to giue vp his owne And when or where did all Churches vnitedly and joyntly offer vp this vniversall supreme Authority to the Bishop of Rome 32. To the authority cited by Ch Ma out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. Heresies haue sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause than for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God You answer that S. Cyprian spoke not of Cornelius but of Himself and yet you confess N. 91. that Goulartius a learned Protestant grants that it is meant of Cornelius and Pamelius in his Annotations vpon this Epistle of S. Cyprian brings divers Arguments to proue the same Neither can it be denyed but that in his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae he affirmes Heresies to spring from not acknowledging one Head S. Peter vpon whom our Saviour builded his Church Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia Cathedra vna monstretur Which is so manifest that the Protestant Chroniclers cent 3. col 84. lin 59. say Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse vr Lib. 1. Epist 3. which is the Epistle cited by C. Ma. and of which we now speak And Lib 4. Epist 9. c. But although it were granted that S. Cyprian in his Epist 55. did speak of a particular Church it is cleare that for avoiding Schisme in the whole Church there is a necessity of one Head if for that cause one Head be necessary in every particular Church as heretofore we cited out of S. Hierom that among the Apostles one was chosen vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio And even Dr. Covell a learned Protestant in his examination c. saieth How can they think that equality would keepe all the Pastors in the world in peace and vnity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equall must procure vnity and obedience Otherwise the Church should be in a farre worse case then the meanest commonwealth To which purpose he alledges that Sentence which we mentioned out of S. Hierom vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio You say whether the words of S. Cyprian condemne Luther is another Question Answer If those words condemne Luther of Schisme for withdrawing his Obedience from the Pope which Ch Ma affirmes and you for the present do not deny it evidently implies that the Pope was Superiour to him and all other Christians 33. In your N. 99.100 you labour to elude these words of S. Optatus alledged by C. Ma in the same N. 36. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that in the Citty of Rome there was first an Episcopall chaire placed for Peter wherin Peter the head of all the Apostles sat whereof also he was called Cephas in which one chaire vnity was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire aÌ„d that he should be a Schismatique and a sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect an other lib 2. cont Parmen You tell vs That the Donatists had set vp at Rome a Bishop of their faction and that Optatus proves them Schismatikes for so doing vpon this ground of one Bishop in one Church But whosoever reads Optatus will clearly see that he expresly speaks of the Catholique not of a particular Church which he saieth hath quinque ornamenta or dotes the first whereof is a chaire on which chaire of the Catholique and vniversall Church he saith S. Peter first sat whom he calls the Head of all the Apostles whereof he was called Cephas in which one Chaire vnity was to be kept by all Now I beseech you is it not cleare that Optatus speaks of S. Peter and of his Sea not as of a particular Bishop of a particular Church but as Head of the Catholique Church by whose meanes vnity was to be conserved and that Schisme and Heresie are to be discovered by opposition to that chayre which he calls singularem cathedram and may well signify not only a single or particular or individuall chaire but indeed singular by reason of singular preeminence and priviledg aboue all other Churches For this cause he speaks thus to the Donatist Parmenian Contra quas portas inferorum claves salutares accepisse legimus Petrum cui a Christo dictum est Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum portae inferorum non vincenteas Vnde est ergo quod claves regni vobis vsurpare contenditis qui contra cathedram Petri vestris presumptionibus audacijs sacrilegio militatis To what purpose should he insist vpon these priviledges of S. Peter and his Chaire if he meant no more than what is common to all particular Churches Or how doth he afterward proue that they whom the Donatists opposed were â—in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est But why do I labour to proue that which our Adversaries your Brethren are forced to grant For the Centurists cent 4. col 556. lin 17. alledg Optatus calling Peter Apostolorum caput vnde Cephas appellatur And indeed not only in the place alledged but also lib 7. he calls S. Peter caput Apostolorum And Fulk in his Retentiue Pag 248. chargeth Optatus with absurdity for saying of Peter Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit c He deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles You say When Optatus stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and sayes that from thence he was called Cephas Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greek word Kephale wheras it is a Syriack word and signisies a stone But what imports it vpon what ground he called him head seing he called him so and believed him to be such Beside that which is the stone Rock or Foundation in a materiall Building in a mysticall Body is the Head as the vulgar saying is Homo est arbor inversa The roote is to a tree as the Head is to a man and therefore our Saviour sayd I will build my Church vpon this Rock after he had saied to S. Peter that he was a Rock In this manner the Centurists Cent 3. col 85. say that Origines Tract 5. in Matth dicit Petrus per promissionem meruit fieri Ecclesiae fundamentum and yet that Hom 17 in Lucam Petrum vocat Apostolorum Principem where we see that S. Peter is called both a Foundation and a Prince Chiefe or Head 34. But now giue me leaue to say plainly that it is intollerable in you to impugne by Reasons which you expressie only call probabilityes a matter delivered clearly in Scripture testifyed by Antiquity embraced by Nations and corroborated by the great Plea of Possession peacefull and tyme out of mynd against all which what wisdom is it to oppose meere Topicall Socinian conjectures You saie First That S. Peter should haue authority
ventis vocatur Ecclesia Quomodo vocatur Vndique in Trinitate vocatur Non vocatur nisi per baptismum in nomine Patris Filij Spiritus Sancti Will you now limit vndique to places round about or adjacent and not grant that it signifies the whole world The learned Fevardentius in his Annotations vpon this place of S. Irenaeus not only affirmes that by eos qui sunt vndique fideles all Churches of the whole world are vnderstood but proves it with much clearness and erudition observing among other things that it is saied Ad hanc Ecclesiam not ad vrbis amplitudinem populorum frequentiam non ad imperij culmen non ad Caesarum majestem sed ad hanc Ecclesiam Thus your first objection being proved to be grounded meerely vpon a confidence that vndique must be taken in this place as you would haue it and withall perceiving that even this will not come home to your purpose without an other voluntary alteration for it is no less difficult a sense to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there froÌ„ those who are euery where than to say The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there from those who are round about you fall vpon a conjecture that in all probability in stead of conservata it should be observata although no copie either printed or manuscript reads it in that manner and suppose it were observata the difficulty would still remaine what observata might signifie whether observed that is kept and maintayned and then it were all one with conserved or observed that is marked found perceived or the like as you would haue it not considering that by this conceypt you wholy alter the Argument of S. Irenaeus and substitute an other For whereas that holy Bishop and Martyr grounds his proofe against Heretiques vpon the Authority and succession of the Roman Church you make him vrge these Heretiques only by the Testimony of people round about that Citie because they never observed any alteration of doctrine in that Church which therefore according to this your fiction must be judged by the neighbouring people and not they directed by her which kind of reasoning had bene a meere begging the Question and no effectuall confutation of those Heretiques who would instantly answer that both Rome and the adjacent people had altered the Apostlike Tradition by holding doctrines contrary to theirs nor could they haue bene confured otherwise than by supposing that the Roman Church was by the Promise of our Saviour Christ secured from all errour against Faith and to vse your owne lately recited words to say that the people about Rome would haue observed it if there had bene any alteration in the Church of Rome had bene but to giue for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in question as being still to vse your owne words not evident in it self according to the principles of Protestants who de facto hold that many errours crept into the Church without being observed and plainly denied by S. Irenaeus his adversaries and not proved by him especially if we consider that as yourself speak The Church of Rome had a Powerfull principality over all the adjacent Churches it had bene more probable that she might haue led them into errour which they would haue embraced as an Apostolicall Tradition than that they would or could haue corrected her if indeed she had bene conceyved to be subject to errour no less than the adjacent Churches Now as for the difficulty of those words In which the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who were every where yourself must answer it seing you hold your conjecture of observata to be but probable and that all hitherto haue read it and do still reade it conservata and that even though you reade it observata it will be a hard sense to say In which Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwaies bene observed from those who are every where and if in stead of from you say by hath bene observed by those who are every where though in that acception you must take Ab in a different sense when it is sayd ab Apostolis from and when it is saied ab his qui sunt vndique by we may also say hath bene conserved by those who are every where and the sense will be that in the Roman Church there hath alwaies bene the Tradition from the Apostles which hath also bene conserved in all Churches and in which they must agree with Her propter potentiorem Principalitatem and because she hath an evident and certaine succession as being founded vpon a Rock and in this sense we may also say that the Tradition receyved from all Churches hath bene conserved in the Roman Church as the center of Ecclesiasticall vnity to vse the words of the most learned Perron in his Reply Lib. 1. cap 26. 31. In your N. 30. after other discourses which containe no difficulty which may not be answered by what hath bene saied in divers occasions you come to your old cramben of the Chiliasts or Millenaries of which you say Justine martyr in Dial. cum Tryphon Professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time belieued it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques Sr. we haue no â—eason to belieue your word without some proofe And that you may not â—â—use my proofe against you as proceding from one who being a partie may be suspected of partiality I oppose to you a learned ProtestaÌ„t Doctor Ham in his Uiew of c Pag 87.88.89 who convinced by evidence of truth not only confesses and proves the weakeness of that place in S. Iustine to conclude any thing against Catholique Tradition but also demonstrates that your allegation is an egregious falsification while you say Iustine martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques For S. Justine expresly affirmes that many doe not acknowledg this doctrine of the 1000. yeares and those many Christians that are of pure and pious opinyon or judgment and that those whom he calls nominall Christians Atheists impious hereticall leaders are they who denyed the resurrection not those that acknowledg the resurrection and denyed the Millennium And the Doctour concludes in these very words By Iustine it cannot be concluded that the 1000. yeares was a matter of Catholike belief in his time but only favourd by him and many others and consequently though that were after condemned in the Church would it not be from this testimony inferred that a Catholick Doctrine much lesse a Tradition were condemned And he gives vs a Rule whereby we may answer all that can be objected out of S. Irenaeus or any other ancient Author saying Pag 91. I confess I acknowledg my opinion that there were in that age men otherwise minded as out of Iustin it appeared I could cite an other highly
necessary are evidently contayned in Scripture in that first sense and by an evidence of the Text alone without dependance or relation to any other thing for example the Church or Tradition which particulars surely the Scripture never expresses I beseech the Reader to consider this and mark to what an impossible taske Protestants are engaged Yet this is not all It will still remayne doubtfull whether that Text which did say that all things are evidently contayned in Scripture be vnderstood vniversally of all things necessary to be believed or only of things necessary to be believed and written which if you wil needs haue to be all one or of the same extent you begg the Question in supposing that all things necessary to be believed are necessarily to be written in the Holy Scripture 10. These reflections being premised about the Meaning of the words Necessary and Evident I belieue any man who as I sayd shall thinke well before he speake and then speak as he thinks will hold it a very impossible thing to proue evidently out of Scripture all things necessary for the Church as one Mysticall Body For every Degree and for every particular Member therof according to the first Meaning of Evidence and other prescriptions which I haue declared Let vs therfor looke backe a litle vpon those three different sorts of Persons 11. First for Government and Governours of the Church if we abstract from the Authority Practise Tradition and interpretation of Gods Church I wonder who will goe about to proue with certainty out of evident Scripture what Episcopus must signify in Scripture a Bishop Superintendent or Overseer or any who hath a charge or superiority according to the fashion of Protestants who loue to take words according to Grammaticall derivation not according to the Ecclesiasticall Ancient vse of them Even Protestants grant that the words Presbyter and Episcopus are in Scripture taken for the same and Dr Jer Taylor in his Defence of Episcopacy § 23. Pag 128. saith expressly The first thing done in Christendome vpon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy is the distinguishing of Names which before were common If they will translate Presbyter to signify an Elder what Certainty can they receyve from that word whether it ought to be taken for elder in Age or greater in Dignity And it is no better than ridiculous that Protestants should first deny vnwritten Traditions and Authority of the Church for interpreting Scriptures and deciding Controversyes in Faith and then take great paynes to proue out of evident Scripture alone that Bishops are de Jure Divino and the same I say of any other particular Forme of Ecclesiasticall Government and of the Quality and Extent of Authority in any such Forme whether they can inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures and of what kind concerning which and other such Poynts necessary to be knowne in the Church Protestants in vayne and without end will be sighting for an impossibility till they acknowledge some other Rule or judge of Controversyes than Scripture alone 12. Besides how will they learne out of Scripture alone the Forme of Ordination of Priestes and other Orders the Matter and Forme of other Sacraments which some in the Church are to administer by Office and others to receyue of which I shall speake more particularly hereafter with diverse other such Poynts necessary for the Church in generall 13. Secondly For diverse Degrees or States in the Church no man can chuse but see how hard it is to learne evidently out of Scripture alone what in particular belongs to every one both for Belief and Practise 14. Thirdly For every particular Person How can a Protestant proue evidently out of Scripture the Nature of Faith since one Sect of them denyes Christian Faith to be infallibly true against the rest of their fellowes and an other affirmes that justifying Faith is that wherby one firmly believes that he is just which kind of Faith others deny or the necessary Extent of their Faith seing Chilling holds that there cannot be given a Catalogue of Points necessary to be believed explicitly by all and therfor every one must either remayne vncertaine whether he believe all that is absolutely necessary or else be obliged vnder damnation to know explicitly all cleare passages of Scripture which are innumerable least otherwise he put himself in danger of wanting what is indispensably necessary to salvation which is a burthen no lesse vnreasonable than intolerable even to men not vnlearned and much more to vulgar Persons 15. Neither is there less dissiculty concerning Pennance or true Repentance than Faith since Protestants do not agree in what Repentance consist and Chilling hath a conceypt different from the rest that true Repentance requires the effectuall mortification of the Habits of all vices which being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant as he writes Pag. 392. N. 8. and therfor even that most perfect kind of sorrow which Divines call Contrition and is conceyved against sin for the loue of God will not serue at the howre of ones death because saith he Repentance is a work of difficulty and tyme. 16. Morover it is impossible for Protestants to proue evidently out of Scripture that the Sacraments of Baptisme and Pennance are not necessary for salvation For where fynd they any such Text If they say we must hold them not necessary because we find no such necessity evidently exprest in Scripture they do but begg the Question and suppose that all things necessary are contayned in Scripture besides that we haue Scripture for both Nisi quis renatu◠fuerit c vntess one shall be borne againe c Ioan 3.5 And whose sinnes you retayne they are retayned Ioan. 20.23 and it is impossible for any man to shew evidently out of Scripture that those Texts are not de facto vnderstood as we vnderstand them since it is most evident that the words are capable of such a sense and consequently we cannot be certaine but that such is their meaning vnless they can bring some evident Text to the contrary especially since that even divers chief learned Protestants teach the necessity of Baptisme for children of the Faithfull as I shew herafter And certainly if Scripture were evident against this Doctrine of Catholiques so many learned Protestants could not but haue seene it 17. The same I say of the Sacrament of Pennance which divers learned Protestants hold to be so necessary as some say that It is a wicked thing to take away private Absolution And that They who contemne it do not vnderstand what is Remission of sinnes or the power of the keyes And that it is an Errour to affirme that Confession made before God doth suffice And that Private Confession being taken away Christ gave the keyes in vaine vide Triple Cord Chap. 24. Pag. 613. And vitae Lutheri Autore Gasparo Vienbergio Lippiensi Cap. 30. it is sayd Osiander primus ex ministris Norinbergae
not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this Argumēt and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce But good Sr. seing that the Canō of
opinions which still makes it more and more evident that with Sectaryes evidence affects rather their will or fancy than their vnderstanding And here you ought in all reason to apply to the Ancient Fathers and learned Protestants agreeing with vs against their Brethren what you say Pag 40. and 41. N. 13. in favour of Protestants in generall to proue that there is no necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe in these words The contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probability capable of diuerse senses and in such cases it is no mervaile and sure no sin if seuerall men go seuerall wayes Also the contrary beliefe may be concerning Points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a Point not necessary that men of honest and vpright hearts true louers of God and of truth such as desire aboue all things to know Gods will and to do it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments Now whatsoever you judge of vs yet I hope you will not deny the Ancient Fathers and your owne Protestant Brethren to be so qualifyed as you describe men of honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and the truth c And therfore seing they vnderstood the word of God as we doe you ought to absolue them yea and vs and conceiue that Luther had no necessary cause to forsake the whole Church for Points maintayned by men of so great quality in all kinds whose authority you cannot deny to be sufficient for making a doctrine probable and for devesting the contrary of certainty and therfore according to Hookers rule they ought to haue suspended their perswasion and they offended against God by troubling the whole Church 57. Neither can you object against the Fathers what you say against vs Pag 280. N. 66. that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough c For besides that it is I know not whether more ridiculous or impious to say the Fathers were men in ignorance and the whole Church in errour at least you will not deny but those Protestants who agree with vs are knowing men and haue all the meanes of knowing the truth which other Protestants haue and they being supposed by you I hope to be men of honest and vpright hearts may without any fault at all dissent from their Brethren according to your owne rule And since you must excuse them it were manifest injustice to condemne vs who defend the same doctrine with them 58. Fifthly It is a principle of nature that no private person much lesse a Community and least of all the whole Christian world should be deprived of that good name of which they were once in peaoeable and certaine possession without very cleare and convincing evidence Seing then even Protestants grant that for divers Ages the Church and the Roman Church in particular enjoyed the good Name and Thing of being Orthodox and Pure she cannot be deprived of them without evidence neither can probability or vncertainty be sufficient to forsake her Communion as noxious O of how different a mynd are our Novelists from the Ancient Doctours of Gods Church who against all Heretiks opposed the Tradition and Succession of the Bishops of Rome as Tertuilian the SS Irenaeus Epiphanius Optatus and Austine as Calvin confesses L. 4. Instit C. 3. and thinkes to saue himselfe with this Answer Sect. 3. Cum exrra contoversiam esset c. Seing it was vndoubtedly true that nothing was altered in doctrine from the beginning till that Age they did alledg that which was sufficient to overthrow all new errours namely that they were repugnant to the Doctrine which by vnanimous consent was constantly kept from the very tyme of the Apostles themselves But this Answer can serue only to shew that the Argument of the Fathers against Heretiks was plainly of no force at all For if the Tradition and succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome were not assured of the particular assistāce of the holy Ghost no argument could be taken to proue any doctrine true because it had been taught in that Sea in regard that without such assistance Errour might haue crept in and tradition might haue delivered a falshood Therfore the Fathers alledging the Doctrine of the Roman Church for a Rule to all other must suppose such an assistance without which their adversaryes might haue rejected the Tradition of that Sea with as much facility as the Tradition and Authority of any other And to say the Fathers grounded their Argument meerly vpon matter of fact that de facto the Church of Rome had delivered otherwise than those Heretiks held and thence had inferred the falshood of their Heresyes would haue beene directly petitio principij as if they had sayd The Church of Rome de facto without any certaine assistance of the Holy Ghost holds the contrary of that which you Heretiks teach but that which she holds is true therfore your Doctrine is false For this Minor that which she holds is true had been a meere begging of the Question without any proofe at all and had been no more in effect then if the Fathers had sayd The Doctrine of the Roman Church and our Doctrine which is the same with Hers is true because we suppose it to be true and therfore yours is false Wherfore we must giue glory to God and acknowledg that the Fathers believed that the Roman Church was assisted by the Holy Ghost above other Churches not to fall into errour in matters of Faith and Religion Howsoever let vs take what Calvin grants that at least the Church of Rome conserved the Truth and purity of Faith till the tyme of S. Austine that is between the fourth and fift Age after our Saviour Christ and Heretiks commonly grant that the Church of Rome was pure for the first fiue hundred yeares Now let any man of judgment consider whether it was probable or possible that immediatly after so great purity and Sanctity so huge a deluge of superstitions Idolatryes Heresyes and corruptions could haue flowed into the Church of Rome within the space of one hundred yeares that is till the tyme of S. Gregory the Great without being noted or spoken of or contradicted by any one Especially if we consider that other doctrines which both Protestants and Catholiks profess to be Heresyes were instantly observed impugned and condemned and to say that those only of which they hold vs guilty did passe without observation of any can be judged no better than a voluntary affected foolish fancy I beseech the Protestant Reader for the Eternall good of his owne soule to pause here a little and well ponder this Point Besides S. Gregory himselfe was a most holy learned and Zealous Pastour
to proue your assertion and yet he L. 3. expresly speaks of a fals report venturos esse Paulum MachariuÌ„ two Embassadours sent into Africa by the pious Catholique Emperour Constans qui interessent Sacrificio vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur proferreat illâ— Imaginem of the Emperour quam primò in altari ponerent sic Sacrificium offerretur Do you not know the Doctrine of all Catholiques that Sacrisice is due only to God I beseech the Reader to reade Baronius Ann. 348. N. 33.34 I wonder how you durst at that tyme when you wrote and published your Booke write that setting pictures in Churches and vpon Altars may yield just cause to separate from a Church at that tyme I say when pictures began to appeare in English Protestant Churches even in the vniversityes and still I haue fresh occasions of wondering that ever your Booke could be approved Do not Lutherans to this day set vp Images in their Churches The wickleffists and Hussites and diverse learned Protestants allow of Images yea and some defend even the worshipping of them as may be seene in the Triple Cord Chapt 17. Sect 4. as also learned Protestants confesse that diverse Fathers defended the vse and worship of Images and that Xenaias was condemned for being the first that stirred vp warr against Images which is witnessed by the Protestant Writer Functius And Nicephorus Hist Eccles Lib 16. Cap 27. saith Xenaias iste primus ô audacem animam os impudens vocem illam evomuit Christi eorum qui illi placuere imagines venerandas non esse See of this whole matter Brierley Tract 1. Sect 3. Subdivis 12. Pag 124. And Tract 1. Sect 8. Subdivis 2. Pag 214. And Bellar Tom 2. de Reliq Sanct Lib 2. Cap 6. saith That Xenaias was a Persian and a barbarous fellow yea and a fugitiue 〈◊〉 and though he was not baptized yet faining himselfe a Christian he crept into a Bishoppricke And de notis Eccles Lib 4. Cap 9. demonstrates out of S. Epiphanius Lactantius S. Basil S. Greg Nyssen S. Paulinus S. Athanas and others That pictures were wont to be placed in Churches And S. Austine himselfe Lib 1. de consensu Evangelistar Cap 10. witnesseth that in his tyme in many places Christ was to be seene painted between the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul And Lib 22. cont Faust Cap 73. he saith the same of the History of Abraham going about to sacrifice his Son Now I beseech you tell me whether vse of Images in Churches be a sufficient cause of a Division from the Church or no If it be then the Donatists might haue reason to depart from the Church seing pictures were set vp both in and before S. Austines tyme and while to vse your owne wordes the whole world of Christians was vnited in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner If it were not why do you in this place object to vs the vse of Pictures and say that S. Austine to avoyd the objection of the Donatists that Catholikes set Pictures vpon the Altar answered only by denying that to be true which they objected as if they might haue beene excused from Schisme if indeed Pictures had beene set vpon the Altar And must Protestants depart from the Communion of all those their Brethren who at this day defend the lawfullness and practise the setting vp of Images in Churches In the meane time they who impugne the vse and worsh ip of Images may consider in Xenaias what Progenitors they haue And heere to shew how even by the light of naturall reason the respect or irreverence which is donne to the Image redounds to the Prototypon I cannot omit to set downe the words of Nazarius in panegir Constantini in detestation of the fact of Maxentius in defacing aÌ„d throwing downe the Images of Constantine Ecce enim proh dolor verba vix suppetunt venerandarum Imaginum acerba dejectio divini vultus litura deformis O manus impiae ô truces oculi ita non calligastis In quo lumen mundi obsucrabatis meritas ipsi poenas non imbibistis Nihil profecto gravius nihil miserius Roma doluisti What then shall we say of Iconoclasts or Image-breakers or Image-despisers not of mortall men as Constantine was then but of the Saviour of the world his Blessed Mother and Saints now glorious in Heauen O England reflect and repent 123. But not in this place only you are impudently bold with glorious S. Austine For Pag 259. N. 20. you say All that S. Austine saith is not true And I belieue heat of disputation against the Donatists and a desire to â—â—er-confute them transported him so farr is to vrge against them more than was necessary and perhaps more than was true But it is no wonder if notorious Schismatiks as you are willingly take occasion to defend such famous Schismatikes as the Donatists were and to do it covertly and ex obliquo when you are ashamed to vnmaske yourselfe and proclaime it directly and openly And this your desperate evasion declares sufficiently that S. Austine was clearly with vs in that place which Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 164. cited out of him as also in that other place which he cited Pag 165. wherof you say in your same Pag 259. N. 20. I cannot but wonder very much why he S. Austine should thinke it absurd for any man to say There are sheepe which he knowes not but God knowes and no less at you for obtruding this sentence vpon vs as pertinent proofe of the Churches Visibility And Pag 119. N. 163. you say To S. Austine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderatly And Pag 168. N. 64. S. Austine when he was out of the heate of disputation confesses c. If any aske why Socinians are so averse from S. Austine I answer because in his workes he doth so often so zealously and so learnedly defend the Uisibility Perpetuity Amplitude Infallibility and Authority of Gods Church and with Arguments so direct against all our moderne Heretikes and Socinians in particular as it is impossible one can be a friend to that holy Doctour of Gods Church and an enemy to the Church of Rome A consideration of great comfort that we defend the same cause and suffer with a Person so holy and learned as Protestants when their owne cause is not touched are wont to preferr him before all other Ancient Fathers 124. Object 13. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 20. Pag 107. proves That seing Protestants grant that the Church cannot erre in Points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferr that it behooves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one Point First because though she were supposed to erre yet the errour could not be Fundamentall nor destructiue of Faith
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
and yet not to haue beene inspired by God himselfe against such men there were no disputing out of the Bible In which words you confess that one cannot gather that a writing is inspired by God even though he did belieue that the contents therof were all true You make him also contradict yourselfe who resolue the beliefe of Scripture into the tradition of all Churches aÌ„d C Ma specifies not the present Church but saith oÌ„ly that Hooker acknowledged that we belieue Scripture for the Authority of the Church He must also contradict himselfe who I suppose liking not the Puritans privat spirit and proving that it is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs as may be seene in Charity Maintayned Pag 42. N. 7. citing the place of Hooker leaves nothing for our motiue to belieue it except the Church Yet no man denyes but what we first belieue for the Authority of the Church may afterward be illustrated and confirmed by Reason as Hooker saith The former inducement the Authority of Gods Church prevailing somwhat with vs before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason And yourselfe in this Chapter N. 47. explicate some words of Potter in this very sense which now I haue declared And therfore consider whether you do well in relating Mookers words to leaue out these words which are immediatly joyned to those which you cite If I belieue the Gospell yet is reason of singular vse for that it confirmeth me in this my beliefe the more Is this to say that naturall reason as it is distinguished from tradition or Authority of the Church in which sense we now speake of it is the last thing into which our beliefe of Scripture is resolved seing such a confirmation by Reason comes after we haue believed You say that when Hooker saith When we know the whole Church of God hath that oâ—inion of the Scripture c the Church he speakes of seenes to be that particular Church wherin a man is bredd where I put you in mynd of what you sayd in another place that A Church signifyes a particular Church and The Church as Hooker speakes signifyes the vniversall How then do you say That by The Church he signifies a particular Church Or how is the Distinction of A and The Church such as you would haue men belieue But this I let passe and aske you what finally you will haue Hookers opinion to be concerning the meanes for which we belieue with certainty Scripture to be the word of God The private Spirit You know he was an Anti-Calvinist and the private spirit could not sute with his genius Naturall Reason That is evidently against reason as we haue shewed and you grant And when he speakes most of reason he speakes of infidells or Atheists calling in question the authority of Scripture who may be perswaded by Sanctity of Christian doctrine c So there remaines only the Authority of the Church if you will haue him to say anything Dr Covell in his defence of Hookers Bookes Art 4. Pag 31. saith clearly Doubtless it is a tolerable Ovinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them do not he should haue sayd as none of them doe to affirme that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by vs for the Authority of the Church These words of Covell were cited by Cha Ma N. 26. but it seemes you would take no notice of them and who could better vnderstand Hookers mynd than this his Defendant By the way we may obserue how hard it is to agree about the sense of holy Scripture which is more sublime than humane Writings if we cannot agree about the meaning of men 2. And by this occasion I must turne backe to your N. 11. where you quarrel at some words of Charity Maintayned and giue them a meaning clearly contrary to his sense and words You speake thus You in saying here that scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may bo called in some sense a Iudge though not abone yet to speake propâ—â—ly as men should speake when they write of Controversyes in Religion the scripture is not a Iudge of CoÌ„troversyes but a rule only aÌ„d the only rule for Christians to iudge theÌ„ by But in this imputation you haue no reason at all to interpret Charity Maintayned as you doe For He in saying Scripture alone cannot be judge in Controversyes tooke only the contradictory of that which even in this place you affirme Protestants to belieue Scripture alone is the judge of Controversyes and therfore it was necessary for Him to declare his mynd by the contradictory proposition that Scripture alone is not the judge of Controversyes which is very true though iâ— be not a judge of Controversyes either by itselfe alone or in any other sense and you know he doth expressly and purposely and largely proue that it is against the nature of any Writing whatsoever to be a Judge and therfore when you say men should speake properly when they write of Controversyes in Religion and yet confess that Protestants have called Scripture the. Judge of Controversyes and that to speake properly the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversyes you taxe Protestants only and cannot so much as touch Charity Maintaynâ— 3. Here also I may speake a word to your N. 15. as belonging to interpretation You say To execute the letter of the Law according to rigour would be many tymes vnjust and therfore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it wherof in Religion there is no vse at all I pray you would it not be many tymes vnjust to execute the letter of the Scripture taken without a true and moderate interpretation And for this very caÌ„use there is great vse of a Judge and Authenticall interpreter otherwise some miscreant might murder his mother and brother vpon some mistaken Text of Scripture that idolaters were to be taken out of the world subjects might rebell no warr would be judged lawfull no oathes to be taken in any case c And here I willingly take what you N. 17. giue me that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is sit to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible This I take and inferr that you wholy enervate the vulgar Argument of Protestants that Judges are to be obeyed though they be not infallible and therfore that we cannot inferr the Church to be infallible because we are commanded to heare Her not considering this difference which here your selfe giue betweene a Judge in Civill Controversyes and a Judge in Religion wherin such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belâ—â—ue to haue judged right Which are your owne words wheras in Civill matters we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not to resist it but not always to belieue it â—ust which are also your words 4. Neither will I omitt
this case the omission of those observances would be so farr from being evill that the contrary would be a great offence against God and his Church This very same answer serves for your other discourse about a company vniversally infected with some disease and needs only the application from observance to a disease which certainly we should rather endure then make a breach from such a community if by a divine precept we be obliged to remaine therein 27. You cite N. 87. the words of Ch Ma. disadvantagiously He sayth indeed that those few that pretended a Reformation were knowē to be led not with any spirit of Reformation but by some other sinister intention which is very true And N. 29. he shewed it out of Luthers owne words which you thought fit to dissemble and the same may be demonstrated of your other primitiue prime Reformers if it were necessary It is also very true that by going out of the Church no man must hope to be free from those or the like errours for which they left her For they may returne to morrow to their former opinions as heresy is always instable and also to vs Catholiques because out of the true Church they can haue no certaine rule of Faith nor are assisted with plenty of grace for exercising acts thereof as experience teaches vs in the irreconciliable contentions of Protestants and yourselfe say heere P 277. N. 61. The vsuall fecundity of errours is to bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety It is pretty to heare you say N. 88. that the Church is secured from fundamentall errours not by any absolute promise of divine assistance but by the repugnance of any errour fundamentall to the essence and nature of a Church as you may say men are secured from being vnreasonable creatures or beastes because if they were such they could not be men You know very well that when Charity Maintayned sayd N. 31. You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall he meant of an absolute promise of assistance which Potter affirmes the vniversall Church to haue for all fundamentall points and yet grants it not to any particular Person or Church and therefor you had no reason to call that true saying of Ch Ma a manifest falshood Of Luthers opposing himselfe to all I haue spoken heretofore and answered the objection you bring about that matter in your N. 89. 28. Your N. 91. yealds as much as can be desired against yourself and all Protestants That many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the antiquity of our doctrine and practice which you doe not deny but goe about to specify some particular points of which learned Protestants doe not confesse the antiquity but indeed they are such that any judicious Protestant will wonder that you did mention them in particular confessing therby that for those which you doe not expresse and they are the chiefest differences betwixt Protestants and vs antiquity stands for vs against Protestants though I must add withall to make vp the number you are forced to bring in some things which are not matters of Faith with vs and some other points which are even ridiculous We deny that any Catholick approved Authour acknowledges the novelty of any of our Doctrines or the Antiquity of yours except in that sense as we are wont to say such were Ancient Heresies and Heretikes But you know Erasmus is no competent witnesse in our account Your Num. 72. containes no new difficulty 29. To your N. 93. In answer that the Profession of true Faith is essentiall to every member of the Church as such but Charity is not and therfor every errour against Faith is incompatible with such a Denomination but not sinnes against Charity If the Church might erre in any point of Faith it is true that ex natura rei and considering only that errour or only that one part of the supposition in itselfe her communion might be forsaken and yet it is also true that taking into consideration all sides ād comparing the greater Inconvenience of leaving the communion of the Church with a lesser of professing an errour not Fundamentall it is necessary to remaine in her communion as minus malum and therefore in case and supposition of perplexity not absolutely and per se loquendo to be perferred and chosen so the saying of Ch. Ma. that the Church might be forsaken if she could fall into any errour against Faith is true per se loquendo and not contrary to his other saying that vpon that impossible supposition it were lesse evill and therfor in case of perplexity necessary not to forsake her all which I explicated heretofore at large For avoyding of which inextricable Labyrinths and perplexities and taking away all shadow of contradiction we must belieue the Church to be infallible and secured from all errour against Faith 30. All that you haue N. 94. hath been answered heretofore when we shewed that to depart from the externall communion of the Church was to depart from the Church Your N. 97 containes no difficulty except against yourself who cannot avoide the Authority brought by Char. Main out of S. Optatus except by saying his sayings are not rules of Faith and I desire the Reader to peruse the words of Ch. Ma. N. 35. that the Protestants departed from the Roman Church and not the Roman Church from them with some other reflections of moment 31. In your N. 98. you grant the thing which Ch. Ma affirmes that the Primacie if Peter is confessed by learned Protestants to be of great antiquity and for which the judgment of divers most ancient Fathers is reproved by them as may be seene in Brereley Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subdivis 10. Which to such as beare due respect to the agreement of so many ancient learned and holy Fathers ought to proue that it is not only ancient but true And I wonder you can say that having perused Brereley you cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with vs that the Popes Primacy is de Jure Divino wheras he cites divers Protestants confessing forced by evedence of Truth that divers Fathers proved that Primacy out of the Power given and Promise made by our Saviour to S. Peter and that vpon Him he builded his Church And to speak Truth it is no better than ridiculous to imagine that all other Churches did or would or could in prejudice to the Authority of particular Churches confer vpon the sea of Rome an vniversall power over them all to admitt Appeales against them to reverse their decrees c. vnless they had believed such a Power to haue bene granted by a Higher power We see how zealously every one is bent to preserue his owne Right and is more inclined to deny what is due to an other than
Ma cites divers Protestants that say so 49. In your N. 108. There is nothing but a perpetuall begging of the Question and taking that for true which you know we deny and talking of odious matters as of the oath of Allegiance and Supremacy which only shewes your charity to vs and zeale to adde affliction vpon the afflicted if it had beene in your power and which you would haue wished vnwritten if you were now a liue You say our rule out of Uincentius Lyrinensis advers Haere Cap 27. Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought againe and againe to illustrate ād inculcate with weighty heaps of exāples that almost all Catholiks may know that they ought to receiue the Doctours with the Church and not forsake the Faith of the Church with the Doctours is to no purpos against them that followed Luther seing they pretend and are ready to justify that they forsooke not with the Doctours the Faith but only the corruption of the Church But I pray doe you not teach and proclayme and therby pretend to excuse your Schisme that the whole Church before Luther was corrupted in Faith and so by leaving her pretended corruptions you left her Faith and those doctrines which she believed To your N. 109. it is easy to answer that about interlining Potters words in the pag 209. N. 42. you will finde among the Errata that Ch Ma only askes what the Doctour meanes You do not well to explicate Hooker about externall obedience against ones internall judgment by paying mony vpon the judges sentence which is a thing not evill of it self but in matters of Faith to yeald externall obedience against his internall belief is perse loquendo evill Your N. 110. about the words of Hooker hath bene answered in all those places where I haue shewed that Protestants can haue no certainty out of Scripture against Catholiques as appeares by the agreement of many of them with vs and therefore according to the principles of Hooker Luther and his followers were bound to obey the Pastors of that vniversall Church which he found before his revolt and so you haue no reason to accuse Brereley or Ch Ma of any ill dealing in alledging Hooker as they doe who I do not wonder if sometyme he speak inconsequently seing all Protestants are forced to do so in this matter And heretofore I haue proved at large out of the grounds which Hooker laies that Protestants cannot be excused from Schisme You know your N. 111. is answered by a meere denyall of that which you affirme without any proofe 50. You say N. 112. that Ch. Ma. N. 43. hath some objections against Luthers Person but none against his cause But the Reader will finde the contrary to be true That they concerne his cause in so high a degree as no man desirous to embrace the truth and saue his solue or hath the feare of God can belieue that Luther was a man sent to reforme the world by preaching the true doctrine I beseech the Reader to peruse that whole N. 43. of Ch. Ma. yet I cannot for beare to set downe these words of Luther Tom. 2. Germ. Fol. 9. and Tom. 2. Witt. Anno. 1562. de abrog Missa privat Fol. 244. How often did my trembling hart beate with in me and reprehending me object against me that most strong Argument Art thou only wise Do so many worlds erre Were so many Ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into Hell to be damned eternally with the And Tom 5. Annot. Breviss Dost thou who art but one and of no account take vpon the so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and all to erre why may be not permitt the to erre to This belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councells and Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men whome do not these Mountaines of Arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deepe in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had Colloq Menfal Fol. 158. never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Praef. in Tom German Jen. Your glancing at the lives of some Popes makes only against yourselfe considering that God did not vse these men to beginne a new pretended Reformation as Luther did but they continued in that Sea and Place which had beene established by our Saviour and therfore the bad lives of some Popes which had been enough to overthrow that Sea if it were not setled most immoveably by the absolute Divine promise thou art Peter c and the Gates of hell shall not prevaile c. yeild vs an argument against Luther and all those who opposed not the vices of particular Popes but their place and Authority and the Church of Rome The words with which you close this Number containe nothing but calumnie falshood and bitterness and shew with what spirit you were possest In your N. 112. it should be 113. you grant all that Ch. Ma. endeavoured to proue and I haue shewed that in this grant you contradict yourselfe You say that in a Work which C. Ma. professeth to haue written meerely against Protestants all that might haue been spared which N. 45. he wrote against them that flatter themselves with a conceite that they are not guilty of Schisme because they were not the first authours therof But by your leaue seing those men keepe themselves within the Communion of the Protestants Charity Maintayned had reason to write as he did that they might be induced to forsake that Communion in which to persever in them were the most formall sinne of Schisme which consistes in forsaking the externall Communion of Catholicks with whome such men pretend to agree in beliefe Besides perhaps they are not Catholiks so far as to belieue they are obliged to forsake the externall communion of Protestants and returne to vs which if they belieue not they are not Catholicks in all points even of Faith which teacheth vs that it is Schismaticall and damnable to be divided from the externall Communion of the true Church and I pray God this kind of men would reflect on this your grant and consider that their condition is lamentable in the opinion both of Catholiques and Protestants CHAP XV. THE ANSWER TO HIS SIXTH CHAPTER ABOVT HERESY 1. THe neerer I come to an end the swifter the motion of my pen may be in regard that the more is past the more Points I find answered even for that which remaines 2. Charity Maintayned Chap. 6. N. 1. hath these words Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledg This saying you approue N.
poynt so prime a principle in Christian Diuinity so intrinsecall and essentiall to Christianity so fully effectually and frequently declared and vrged in Holy Scripture that the greatest enemyes of Gods grace Pelagius and his fellowes vvere forced to acknowledg it in vvords though dissemblingly XV. The same necessity of Grace is taught by the Protestant Church of England once so stiled in the 10. Article of the 39. in these vvords The condition of man after the fall of Adâ—m is such that he cannoâ— turne and prepare himselfe by his owne naturall strength and good works to Faith and calling vpon God wherfore we haue no power to dâ—e good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the Grace of Ged by Christ preuenting vs that we may haue a good will and working with vs when we haue that good will If anie say these Articles are now of small account and little less then disarticled I answer they haue this specious title Articles agreed vpon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Prouinces and the whole Cleargie in the Conuocation holden at London in the yeare 1562. For auoiding diuersities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion If now they carry so small authority their Title should haue bin directly contrary to what it is Articles agreed vpon for the establishing diuersityes of opinions and for the auoiding of consent touching true Religion As these Atticles are now despised so what soeuer shall euer be proposed or sett downe by any other will neuer be to any purpose for the establishing of consent in matters of Faith and Religion till England returne to the roote from which it hath diuided it selfe and seriously reflect into what precipices it is fallen by forsaking Rome and rejecting an jnfallible liuing judge of controversyes for who can giue any man of iudgment a satisfactory reason vvhy so many pretended Bishops vvere not of as good credit as others or wy others are not as much to be belieued as those Bishops I beseech euery one to whom the saluation of his soule is deare to ponder in good earnest this consideration and then to obey S. â—hons saying Apoc. 2.5 Be myndfull from whence thou art fallen and doe pennance SECTION II. The Necessity of Grace to Belieue XVI FAith being as the Apostle sayth Hebr. c. 11.1 the substance of things to be hoped for and foundation of our spirituall life if it proceede from our naturall forces or reason the vvhole edifice of our saluation must be ascribed to our selues vvhich vvere a most proude and luciferian conceypt and yet I reade in M. Chillingworth Pag. 375. n. 55. these words Neither do we follow any priuate meÌ„ but only the Scripture the word of God as our rule and REASON which is also the gist of God giuen to direct vs in all our actions in the vse of this rule And through his vvhole booke speaking of that Faith vvhich God requires of all men as their duty he teaches that it is only such as is proportionable to humane probable Inducements or a Conclusion by rationall discourse euidently deduced from such probable Premises Pa. 36. n. 9. He speakes of jnfusion as of a particular fauour aboue the ordinary measure of Faith And n. 8. God desires only that we belieue the conclusion as much as the Premises deserue And Pag. 212. n. 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duty to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion then the Premises deserue to build an infallible Faith vpon Motiues that are only highly credible and not infallible And Pa. 381. n. 74. He speaking of our Catholique Faith vvhich he denyes not to be for substantiall fundamentall poynts true faith for he holds that true faith of some poynts may stand with damnable errours in other sayth I desire to know what sense there is in pretending that your persuasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature or essence of it supernaturall vvhich demand vvere very impertinent if he did belieue that diuine supernaturall Grace vvere necessary for euery act of true Christian faith For if it be not supernaturall in essence how can the speciall motion and grace of God be necessarily required to it in all occasions though no particular temptatation or difficulty offer it selfe And he speakes very inconsequently in asking how vve know that our faith is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall since it is cleare that if the cause be necessarily and vniuersally supernaturall the effect also must be such and therfore he is convinced to belieue indeed that neither the cause nor essence of faith is supernaturall I grant that Pa. 409. lin 3. ante finem he vvould perswade vs that he hath no cause to differ from Dr. Potter concerning the supernaturality of Faith which sayth he I know and belieue as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh and bloud reueald it not vnto vs but our Father which is in Heauen But euen in this we can gather only that he admits the necessity of some grace consisting in externall Reuelation or Proposition of the objects or mysteryes of Christian faith vvhich Pelagius did admit but not the necessity of internall Grace or motion of the Holy Ghost for enabling our vnderstanding to belieue supernaturall Objects vvith an infallible diuine Faith yea it is euident that he requires no such internall grace seing he expresly requires no stronger assent by faith then evidently followes from probable Arguments of credibility that is only a probable beliefe or perswasion vvheras if beside the proposition of the object he did require a supernaturall motion of grace eleuating our vnderstaÌ„ding aboue its naturall forces and measure of humane discourse it vvere very inconsequent to limit the assent of faith to the probability of jnducements or ArgumeÌ„ts of Credibility And yet he restraines our assent to such probability expresly because in rationall and naturall discourse the conclusion cannot exceede the premisses and therfor must be only probable vvhen the Premisses are such XVII For which cause when he speakes of particular Grace given to some aboue the ordinary course he confesses that it gives them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence as he expresly delivers pag. 37. n. 9. Which certainty in good consequence he could not denie to every Act of divine faith if he did believe that every such Act doth of it selfe necessarily require particular internall Grace of God aboue the forces of nature and beside the externall proposition of the objects or Mysteries of Christian belief Neither can it be denyed but that an Object of it selfe supernaturall may be belieued by the naturall forces of our Understanding with some probable naturall assent for Arguments euidently proposed as Miracles comparing of Historyes and the lïke reasons for which men belieue other matters of tradition since therfor he teacheth that
Charity Maintayned and the Doctor cite are absolute And Matth 28. V. 20. behold which particle holy Scripture is wont to vse when it speaks of some great or strang thing I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world Which wordsare both absolutely without any condition and cannot be restrayned to the lives of the Apostles and therfore dato non concesso that the Promise had bene made to the Apostles vpon condition of Loving God it does not follow that the same condition must be required in every one of their successours but for the merit of the Apostles it may be communicated to others in whom the Apostles liue and so what is granted to them is a reward bestowed vpon the Apostles as heroicall acts of particular men are rewarded both in themselves and in their posterity for their sake though their successors be destitute of that worth and desert without which condition theyr first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity or Prerogatiue which afterward is derived to their posterity absolutely and without any such condition as was required in the beginning Morover though it were granted that keeping the commandements were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility yet you will never be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that it is necessary in respect of every particular person it being sufficient that it be veryfied of the Church Catholique of which even Dr. Potter Pag 10. saieth that it is not improbable only but meerely impossible the Catholique Church should be without Charity Our blessed Saviour before he encharged the care of his Church vpon S. Peter exacted of him a triple profession of loue and will you therfore haue none to be lawfull Pastors except such as loue God aboue all things and are in state of Grace and free from deadly sinne Haue you a mynd to fetch from Hell the condemned and seditious heresy of Wicliffe That If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders consecrate or Baptize As authority and Jurisdiction are not of that nature of things which require Charity and the State of Grace so neither is infallibility no more than working of Miracles Gift of tongues and the like which by Divines are called Gratiae gratis datae and therfore you cannot imagine with any reason that the Holy Ghost cannot be given for some Effects to any who is not in state of Grace and I hope you will at least pretend to be more certaine that Scripture is of infallible Authority than that every Canonicall Writer did loue God and keep the commandements when they wrote Scripture yea of some Bookes of Scripture some call in Question who were the writers of them I will not heere stay to put you in minde that it is common among Protestants to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandements must they therfore deny the infallibility of the Apostles They are so farre from doing so that they hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls notwithstanding the impossibility in their opinion of keeping the commandements 85. Now I hope it appeares that your two Syllogismes goe vpon a false ground that the promise made to the Apostles is conditionall and so proue nothing As also that you breath too much gall and vanity in saying that Charity Maintayned and generally all our Writers of Controversy by whom this Text is vrged with a bold Sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty perpetually cut of the head and foot the beginning and end of it For I suppose you will not hold Dr. Potter for a Writer of Controversy against Protestants and yet he cites this Text and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts cutting of not only the head ād foot but also the breast and middle thereof therby shewing his judgment that the other words which you cite out of the precedent 15. and the following 17. verse make nothing to that purpose for which that Text is produced that is the infallibility of the Apostles and Church and that you by citing those different verses without distinction not only joyne head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together which is no less monstrous than to cutt them of but doe indeed vtterly destroy and depriue it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles from whom this very Text must receiue all the certainty it can haue Do not I maintayne the most perfect kind of Charity in defending my adversary the Doctor in this occasion of being forsaken and even impugned by whom alone he hoped to be relieved And indeed Dr. Potter only and not Charity Maintayned stands in need of defence seing he alledged those texts which the Doctor cites only to shew in deeds that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret itself whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to proue the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamentall Points which is the common tenet of Protestants and yet you overthrow it by making our Saviours Promise not absolute but depēding vpon a volūtary vncertaine condition 86. In your N. 76. you endeavour divers wayes to elude the Argument which is wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church taken out of S. Paul 1. Tim 3.15 where the Church is saied to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth 87. First you say Charity Maintayned is somewhat too bold with S. Paul For it is neither impossible nor improbable these words the Pillar and ground of truth may haue reference not to the Church but to Timothy But this exposition is not only against Calvin and other Protestants who expresly refer those words to the Church but also it cannot well agree with the Greek And even the Protestant English Translation reades it as we doe for as much as belongs to our present purpose Howesoever it appeares by this very example how hard and impossible it is to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone which every one will find meanes to interpret for his best advantage though it be not donne without violence to the Text. Neither is it heterogeneous as you argue that S. Paul having called the Church a House should call it presently a Pillar For you should consider that he calls it a House and Pillar in different respects A House of God the Pillar not of God but of Truth You will not deny that the Primitiue Apostolicall Church was vniversally infallible and so was both the House of God and Pillar of Truth and therefore it is nothing absonous or heterogeneous that the metaphor of a House and of a Pillar be applyed to the same thing Cornelius à Lapide heere saieth Alludit Apostolus ad Bethel de qua viso ibi Domino dixit Jacob Genes 28. verè non est hic aliud nisi Domus Dei porta Caeli If therefore in that place of Genesis to which the Apostle alludes the same is saied to be a House and a Gate in diverse respects a
advice of humility it being time enough for them to know and reflect that S. Peter was their Head by that expresse future declaration of our Saviour Joan 21. 38. Thirdly You would proue that S. Peter was not Head of the rest because the Scripture sayth God hath appointed first Apostles secondly Prophets but sayth not God hath appointed First Peter then the rest of the Apostles which to speake truth is a childish reason it being cleare that the Scripture in that place doth not compare the Apostles among themselves but with other degrees in the Church as Prophets Doctours c. Otherwise you might proue that one Magistrate can not be subordinate and subject to another if one for example should say the commonwealth consists of Magistrates and people because forsooth in that division you doe not expresse the authority of one Magistrate aboue another 39 Fourthly you say S. Paul professeth himself to be nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles and if S. Peter was Head of the Apostles it was a wonder that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himself as that mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour But I beseech you can you belieue that S. Paul would say of himself that he was not inferiour to the chiefest of the Apostles absolutely and in all things He accounted himself to be the first and chiefest amongst sinners and laments that he had bene a persecutor of Christians and will you needs vnderstand him to say that in such respects he was not inferiour to the other Apostles who were innocent of those things He was an Apostle as the others were and that is all you can vnderstand by his words and all that makes just nothing to the purpose But S. Paul mentions S. Peter without any Title of honour No more doth he giue any title to S. James though he were Bishop of Hierusalem which surely deserves some honour if the simplicity of those blessed tymes had bene accustomed to testify honour by titles Yourself say heere S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not haue supreme Authority over them and Protestants easily grant that he had that Priviledg of being first in order and honour how then will your answer your owne objection that it was a wonder S. Paul should mention him without any title of honour seing particular honour was due to him even by our Saviours command For from what other cause could it proceede But shall I disclose to you a mystery on which it seemes you do not reflect Our Saviour whose words are operatiue and deeds by calling S. Peter Cephas or a Rock had also made him such and saied Tues Petrus Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church so that to name Peter is to call him the Foundation and head of the Church and all Christians and with what greater title of honour could any body mention any Creature we may therefore say of S. Peter as S. Ambrose saieth of the title of Martyr De Uirginibus Lib. 1. Quot homines tot praecones qui Martyrem praedidicant dum loquuntnr To name one a martyr is a title of honour and so it is to name Peter for the foresaied Reason 40. You conclude Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more fooleries say I not probabilities that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgment of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by Divine Right Successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the Government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church vniversall Especially seing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundation of the Church were to be the foundation of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in abuilding it is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 41. Answer If you suppose as for the present you doe that S. Peter by our Saviours institution and consequently by divine right was Head of the Apostles you should not say what incongruity is there but what incongruity is there not if we say that the Bishop of Rome might succeed S. Peter only in the Government of that particular Church For what can be more incongruous and foolish than to imagine that S. Peter was ordained by our Saviour Head of the Apostles and the whole Church only for his life time when there was no need and as we may saie litle vse thereof seing all the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Christians and Power to preach the Gospell through the whole world and so the necessity of such vniversall Power in S. Peter must haue relation to future Ages after the death of the Apostles and if it must still reside in some in whom can you imagine it to be seated except in him whom you deny not to be Successor of S. Peter for the Church of Rome And that Optatus supposed the vniversall Power of S. Peter to remaine in his Successors appeares by his words which I haue pondered aboue as also because he speakes of the Sea or Chaire of Rome as of the Rule whereby to judg of heresies and Schismes not only for the tyme of S. Peter but for ever and therefore he sets downe a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome only and saith Cathedra vnica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c and so goes on till his owne ayme And I would gladly know by what text of Scripture you can proue that the Power of S. Peter over the whole Church was so particular and personall to him that it ceased with his person Will you haue vs measure matters of Faith with your congruities or incongruities With your Socinian topicall humane vaine discourses What meane you by these words as sure he the Bishop of Rome did even while S Peter was living I will not examine heere whether or in what manner Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before S. Peters death wherof may be seene Baronius Anno 69. who saieth they were not Romanae sedis episcopi but only Coadjutores I beseech you remember what you saied N. 98. and 99. interpreting S. Cyprian and S. Optatus that in one particular Church at once there ought to be but one Bishop and certainly it is no consequence The Bishop of Rome appointed by S. Peter for Rome and supplying