Scriptures answeared n 64 p 168 Apoc 24 v. 18. 19. If any man shall ad to these things c. n. 65 p 169. 170 seq S. Iohn 5.39 search the Scriptures n 62 p 162 seq S. Iohn 20.31 These are written that yee may beleeue n. 63 p. 166. seq and n. 168 p. 245 seq S. Luke 1. v. 1. 2. 3. Act 1. v. 1. 2. explicated n. 99 p. 203 seq S. Paule Rom 14 5. prophanely applyed by Chill c. 11 n. 31 p. 670. S. Paule 1. Tim 3.15 about the infallibility of the vniversall Church c. 12 n. 89 p. 777. S. Paul 2. Tim 3. v. 14. 15. 16. 17. All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c c. 2 n. 66 p. 170 seq and n. 175 176 p. 250 seq How a Tipe or figure differs from a patterne c. 11 n. 48 p. 682 The Title of Chill Booke Protestant Religion a safe way to salvation proved not to agree to it and shewed what he should haue putt Pr. n. 12 p 6 seq Against Tradition no dispute c ◠n 209 p 274 seq Tradition without Scripture but not Scripture wthout Tradition sufficient to begett Faith c 11 n 49 p 682. Tradition proved out of holy Fathers c 2 n 165 p 240 seq and n 202 p 270 seq Whitaker very angry with S. Chrysostome about Tradition n 202 p 271 Tradition wholy destroyed by Chill although he would seeme to rely vpon it c 3 n 80 p 341 seq and n 85. 86 p 345 seq Yet it is confessed by many Heteriques to be the only ground for many chief points of Christianity c 2 n 42 p 149 150. 151. Traditions vnwritten amongst the Iewes n 61 p 161 Transubstantiation is of lesse difficulty to naturall reason then the mistery of the B. Trinity c 11 n 12 p 657 V Pope Uictor was in the right c. 15. n 32. falsly put 33. p. 913. The Vnderstanding cannot dissenr from a truth represented with evidence yet the will may doe contrary to it c. 11. n. 65. 66. p. 694. seq Vniversall taken by Potter in a Logicall sense and ignorantly opposed to Catholique c. 7. n. 148. p. 565. W The difference betwixt a VVay evidently knowne by sense from that which is knowne by Scripture c. 4. n. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. p. 415. seq The VVill is not alwayes able to follow the vnderstanding without grace c. 1 n. 113 p. 118 Good works acknowledged by Chill to be required in Scripture for salvation c. 2 n. 36. 37 p. 144. 145 Holy VVriters doe no lesse deliver Counsells then commands by Divine inspiration c. 3. n. 38. p. 306. seq VVhy no one VVriting taken alone in its owne nature is sufficient to keepe from errour c. 2. n. 178. 179. 180. p. 252. 253. 254. and n. 181 p. 256 seq this shewed a fortiori of writings containing divine and sublime misteryes ' n. 184 p. 258 seq If writings by a singular miracle be alwayes and by all vneerstood a like it is not for the nature of the writings but by the Power of God supernaturally supplying what should be done by a liuing infallible interpreter or judge n. 186. 187. p. 261. 262. 263. X Xenaias a fugitiue slaue vnbaptized faining Christianity crept into a Bishoprique ād was the first that made wart against Images c. 7. n. 122. p. 543. ERRATA Many of which arè left out but such as is hoped will not trouble the vnderstanding Reader No wonder if a stranger to our language did often mistake Where either Page or § is put false it is corrected in the Index when any such place is cited Page Line Error Correction pr 8 3 this for for this pr 9 15 proue to so to do all proue to do so to all 13 19 othe other 39 21 Christians Christian 61 24 degree degrees 106 14 not be not to be 130 7 collectinei collectiuè 173 5 of sared sayed of 187 38 every a very 192 11 on no 220 31 o of 222 11 of if 225 2 appeare your appeare by your 226 9 cae case 240 7 and necessity ād hold the necessity 267 10 Augustrana Augustana 267 34 A rist Christ 277 4 y by 282 1 het the 314 12 rihes no higher rises no higher 315 21 the exercising to ā act to the exercising ā act 365 34 Goind God in 377 38 wared waved 394 7 that that then that 438 34 avoide avoide not 458 9 ormall formall 468 0 About Fundamentall points c. 6. Protestants guilty of schisme c. 7 459 18 iust brande iustly branded 531 1 you yet 533 20 member number 539 13 Greg. Millius in Ar gumēta Georg. Millius in Au gustana 556 24 officiously officious ly 557 38 his submit to to submit his 588 7 errors error 590 25 deest i.e. 590 28 deest 3. 602 38 afterfor their after sorrow 616 22 to obiect wherof his the object herof is 617 21 preceede proceede sinns 638 12 it he 619 4 pertinent penitent 627 15 is it 632 2 Chillingwort I. Chillingworth 639 4 proosd proposed 641 11 but wavering ād fear full assent a but a wavering ād fe arfull assēt 707 19 could would 716 17 hold cold 748 4 of Sections or or Sections of 766 1 if he will not so if he will not so 781 16 it is was it was 801 24 Seurrall severall 807 38 vrge it against vrge against 811 35 as thewed as I shewed 823 8 it will he will 823 9 he cannot it cannot 826 23 to soone so soone 828 38 is not it all one it not is all one 838 19 prencipuum praecipium 856 1.2 recs records 868 16 if Peter of Peter 876 1 ayme time 877 3-4 may another may not another 885 32 not dele 890 1 an any 920 36 and men and yet 935 5 It if If it