is impossible to know what Books be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chief Point of all other D. Covell expresly saith Doubtless q In his Defence of Mr. Hookers books art 4. p. 31. it is a tolera le opinion in the Church of Rome if they go no further as some of them do not he should have said as none of them do to affirm that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himself to those his Brethren who grant that Controversies cannot be ended without some external living Authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in us a fundamental Error to say the Scripture alone is not Judge of Controversies seeing notwithstanding this our belief we use for interpreting of Scripture all the means which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c. and to these add the Instruction and Authority of God's Church which even by his confession cannot err damnably and may afford us more help than can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any private person and finally D. Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamental error against Faith and consequently he cannot affirm that our doctrin in this present Controversie is damnable If he answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Judge of Controversies is not a Fundamental Point of Faith then as he teacheth that the universal Church may err in Points Fundamental so I hope he will not deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to error in such Points and in particular in this that Scripture alone is Judge of Controversies And so the very Principle upon which their whole Faith is grounded remains to them uncertain and on the other side for the self-same season they are not certain but that the Church is Judge of Controversies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in general deny her this Authority and in particular Controversies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the year 1633. to the questions Whether the Church have Authority to determine Controversies in Faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answer to both is Affirmative 27. Since then the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Means whereby the revealed truths of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himself which blessed St. Augustine plainly affirmeth when speaking of the Controversie about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith This r De unit Eccles c. 2◠is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to perform what he should say lest we might seem to gain-say not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witness to his Church And a little after Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therefore with this argument Whosoever resisteth that means which infallibly proposeth to us God's Word or Revelation commits a sin which unrepented excludes Salvation But whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church doth resist that means which infallibly proposeth God's Word or Revelation to us Therefore whosoever resisteth Christ's visible Church commits a sin which unrepented excludes Salvation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church and whether he and other Protestants do not oppose that visible Church which was spread over the World before and in Luther's time is easie to be determined and importeth every one most seriously to ponder as a thing whereon eternal salvation dependeth And because our Adversaries do here most insist upon the distinction of Points Fundamental and not-Fundamental and in particular teach that the Church may erre in Points not-Fundamental it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this evasion which shall be done in the next Chapter An ANSWER to the SECOND CHAPTER Concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion AD § 1. He that would usurp an absolute Lordship and tyranny over any people need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Laws made to maintain the common liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compass his own design as well if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases and add to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Laws if he can rule his people by his Laws and his Laws by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish her tyranny over mens consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of Copies dispersed through all places translated into almost all Languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successeful was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd Interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrin she pleased under the title of Traditions or Definitions For by this means she might both serve herself of all those clauses of Scripture which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished she could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the minds of men that unwritten doctrins if proposed by her were to be received with equal reverence to those that were writen and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seemed to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seemed it never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your Directors and Judges no farther than you please but your servants and instruments alwayes prest and in readiness to advance your designes and disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a crown on their head and a reed in their hands and to bow before them and cry Hail Ring of the Jews to pretend a great deal of esteem and respect and reverence to them as here you do But to little purpose is verbal reverence without entire submission and syncere
35. You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Books of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church you demand What they mean by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical I answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Judge I have told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Judge but not the present Church much less the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but an highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet me-thinks you should not deny but may be a sufficient ground of Faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudential Motives 36. But by this Rule the whole Book of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should think he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian heresies for doing that which you in this very place confess that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partial and a Judge of evil thoughts 37. Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Job and the Prophets though you make such tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any fundamental Heresie He that condemns him for saying the Book of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemns him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The Book of Job may be a true History and yet as many true stories are and have been and Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the Books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damn all for Hereticks that say Some Books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be called in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselves Was the Prophesie of Jeremy the less Canonical for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospel and S. Mark the Scholler writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38. But leaving Luther you return to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us That in the New Testament by the above-mentioned Rule of whose Authority was never doubt in the Church divers Books must be dis-canonized Not so For I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonical but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those Books which were never questioned At least I have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justifie or excuse such their doubting or denial 39. You observe in the next place That our sixth Article specifying by name all the Books of the Old Testament shuffles over those of the New with this generality All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical And in this you fancy to your self a mysterie of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal y pense For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England do testifie and even proclaim to the World that by Commonly-received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the pains to look in them and there you shall find the Books which the Church of England counts Apocryphal marked out and severed from the rest with this Title in the beginning The Books called Apocrypha and with this close or seal in the end The end of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what Books only she esteems Apocryphal I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgment Canonical 40. But if by Commonly-received She meant by the Church of Rome then by the same reason must she receive divers Books of the Old Testament which she rejects 41. Certainly a very good consequence The Church of England receives the Books of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the Books of the Old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will do as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us ye must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our Side you must do so when we have no reason 42. The Discourse following is but a vain Declamation No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tried by Most Voices but by the Judgement and Testimony of the Ancient Fathers and Churches 43. But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Books that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answer When they say of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not universal yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonical In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and authority was not so great as to prevail against the contrary suffrages 44. But if to be commonly received passe for a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you do so it is out of Principles which no man grant for who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by Have you been trained up in Schools of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference
Apostolique Churches Thirdly that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church an Argument of their Errour So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolique Churches nay more from these than from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetual Succession of them but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both These scatter'd men saith he of the Donatists Epist 165. read in the holy books the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and mad than to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say Peace with you and to separate from the peace of these Churches to which these Epistles were written So Optatus having done you as it might seem great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrows and undoes it all again and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he hath said for you by adding after that they were Schismatiques because They had not the fellowship of Communion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. John writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground Extraseptem Ecclesias quicquid foris est alienum est Now I pray tell me do you esteem the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolique Churches was a certain mark of Heresie or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages heretical If not How is their authority a greater Argument for the Roman than for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schism only when they were united to the Roman so also they might conceive of the Roman only when it was united to them If you say they urg'd this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might do that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresie apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question nor is there it in any thing but this That Caecilian might contemn the multitude of his adversaries because those that were united with him were more and of more account than those that were against him Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone before Caecilian's enemies this had been little but something but when other Countries from which the Gospel came first into Africa are joyned in this Patent with the Church of Rome how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learn Neither do I see what can be concluded from it but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an (a) You do ill to translate it the Principality of the Sea Apostolique as if there were but one whereas Saint Austin presently after speaks of Apostolical Churches in the plural number and makes the Bishops of them joynt-Commissioners for the judging of Ecclesiastical causes Apostolique Sea which no man doubts or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church because the Gospel came first into Africa not from her but from other Churches 33. Thus you see his words make very little or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinal Perron's rule is much more to be regarded than his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretation I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in Succession touching the great question of Appeals wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so far in the first or second Milevitan Councel as to (b) The words of the Decree which also Bellarm l. 1. de Matrim c. 17. assures us to be perform'd by S. Austin are these Si qui Africani ab Episcopis provocandum putaverint non nisi ad Africana provocent Concilia vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit apellandum à nullo intra Africam in Communionem suscipiatur This decree is by Gratian most impudently corrupted For whereas the Fathers of that Councel intended it particularly against the Church of Rome he tels us they forbad Appeals to All excepting only the Church of Rome decree any African Excommunicate that should appeal to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes clearly and evidently and infinitely against you For had Boniface and the rest of the African Bishops a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs believed as an Article of faith that Union and Conformity with the doctrin of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholique and by God's Command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Unless you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once direct contradictions viz. that conformity to the Roman Church was necessary in all points and not necessary in this or so horribly impious as believing this doctrin of the Roman Church true and her power to receive Appeals derived from divine Authority notwithstanding to oppose and condemn it and to Anathematize all those Africans of what condition soever that should appeal unto it I say of what condition soever For it is evident that they concluded in their determination Bishops as well as the inferiour Clergy and Laity And Cardinal Pâ—rron's pretence of the contrary is a shameless falshood repugnant to the plain words of the (c) The words are these Praefato debito salutationis officio impendiò deprecamur ut deinceps ad aures vestras hinc venientes non saciliùs admittat is nec à nobis excommunicatos ultra in Communionem velitis recipere quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio de finitum facile advertet venerabilitastus Nam si de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur id praecaveri quanto magis hoc de Episcopis voluit observari Remonstrance of the African Bishops to Celestine Bishop of Rome 34 Your allegation of Tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of sincerity For you produce with great ostentation what he saies of the Church of Rome but you and your fellows always conceal and dissemble that immediatly before these words he artributes as much for point of direction to any other Apostolique Church and that as he sends them to Rome who lived neer Italy so those neer Achaia he sends to Corinth those about Macedonia to Philippi and Thessalonica those of Asia to Ephesus His words are Go to now thou that wilt better imploy thy curiosity in the business of thy salvation run over the Apostolical Churches wherein the Chairs of the Apostles are yet sate upon in their places wherein the Authentique Epistles are recited sounding out the voice and representing the face of
the Roman Doctrin have to abuse the World To the fourth All those were not a See this acknowledged by Bellar. de Script Eccles in Philastrio By Petavius Animad in Epiph. de inscrip operis By S. Austin Lib. de Haer. Haer. 80. Heretiques which by Philastrius Epiphanius or S. Austin were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques To the fifth Kings and Nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary Religions To the sixth The Doctrin of Papists is confessed by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points To the seventh The Pastors of a Church cannot but have authority from it to Preach against the abuses of it whether in Doctrin or Practice if there be any in it Neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission from God to do a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner when there is no body else that can or will do it In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed If some Christian Lay-man should come into a Countrey of Infidels and had ability to perswade them to Christianity Who would say he might not use it for want of Commission To the eighth Luther's conference with the Devil might be for ought I know nothing but a melancholy Dream If it were reall the Devil might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it Or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists do and be afraid of following Luther as confessing himself to have been perswaded by the Devill To the ninth Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault than Protestants Even this very Author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies To the tenth Let all men believe the Scripture and that only and endeavour to believe it in the true sense and require no more of others and they shall find this not only a better but the only means to suppress Heresie and restore Unity For he that believes the Scripture sincerely and endeavours to believe it in the true sense cannot possibly be an Heretique And if no more than this were required of any man to make him capable of the Churches Communion then all men so qualified though they were different in opinion yet notwithstanding any such difference must be of necessity one in Communion The AUTHOR of CHARITY MAINTAINED His Preface to the READER GIve me leave good Reader to inform thee by way of Preface of three Points The first concerns D. Potters Answer to Charity Mistaken The second relates to this Reply of mine And the third contains some Premonitions or Prescriptions in case D. Potter or any in his behalf think fit to Rejoyn 2. For the first point concerning D. Potters Answer I say in general reserving particulars to their proper places that in his whole Book he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question which was Whether both Catholiques and Protestants can be saved in their several professions And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist proves in general that there is but one true Church that all Christians are obliged to hearken to her that she must be ever visible and infallible that to separate ones self from her communion is Schism and to dissent from her Doctrin is Heresie though it be in points never so few or never so small in their own nature and therefore that the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental is wholly vain as it is applyed by Protestants These I say and some other general grounds Charity Mistaken handles and out of them doth clearly evince that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides and therefore since it is apparent that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance and consequently as we hold that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation so must they also believe that we cannot be saved if they judge their own Religion to be true and ours to be false And whosoever disguizeth this truth is an enemy to souls which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation in different Faiths and Religions And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly according to that which appears to have been his design which was not to descend to particular disputes and D. Potter affectedly does namely Whether or no the Roman-Church be the only true Church of Christ and much lesse Whether general Councels be infallible whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church whether he be above a General Council whether all points of Faith be contained in Scripture whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church as into his last formal Object and Motive and least of all did he discourse of Images Communion under both kinds publique service in an unknown Tongue Seven Sacraments Sacrifice of the Masse Indulgences and Index Expurgatorius All which and divers other articles D. Potter as I said draws by violence into his Book and he might have brought in Pope Joan or Antichrist or the Jews who are permitted to live in Rome which are common Themes for men that want better matter as D. Potter was fain to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies that so he might dazle the eyes and distract the minde of the Reader and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole answer he uttereth nothing to the purpose and point in question which if he had followed closely I dare well say he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper But the truth is he was loath to affirm plainly that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have 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 us he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language and to fill up his Book with Points which make nothing to the purpose Wherein he is lesse excusable because he must grant that those very particulars to which he digresseth are not Fundamental errors though it should be granted that they be Errors which indeed are Catholique Verities For since they bâ— not Fundamental not destructive of Salvation what imports it Whether we hold them or no for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved 3. In one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental because some may think that a difference in points which are not Fundamental breaks not the Unity of Faith and hinders not the hope of Salvation in persons so disagreeing And yet in this very distinction he never speaks to the purpose indeed but
abandon him as he was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found received in God's Church 9. What Books of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonical is not easie to affirm In their sixth Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church What mean they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonical This were to make the Church Judge and not Scriptures alone Do they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of Faith By this rule of whose Authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church have excluded it from the Canon as (o) Apud Euseb l. 4. hist c. 26 Melito Asianus (p) In Synop. Athanasius and (q) In carm de genuinis Scrip. Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestants will be content that he be in the Church saith The Jews (r) Li. de serv arb con Eras tom 2. Wit sol 471. place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Judge doth rather deserve to be put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This (Å¿) In lat serm conviviali us Franc. in 8. imp Anno 1571. book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurs that is he hath no perfect sentence he rides upon a tong reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who (t) In Ger. colloq Lutheri ab Aurifabro ed. Fran. tit de lib. vet nov Test fol. 379. saith further that the said book was not written by Solomon but by Syrach in the time of the Macchabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Jews Bible out of many books heaped into one work perhaps out of the Library of King Prolomaeus And further he saith that (u) Ib. tit edit Patriar Proph. sol 282. he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down And he teacheth the (w) Tit. de li. Vet. Nov. Test book of Job to be as it were an argument for a Fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he (x) Fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this means the Bible was conserved If this were so the books of the Prophets being not written by themselves but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soon be called in question Are not these errors of Luther fundamental and yet if Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church upon what certain ground can they disprove these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies O godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to return to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the above-mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church divers Books of the New Testament must be dis-canonized to wit all those of which some Ancients have doubted and those which divers Lutherans have of late denied It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixth Article doth specifie by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonical but those of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical The Mysterie is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must have contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly received c. I ask By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receive divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it be the greater or less number of Voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevail and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Uncertain Controversie of Fact Whether the number of those who reject or of those others who receive such and such Scriptures be greater Their Faith must alter according to years and days When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claim Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius or Calvin grew to some equal or greater number than that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church And in the latter part speaking again of the New Testament they give a far different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account them Canonical This I say is a rule much different from the former of whose Authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received pass for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Above all we desire to know Upon what infallible ground in some Books they agree with us against Luther and divers principal Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselves it is evident that they have no certain rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity err because of contradictory Propositions both cannot be true 10. Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture have no necessary or natural connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferr that they proceeed from God or be confirmed by divine Authority as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of natural reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphear of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the self same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for example the mysterie of the blessed Trinity c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted Word of God otherwise
Apostle and to refuse the Gospel of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Luke ' s Gospel who saw not Christ and to reject the Gospel of Nicodemus who saw him 14. Another Answer or rather Objection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proof among Christians So i Pag. 234. D. Potter But this is either a plain begging of the question or manifestly untrue and is directly against their own Doctrin and Practice If they mean that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most known in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other principles they suppose that which is in question Whether there be not some Principle for example the Church whereby we may come to the knowledg of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most known in Christianity then Scripture may be proved For Principles that are not the first nor known of themselves may and ought to be proved before we can yield assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their own Doctrine and practice in as much as they are wont to affirm that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonical and may be interpreted by another And since every Scripture is a Principle sufficient upon which to ground divine Faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proved by another Yea this their Answer upon due ponderation fals out to prove what we affirm For since all Principles cannot be proved we must that our labour may not be endless come at length to rest in some Principle which may not require any other proof Such is Tradition which involves an evidence of fact and from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Wherefore the ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of God's Church k In Synopsi S. Athanasius saith that only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the holy and Catholique Church have so determined The third Councel of l Can. 47. Carthage having set down the Books of holy Scripture gives the reason because We have received from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church S. Augustine m Cont. ep Fundam c. 5. speaking of the Acts of the Apostles saith To which book I must give credit if I give credit to the Gospel because the Catholique Church doth alike recommend to me both these Books And in the same place he hath also these words I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholique Church did move me A saying so plain that Zuinglius is forced to cry out Here I n To. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speak freely whether this saying of Augustine seem not over-bold or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him 15. But suppose they were assured what Books were Canonical this will little avail them unless they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted or what Translations be true Calvin o Instit c. 6. Sect. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text which if it be taken without points is so ambiguous that scarcely any one Chapter yea period can be securely understood without the help of some Translation If with points These were after S. Hieroms time invented by the perfidious Jews who either by ignorance might mistake or upon malice force the Text to favour their impieties And that the Hebrew Text still retains much ambiguity is apparent by the disagreeing Translation of Novelists which also proves the Greek for the New Testament not to be void of doubâ—fulness as Calvin p Instit c. 7â— Sect. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted And although both the Hebrew and Greek were pure what doth this help if only Scripture be the rule of Faith and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages All then must be reduced to the certainty of Translations into other Tongues wherein no private man having any promise or assurance of Infallibility Protestants who rely upon Scripture alone will find no certain ground for their faith as accordingly whitaker q Lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 52. affirmeth Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek do erre often and unavoidably 16. Now concerning the Translations of Protestants it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious exact and judicious Author of the Protestants Apology c. dedicated to our late King James of famous memory hath to this r Tast 1. Sect. 10. subd 4. joyned with Tract 2 cap. 2. Sect. 10 subd 2. purpose To omit saith he particulars whose recital would be infinite and to touch this point but generally only The Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas Osiander Keckermannus and Zuinglius who saith hereof to Luther Thou dost corrupt the Word of God thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure and now prove thee to be such a man And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of Divinity Fooâ—s Asses Antichrists Deceivers and of Asse-like understanding In so much that when Froschoverus the Zuinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there Luther would not receive the same but sending it back rejected it as the Protestants Writers Hospinianus and Lavatherus witness The Translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basil is reproved by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the holy Ghost The Translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnical As concerning Calvins Translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molinaeus saith thereof Calvin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down he useth violence to the letter of the Gospel and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Beza's Translation to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the University of Jena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole Book of this matter and saith that to note all his errors in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly
must be the Rule to judge of the goodness of ours this is but a vain flourish For to say of our Translations That is the best which comes nearest the Vulgar and yet it is but one man that says so is not to say it is therefore the best because it does so For this may be true by accident and yet the truth of our Translation no way depend upon the truth of yours For had that been their direction they would not only have made a Translation that should come near to yours but such a one which should exactly agree with it and be a Translation of your Translation 84. Ad 17. § In this Division you charge us with great uncertainty concerning the true meaning of Scripture Which hath been answered already by saying That if you speak of plain places and in such all things necessary are contained we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them neither need they any interpreter If of obscure and difficult places we confess we are uncertain of the sense of many of them But then we say there is no necessity we should be certain For if God's will had been we should have understood him more certainly he would have spoken more plainly And we say besides that as we are uncertain so are You too which he that doubts of let him read your Commentators upon the Bible and observe their various and dissonant interpretations and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction 85. But seeing there are contentions among us we are taught by nature and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Judicial sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to perswade us to seek such a means of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to find it But this we know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judicial definitive obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authorized thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to give to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we do that all sin were abolisht yet we have little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selves with and to perswade others unto an Unity of Charity and mutual Toleration seeing God hath authorized no man to force all men to Unity of Opinion Neither do we think it fit to argue thus To us it seems convenient there should be one Judge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God hath appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such Judge of Controversies therefore though it seems to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to have one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best know to Himself not to allow us this convenience 86. D. Field's words which follow I confess are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book and so acknowledged by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receive their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he have in his Preface strained too high in commendation of the Subject he writes of as Writers very often do in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable he might mean all that are or have been in the world and so include even the Primitive Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Judgement we shall rest in if we believe the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and live according to it 87. Ad § 18. That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be received from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who profess themselves very ready to receive all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any society of men nay from any man whatsoever 88. That the Churche's Interpretation of Scripture is alwayes true that is it which you would have said and that in some sense may be also admitted viz. if you speak of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Upon the Tradition of which Church you there told us we were to receive the Scripture and to believe it to be the Word of God For there you teach us That our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proof And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrin to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to believe it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture and we believe it therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us This or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to believe that also this is too transparent Sophistry to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89. If there be any Traditive Interpretation of Scripture produce it and prove it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the Authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receive both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the Authority of Original Tradition yet we receive neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90. First for the Scripture How can we receive them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonical which
the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so moved to go about this work then I confess you are excused But then I would know Whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councel for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councel of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to do it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is Whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himself in Cathedra and fall to writing Expositions upon the Bible for the direction of Christians to the true sense of it If you say He cannot you will make your self ridiculous If he can then I would know Whether he should be infallibly directed in these Expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresisible motion Why does he not go about this noble work presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councel of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently How shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing He assists none but what He himself moves to And whether He did move the Pope to call this Councel is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himself 96. If you say your meaning is only That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question Why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or Why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Books be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghost's assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all Errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot do this without taking away their freewill in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their free-will in believing and in professing their belief 97. To the place of S. Austin I answer That not the Authority of the present Church much less of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone moved S. Austin to believe the Gospel but the perpetual Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your self have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is proved and which it self needs no proof and to which you have referred this very Saying of Saint Austin Ego verò Evangelio non crederem nisi c. Chap. 2. § 14. And in the next place which you cite out of his Book De Util. Cred. c. 14. he shews That his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospel therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to dis-believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospel Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Universal and Original Tradition lies against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may do well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names instead of Manichaeus unless you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98. If you say that S. Austin speaks here of the authority of the present Church abstracted from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99. I answer First That it is a vain presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austin speak here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it and its both Personal and Doctrinal succession from the Apostles his Argument will be like a Buskin that will serve any leg It will serve to keep an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and The Church as much as the Papists now do If then you should have come to an ancient Goth or Vandal whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should have moved him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying Believe the Gospel why should I not obey saying to me Do not believe the Homo-ousians Chuse what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Believe the Arrians they warn me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Arrians thou shalt not do well to force me to the faith of the Homo-ousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I believed the Gospel it self If you say You did well to believe them commending the Gospel but you did not well to believe them discommending the Homo-ousians Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethink your selves What you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100. Whereas you ask Whether Protestants do not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austin spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand again Whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many Books for Scripture which are not so and do not bid men to receive any Book which
If you say that the obscure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith I answer that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them whatsoever it is which was intended by God is true for he that doth not do so calls Gods Truth into question But to believe this or that to be the true sense of them or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to Faith or Salvation For if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his own will and end as to speak obscurely or how can it consist with his Justice to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himselfe hath not revealed Suppose there were an absolute Monarch that in his own absence from one of his Kingdomes had written Laws for the government of it some very plainly and some very ambiguously and obscurely and his Subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactness and for those that were obscure use their best diligence to find his meaning in them and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived should this King either with justice or wisdom be offended with these Subjects if by reason of the obscurity of them they mistook the sense of them and faild of performance by reason of their errour 128. But It is more useful and fit you say for the deciding of Controversies to have besides an infallible rule to go by a living infallible Judge to determin them and from hence you conclude that certainly there is such a Judge But why then may not another say that it is yet more useful for many excellent purposes that all the Patriarchs should be infallible than that the Pope only should Another that it would be yet more useful that all the Archbishops of every Province should be so than that the Patriarchs only should be so Another That it would be yet more useful if all the Bishops of every Diocese were so Another that it would be yet more available that all the Parsons of every Parish should be so Another that it would be yet more excellent if all the Fathers of Families were so And lastly another that it were much more to be desired that every Man and every Woman were so just as much as the prevention of Controversies is better than the decision of them and the prevention of Heresies better then the condemnation of them and upon this ground conclude by your own very consequence That not only a general Councel nor only the Pope but all the Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops Pastors Fathers nay all the men in the world are infallible If you say now as I am sure you will that this Conclusion is most gross and absurd against sense and experience then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably followes viz that that course of dealing with men seems alwayes more fit to Divine providence which seems most fit to humane reason 129. And so likewise That there should men succeed the Apostles which could shew themselves to be their successors by doing of Miracles by speaking all kind of languages by delivering men to Satan as S. Paul did Hymenaeus and the incestuous Corinthian it is manifest in human reason it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of Controversies than that the successour of the Apostles should have none of these gifts and for want of the signs of Apostleship be justly questionable whether he be his successour or no and will you now conclude That the Popes have the gift of doing Miracles as well as the Apostles had 130. It were in all reason very useful and requisite that the Pope should by the assistance of Gods Spirit be freed from the vices and passions of men lest otherwise the Authority given him for the good of the Church he might imploy as divers Popes you well know have done to the disturbance and oppression and mischief of it And will you conclude from hence That Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men That there never have been ambitious covetous lustful tyrannous Popes 131. Who sees not that for mens direction it were much more beneficial for the Church that Infallibility should be setled in the Popes Person than in a General Councel That so the means of deciding Controversies might be speedy easie and perpetual whereas that of general Councels is not so And will you hence infer that not the Church Representative but the Pope is indeed the infallible Judg of Controversies Certainly if you should the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good Conclusion 132. It had been very commodious one would think that seeing either Gods pleasure was the Scripture should be translated or else in his Providence he knew it would be so that he had appointed some men for this business and by his Spirit assisted them in it that so we might have Translations as Authentical as the Original yet you see God did not think fit to do so 133. It had been very commodious one would think that the Scripture should have been at least for all things necessary a Rule plain and perfect and yet you say it is both imperfect and obscure even in things necessary 134. It had been most requisite one would think that the Copies of the Bibles should have been preserved free from variety of readings which makes men very uncertain in many places Which is the Word of God and which is the Errour or presumption of man and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us 135. Who can conceive but that an Apostolike Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture would have been strangely beneficial to the Church especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them as is by you pretended and God in his Providence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians would not accept of the Pope for the Judge of Controversies And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter 136. Who doth not see that supposing the Bishop of Rome had been appointed Head of the Church and Judge of Controversies that it would have been infinitely beneficial to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in Terms The Bishops of Rome shall be alwayes Monarchs of the Church and they either alone or with their adherents the Guides of Faith and the Judges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians This if you will deal ingenuously you cannot but acknowledge for then all true Christians would have submitted to him as willingly as to Christ himself neither needed you and your Fellows have troubled your self to invent so many Sophisms for the proof of it There would have been no more
that she must For seeing the Church is a Society of men whereof every one according to the Doctrin of the Romish Church hath freewill in believing it follows that the whole Aggregate hath freewill in believing And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible that of so many whereof all may believe aright not any should do so I answer It is true if they did all give themselves any liberty of judgment But if all as the case is here captivate their understandings to one of them all are as likely to err as that one And he more likely to err than any other because he may err and thinks he cannot and because he conceives the Spirit absolutely promised to that succession of Bishops of which many have been notoriously and confessedly wicked men Men of the World whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because he seeth him not neither knoweth him Besides let us suppose that neither in this nor in any other place God had promised any more unto them but to lead them into all Truth necessary for their own and other mens salvatition Doth it therefore follow that they were de facto led no farther God indeed is obliged by his Veracity to do all that he hath promised but is there any thing that binds him to do no more May not he be better than his word but you will quarrel at him May not his Bounty exceed his Promise And may not we have certainty enough that oft-times it doth so God at first did not promise to Solomon in his vision at Gibeon any more than what he askt which was wisdom to govern his people and that he gave him But yet I hope you will not deny that we have certainty enough that he gave him something which neither God had promised nor he had asked If you do you contradict God himself For Behold saith God because thou hast asked this thing I have done according to thy word Lo I have given thee a Wise and an Understanding heart so that there was none like thee before thee neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked both riches and honour so that there shall not be any among the Kings like unto thee in all thy days God for ought appears never obliged himself by promise to shew S. Paul those Unspeakable mysteries which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him and yet I hope we have certainty enough that he did so God promises to those that seek his Kingdom and the righteousness thereof that all things necessary shall be added unto them and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to do no more and if he give them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation Shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of meer Necessity So though God had obliged himself by promise to give his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is utterly inconsequent that he gave them no more than by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to do or that we can have no assurance of any farther assistance that he gave them especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured us that he did assist them farther You see by this time that your chain of fearful consequences as you call them is turned to a rope of sand and may easily be avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposals 35. Ad § 14. 15 Doubting of a Book received for Canonical may signifie either doubting whether it be Canonical or supposing it to be Canonical whether it be True If the former sense were yours I must then again distinguish of the term Received For it may signifie either received by some particular Church or by the present Church Universal or the Church of all Ages If you meant the word in either of the former senses that which you say is not true A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts or some Book received by some particular Church or by the Universal Church of this present time whether it be Canonical or no and yet have just reason to believe and no reason to doubt but that other Books are Canonical As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. James the Church Rome in Hieromes time of the Epistle to the Hebrews And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon nor had reason to do so If by Received you mean Received by the Church of all Ages I grant he that doubts of any one such Book hath as much reason to doubt of all But yet here again I tell you that it is possible a man may doubt of one such Book and yet not of all because it is possible men may do not according to reason If you meant your words in the latter sense then I confess he that believes such a Book to be Canonical i. e. the word of God and yet to make an impossible Supposition believes it 〈◊〉 not to be true if he will do according to reason must doubt of all the rest and believe none For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true than because God hath said it nor no other reason to believe the Scripture to be true but only because it is Gods word he that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God hath as much reason to believe nothing that he sayes and therefore if he will do according to reason neither must nor can believe any thing he sayes And upon this ground you conclude rightly that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Universal and not confined to Points Fundamental 36. And this Reason why we should not refuse to believe any part of Scripture upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamental you confess to be convincing But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Universal infallibility of the Church For say you unless She be infallible in all things we cannot believe her in any one But by this reason your Proselytes knowing you are not infallible in all things must not nor cannot believe you in any thing Nay you your self must not believe your self in any thing because you know that you are not infallible in all things Indeed if you had said We could not rationally believe her for her own sake and upon her own word and authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this authority being one and the same in all proposals I should have the same reason to believe all that I have to believe one and therefore must either do unreasonably in believing any
the state of the Question and the Doctrine of our Church in the words of one who both now is and for ever will worthily be accounted The glory of this Kingdome Bishop Usher's Ans to the Jesuit Cap. of Confession p. 84. Be it known saith he to our adversaries of Rome I add also to our adversaries even of Great Britain who sell their private fancies for the Doctrine of our Church that no kind of Confession either publick or private is disallow'd by our Church that is any way requisite for the due execution of that ancient Power of the Keys which Christ bestowed upon his Church The thing which we reject is that new pick-lock of Sacramental Confession obtruded upon mens consciences as a matter necessary to salvation by the Canons of the late Conventicle of Trent in the 14. Session 11. And this truth being so evident in Scripture and in the writings of the ancient best times of the Primitive Church the safest interpreters of Scripture I make no question but there will not be found one person amongst you who when he shall be in a calm unpartial disposition that will offer to deny For I beseech you give your selves leave unpartially to examine your own thoughts Can any man be so unreasonable as once to imagine with himself that when our Saviour after his Resurrection having received as himself saith all power in heaven and earth having led captivity captive came then to bestow gifts upon men when he I say in so solemn a manner having first breath'd upon his Disciples thereby conveying and insinuating the Holy Ghost into their hearts renewed unto them or rather confirm'd and seal'd unto them that glorious Commission which before he had given to Peter sustaining as it were the person of the whole Church whereby he delegated to them an authority of binding and loosing sins upon earth with a promise that the proceedings in the Court of Heaven should be directed and regulated by theirs on Earth Can any man I say think so unworthily of our Saviour as to esteem these words of his for no better than complement for nothing but Court-holy-water 12. Yet so impudent have our adversaries of Rome been in their dealings with us that they have dared to lay to our charge as if we had so mean a conceit of our Saviour's gift of the Keys taking advantage indeed from the unwary expressions of some particular Divines who out of too forward a zeal against the Church of Rome have bended the staffe too much the contrary way and in stead of taking away that intolerable burden of a Sacramental necessary universal Confession have seem'd to void and frustrate all use and exercise of the Keys 13. Now that I may apply something of that which hath now been spoken to your hearts and consciences Matters standing as you see they do since Christ for your benefit and comfort hath given such authority to his Ministers upon your unfeigned repentance and contrition to absolve and release you from your sins why should I doubt or be unwilling to exhort and perswade you to make your advantage of thi◠gracious promise of our Saviours why should I envy you the participation of so heavenly a Blessing Truly if I should deal thus with you I should prove my self a malicious unchristian-like malignant Preacher I should wickedly and unjustly against my own conscience seek to defraud you of those glorious Blessings which our Saviour hath intended for you 14. Therefore in obedience to his gracious will and as I am warranted and even enjoyned by my holy Mother the Church of England expresly in the Book of Common-Prayer in the Rubrick of Visiting the Sick which Doctrine this Church hath likewise embraced so far I beseech you that by your practise and use you will not suffer that Commission which Christ hath given to his Ministers to be a vain form of words without any sense under them not to be an antiquated exspired Commission of no use nor validity in these daies But whensoever you find your selves charg'd and oppressed especially with such Crimes as they call Peccata vastantia conscientiam such as do lay waste and depopulate the conscience that you would have recourse to your spiritual Physician and freely disclose the nature and malignancy of your disease that he may be able as the cause shall require to proportion a remedy either to search it with corrosives or comfort and temper it with oyl And come not to him only with such a mind as you would go to a learned man experienc'd in the Scriptures as one that can speak comfortable quieting words to you but as to one that hath authority delegated to him from God himself to absolve and acquit you of your sins If you shall do this Assure your souls that the understanding of man is not able to conceive that transport and excess of joy and comfort which shall accrew to that mans heart that is perswaded that he hath been made partaker of this Blessing orderly and legally according as out Saviour Christ hath prescribed 15. You see I have dealt honestly and freely with you it may be more freely than I shall be thanked for But I should have sinn'd against my own soul if I had done otherwise I should have conspir'd with our adversaries of Rome against our own Church in affording them such an advantage to blaspheme our most holy and undefiled Religion It becomes you now though you will not be perswaded to like of the practise of what out of an honest heart I have exhorted you to yet for your own sakes not to make any uncharitable construction of what hath been spoken And here I will acquit you of this unwelcome subject and from Zacchaeus his confession of his Sin I proceed to my second particular namely the nature and hainousness of the crime confess'd which is here call'd a defrauding another by forged cavillation 16. The crime here confessed is called in Greek Sycophancy Partic. II. for the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the understanding of which word in this place we shall not need so much to be beholden to the Classical Greek Authors as to the Septuagint who are the best Interpreters of the Idiom of the Greek language in the Evangelical writings Two Reasons of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are given the one by Ister in Atticis the other by Philomnestus de Smynthiis Rhodiis both recorded by Athenaeus in that treasury of ancient learning his Deipnosophists in the third Book which because they are of no great use for the interpretation of S. Luke I willingly omit 17. Now there are four several words in the Hebrew which the Seventy Interpreters have rendred in the old Testament by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the verbal thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One whereof signifies to abalienate or wrest any thing from another by fraud and sophistry opposed to another word in the same language which imports
Patron as to the great Defendor of it which style Your Majesty hath ever so exactly made good both in securing it from all dangers and in vindicating it by the well ordering and rectifying this Church from all the foul aspersions both of Domestick and Foraign enemies of which they can have no ground but their own want of Judgement or want of Charity But it is an argument of a despairing and lost cause to support it self with these impetuous out-cries and clamours the faint refuges of those that want better arguments like that Stoick in Lucian that cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O damned villain when he could say nothing else Neither is it credible the wiser sort of them should believe this their own horrid assertion That a God of goodness should damn to eternal torments those that love him and love truth for errors which they fall into through humane frailty But this they must say otherwise their only great argument from their damning us and our not being so peremtory in damning them because we hope unaffected Ignorance may excuse them would be lost and therefore they are engaged to act on this Tragical part only to fright the simple and ignorant as we do little children by telling them that bites which we would not have them meddle with And truely that herein they do but act a part and know themselves to do so and deal with us here as they do with the King of Spain at Rome whom they accurse and Excommunicate for fashion sake on Maundy-Thursday for detaining part of St. Peters Patrimony and absolve him without satisfaction on Good-Friday methinks their faltring and inconstancy herein makes it very apparent For though for the most part they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us and damn us all without mercy or exception yet sometimes to serve other purposes they can be content to speak to us in a milder strain and tell us as my Adversary does more than once That they allow Protestants as much Charity as Protestants allow them Neither is this the only contradiction which I have discovered in this uncharitable Work but have shewed that by forgetting himself and retracting most of the principal grounds he builds upon he hath saved me the labour of a Confutation which yet I have not in any place found any such labour or difficulty but that it was undertakable by a man of very mean that is of my abilities And the reason is because it is Truth I plead for which is so strong an argument for it self that it needs only light to discover it whereas it concernes Falshood and Error to use disguises and shadowings and all the fetches of Art and Sophistry and therefore it stands in need of abler men to give that a colour at least which hath no real body to subsist by If my endeavours in this kind may contribute any thing to this discovery and the making plain that Truth which my Charity perswades me the most part of them disaffect only because it hath not been well represented to them I have the fruit of my labour and my wish who desire to live to no other end than to do service to Gods Church and Your most Sacred Majesty in the quality of Your MAJESTIES Most faithful Subject and most humble and devoted Servant William Chillingworth The CONTENTS of the Chapters with the Answers thereunto THe Author of Charity Maintained his Preface to the Reader Page 1. The Answer to the Preface Page 5. The FIRST PART CHAP. I. THe State of the Question with a summary of the Reasons for which men of different Religions one side only can be saved Page 23. The Answer to the First Chapter Shewing that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New One And that there is no reason why among men of different Opinions and Communions one Side only can be saved Page 25 CHAP. II. What is that means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion Page 37 The Answer to the Second Chapter Concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our Understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion Page 45 CHAP. III. That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholique visible Church cannot err in either kind of the said Point Page 107 The Answer to the Third Chapter Wherein is maintained That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this present Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points Page 115 CHAP. IV. To say that the Creed contains all Points necessary to be believed is neither pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it self true Page 165 The Answer to the Fourth Chapter Wherein is shewed that the Creed contains all necessary Points of meer belief Page 172 CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates and all who began or continue the Separation from the external Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formal sin of Schism Page 210 The Answer to the Fifth Chapter The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism Page 227 CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of the Protestants have added Heresie unto Schism Page 279 The Answer unto the Sixth Chapter That Protestants are not Heretiques Page 289 CHAP. VII In regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones self Protestants are in a state of Sin as long as they remain separate from the Roman-Church Page 341 The Answer to the Seventh Chapter That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the roman-Roman-Church Page 345 The Conclusion Page 365 THE PREFACE To the AUTHOR of CHARITY MAINTAINED WITH An Answer to his Pamphlet entituled A Direction to N. N. SIR UPon the first news of the publication of your Book I used all diligence with speed to procure it and came with such a mind to the reading of it as S. Austin before he was a setled Catholique brought to his conference with Faustus the Manichee For as he thought that if any thing more than ordinary might be said in defence of the Manichean Doctrine Faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected So my perswasion concerning you was Si Pergama dextrâ Defendi possunt certè hac defensa videbo For I conceived that among the Champions of the Roman Church the English in reason must be the best or equall to the best as being by most expert Masters trained up purposely for this war and perpetually practised in it Among the English I saw the Jesuites would yield the first place to none and men so wise in their generation as the Jesuits were if they had any Achilles among them I presumed
would make choice of him for this service And besides I had good assurance that in the framing of this building though you were the only Architect yet you wanted not the assistance of many diligent hands to bring you in choise materials towards it nor of many careful and watchful eyes to correct the errors of your Work if any should chance to escape you Great reason therefore had I to expect great matters from you and that your Book should have in it the Spirit and Elixir of all that can be said in defence of your Church and Doctrine and to assure my self that if my resolution not to believe it were not built upon the rock of evident grounds and reasons but only upon some sandy and deceitful appearances now the wind and storm and floods were coming which would undoubtedly overthrow it 2. Neither truly were you more willing to effect such an alteration in me then I was to have it effected For my desire is to go the right way to eternal happiness But whether this way lie on the right hand or the left or straight forwards whether it be by following a living Guide or by seeking my direction in a Book or by hearkning to the secret whisper of some private Spirit to me it is indifferent And he that is otherwise affected and hath not a travellers indifference which Epictetus requires in all that would find the truth but much desires in respect of his ease or pleasure or profit or advancement or satisfaction of friends or any humane consideration that one way should be true rather than another it is odds but he will take his desire that it should be so for an assurance that it is so But I for my part unless I deceive my self was and still am so affected as I have made profession not willing I confess to take any thing upon trust and to believe it without asking my self why no nor able to command my self were I never so willing to follow like a sheep every Shepherd that should take upon him to guide me or every flock that should chance to go before me but most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way or from it and alwaies submitting all other reasons to this one God hath said so therefore it is true Nor yet was I so unreasonable as to expect Mathematical demonstrations from you in matters plainly incapable of them such as are to be believed and if we speak properly cannot be known such therefore I expected not For as he is an unreasonable Master who requires a stronger assent to his conclusions then his arguments deserve so I conceive him a froward and undisciplin'd Scholar who desires stronger arguments for a conclusion than the Matter will bear But had you represented to my understanding such reasons of your Doctrine as being weighed in an eaven ballance held by an eaven hand with those on the other side would have turned the scale and have made your Religion more credible than the contrary certainly I should have despised the shame of one more alteration and with both mine arms and all my heart most readily have embraced it Such was my expectation from you and such my preparation which I brought with me to the reading of your Book 3. Would you know now what the event was what effect was wrought in me by the perusal and consideration of it To deal truly and ingenuously with you I fell somewhat in my good opinion both of your sufficiency and sincerity but was exceedingly confirmed in my ill opinion of the Cause maintained by you I found every where snares that might entrap and colours that might deceive the simple but nothing that might perswade and very little that might move an understanding man and one that can discern between Discourse and Sophistry In short I was verily perswaded that I plainly saw and could make it appear to all dis-passionate and unprejudicate Judges that a vein of sophistry and calumny did run clean thorow it from the beginning to the end And letting some Friends understand so much I suffered my self to be perswaded by them that it would not be either unproper for me nor unacceptable to God nor peradventure altogether unserviceable to his Church nor justly offensive to you if you indeed were a lover of Truth and not a maintainer of a Faction if setting aside the Second Part which was in a manner wholly employed in particular disputes repetitions and references and in wranglings with D. Potter about the sense of some supernumerary quotations and whereon the main question no way depends I would make a fair and ingenuous answer to the First wherein the substance of the present Controversie is confessedly contained and which if it were clearly answered no man would desire any other answer to the Second This therefore I undertook with a full resolution to be an adversary to your Errors but a Friend and Servant to your Person and so much the more a friend to your person by how much the severer and more rigid adversary I was to your errors 4. In this Work my conscience bears me witness that I have according to your advice proceeded always with this consideration that I am to give a most strict account of every line and word that passeth under my pen and therefore have been precisely careful for the matter of my Book to defend truth only and only by Truth And then scrupulously fearful of scandalizing you or any man with the manner of handling it From this Rule sure I am I have not willingly swerved in either part of it and that I might not do it ignorantly I have not only my self examined mine own Work perhaps with more severity than I have done yours as conceiving it a base and unchristian thing to go about to satisfie others with what I my self am not fully satisfied but have also made it pass the fiery tryal of the exact censures of many understanding Judges alwayes heartily wishing that you your Self had been of the Quorum But they who did undergo this burthen as they wanted not sufficiency to discover any heterodox Doctrine so I am sure they have been very careful to let nothing slip dissonant from truth or from the authorized Doctrine of the Church of England and therefore whatsoever causeless or groundless jealousie any man may entertain concerning my Person yet my Book I presume in reason and common equity should be free from them wherein I hope that little or nothing hath escaped so many eyes which being weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary will be found too light And in this hope I am much confirmed by your strange carriage of your self in this whole business For though by some crooked and sinister arts you have got my Answer into your hands now a year since and upwards as I have been assured by some that profess to know it and those of your own party though you could not want every day fair opportunities of
as good be of none at all Nor to trouble you Fourthly with this that a great part of your Doctrine especially in the points contested makes apparently for the temporal ends of the Teachers of it which yet I fear is a great scandal to many Beaux Esprits among you Only I should desire you to consider attentively when you conclude so often from the Differences of Protestants that they have no certainty of any part of their Religion no not of those points wherein they agree Whether you do not that which so Magisterially you direct me not to do that is proceed a destructive way and object arguments against your Adversaries which tend to the overthrow of all Religion And whether as you argue thus Protestants differ in many things therefore they have no certainty of any thing So an Atheist or a Sceptique may not conclude as well Christians and the Professors of all Religions differ in many things therefore they have no certainty in any thing Again I should desire you to tell me ingenuously Whether it be not too probable that your portentous Doctrine of Transubstantiation joyned with your fore-mentioned perswasion of No Papists no Christians hath brought a great many others as well as himself to Averroes his resolution Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis Whether your requiring men upon only probable and prudential Motives to yield a most certain assent unto things in humane reason impossible and telling them as you do too often that they were as good not believe at all as believe with any lower degree of faith be not a likely way to make considering men scorn your Religion and consequently all if they know no other as requiring things contradictory and impossible to be performed Lastly Whether your pretence that there is no good ground to believe Scripture but your Churches infallibility joyned with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of Scripture be not a fair way to make them that understand themselves believe neither Church nor Scripture 9. Your calumnies against Protestants in generall are set down in these words Chap. 2. § 2. The very doctrine of Protestants if it be followed closely and with coherence to it self must of necessity induce Socinianism This I say confidently and evidently prove by instancing in one error which may well be tearmed the Capital and mother-Heresie from which all other must follow at ease I mean their heresie in affirming That the perpetual visible Church of Christ descended by a never interrupted succession from our Saviour to this day is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed as revealed truths For if the infallibility of such a publique Authority be once impeached what remains but that every man is given over to his own wit and discourse And talk not here of Holy Scripture For if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof we are still devolved either upon the private spirit a foolery now exploded out of England which finally leaving every man to his own conceits ends in Socinianism or else upon natural wit and judgement for examining and determining What Scriptures contain true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected And indeed take away the authority of God's Church no man can be assured that any one Book or parcel of Scripture was written by divine inspiration or that all the contents are infallibly true which are the direct errors of Socinians If it were but for this reason alone no man who regards the eternal salvation of his soul would live or dye in Protestancy from which so vast absurdities as these of the Socinians must inevitably follow And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us Catholiques while we consider that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church but joyntly he must be left to his own wit and wayes and must abandon all infused faith and true Religion if he do but understand himself aright In all which discourse the only true word you speak is This I say confidently As for proving evidently that I believe you reserved for some other opportunity for the present I am sure you have been very sparing of it 10. You say indeed confidently enough that The deny all of the Churches infallibility is the Mother-Heresie from which all other must follow at ease Which is so far from being a necessary truth as you make it that it is indeed a manifest falshood Neither is it possible for the wit of man by any good or so much as probable consequence from the denyal of the Churches Infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient Heresies or any one error of the Socinians which are the Heresies here entreated of For who would not laugh at him that should argue thus Neither the Church of Rome nor any other Church is infallible Ergo The doctrine of Arrius Pelagius Eutyches Nestorius Photinus Manichaeus was true Doctrine On the other side it may be truly said and justified by very good and effectual reason that he that affirms with you the Pope's infallibility puts himself into his hands and power to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all Heresie and even to Hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his grounds Domine cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice and vice to be vertue nay which is a horrible but a most certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope to say so Which I say and will maintain howsoever you daub and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but real Enemy For that name and no better if we may speak truth without offence I presume He deserves who under pretence of interpreting the Law of Christ which Authority without any word of express warrant he hath taken upon himself doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it So dethroning Christ from his dominion over mens consciences and instead of Christ setting up Himself Inasmuch as he that requires that his interpretations of any Law should be obeyed as true and genuine seem they to mens understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it as the Bishop of Rome does requires indeed that his interpretations should be the Lawes and he that is firmly prepared in minde to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them and though to his private judgement they seem unreasonable is indeed congruously disposed to hold Adultery a venial sin and Fornication no sin whensoever the Pope and his Adherents shall so declare And whatsoever he may plead yet either wittingly or ignorantly he makes the Law and the Law-maker both stales and obeyes only the Interpreter As if I should pretend that I should
submit to the Lawes of the King of England but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sense which the King of France should put upon them whatsoever it were I presume every understanding man would say that I did indeed obey the King of France and not the King of England If I should pretend to believe the Bible but that I would understand it according to the sense which the chief Mufty should put upon it Who would not say that I were a Christian in pretense only but indeed a Mahumetan 11. Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the Precepts of Christ are so plain that it cannot be feared that any Pope should ever go about to dissolve them and pretend to be a Christian For not to say that you now pretend the contrary to wit that the law of Christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done and by saying so have made a fair way for any fowl interpretation of any part of it certainly that which the Church of Rome hath already done in this kind is an evident argument that if she once had this power unquestioned and made expedite and ready for use by being contracted to the Pope she may do what she pleaseth with it Who that had lived in the Primitive Church would not have thought it as utterly improbable that ever they should have brought in the worship of Images and picturing of God as now it is that they should legitimate Fornication Why may we not think they may in time take away the whole Communion from the Laity as well as they have taken away half of it Why may we not think that any Text and any Sense may not be accorded as well as the whole 14. Ch. of the Ep. of S. Paul to the Corinth is reconciled to the Latine-Service How is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden than the worship of Angels in the Ep. to the Colossians than the teaching for Doctrines mens commands in the Gospel of S. Mark And therefore seeing we see these things done which hardly any man would have believed that had not seen them Why should we not fear that this unlimited power may not be used hereafter with as little moderation Seeing devices have been invented how men may worship Images without Idolatry and kill innocent men under pretence of Heresie without murder Who knows that some tricks may not be hereafter devised by which Lying with other mens wives shall be no Adultery taking away other mens goods no theft I conclude therefore That if Solomon himself were here and were to determine the difference Which is more likely to be mother of all Heresie The denial of the Churches or the affirming of the Popes Infallibility that he would certainly say This is the mother give her the childe 12. You say again confidently That if this Infallibility be once impeached every man is given over to his own wit and discourse which if you mean discourse not guiding it self by Scripture but only by principles of nature or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors and drawing consequences not by Rule but Chance is by no means true if you mean by Discourse right Reason grounded on Divine Revelation and common Notions written by God in the hearts of all men and deducing according to the never failing rules of Logick consequent deductions from them If this be it which you mean by discourse it is very meet and reasonable and necessary that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to happiness should be left unto it and he that follows this in all his opinions and actions and does not only seem to do so follows alwayes God whereas he that followeth a Company of men may oft-times follow a company of beasts And in saying this I say no more than S. John to all Christians in these words Dearly beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or no and the rule he gives them to make this tryal by is to consider Whether they confess Jesus to be Christ that is the Guid of their Faith and Lord of their Action not whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more than S. Paul in exhorting all Christians To try all things and hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in commanding all Christians To be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them then our Saviour himself in forewarning all his Followers that if they blindly followed blinde guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch and again in saying even to the people Yea and why of your selves judge yee not what is right And though by passion or precipitation or prejudice by want of reason or not using what they have men may be and are oftentimes led in error and mischief yet that they cannot be misguided by Discourse truly so called such as I have described you your self have given them security For what is Discourse but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence Now the Principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true And you have told us in the fourth Chap. of this Pamphlet That from truth no man can by good consequence infer falshood Therefore by Discourse no man can possibly be led to Error but if he err in his Conclusions he must of necessity either err in his Principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his Discourse that is indeed not Discourse but seem to do so 13. You say Thirdly with sufficient confidence That if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonical or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the private Spirit or else natural wit and judgment and by them examine what Scriptures contain true or false Doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proof of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly err in her judgment touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the private spirit and the examination of the contents which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly to wit that such or such a Book cannot come from God because it contains irreconcileable Contradictions but the Affirmative it cannot conclude because the contents of a Book may be all true and yet the Book not written by Divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three and that is The testimony of the Primitive Christians 14. You say Fourthly with convenient boldness That this infallible Authority of your Church being denyed no man can be assured that any parcell of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proof is pretended and besides void of modesty and full of impiety The
only sayes That there are some points so Fundamental as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitely but never tels us whether there be any other points of Faith which a man may deny or disbelieve though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by Almighty God which was the only thing in question For if it be damnable as certainly it is to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by Almighty God though the thing be not in it self of any great consequence or moment and since of two disagreeing in matters of Faith one must necessarily deny some such truth it clearly followes that amongst men of different Faiths or Religions one only can be saved though their difference consist of divers or but even one point which is not in his own nature Fundamental as I declare at large in divers places of my first Part. So that it is clear D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction never comes to the point in question to say nothing that he himself doth quite overthrow it and plainly contradict his whole designe as I shew in the third Chapter of my first Part. 4. And as for D. Potter's manner of handling those very points which are utterly beside the purpose it consists only in bringing vulgar mean Objections which have been answered a thousand times yea and some of them are clearly answered even in Charity Mistaken but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers and much less doth he apply himself to confute them He alledgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud as I would not have believed if I had not found it by clear and frequent experience In his second Edition he hath indeed left out one or two gross corruptions amongst many others no less notorious having as it seems been warned by some friends that they could not stand with his credit but even in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all nor declares that he was mistaken in the First and so his Reader of the first Edition shall ever be deceived by him though withall he read the Second For preventing of which inconvenience I have thought it necessary to take notice of them and to discover them in my Reply 5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say that D. Potter might well have spared his pains if he had ingenuously acknowledged where the whole substance yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his Book may be found in far briefer manner namely in a Sermon of D. Usher's preached before our late Soveraign Lord King James the 20. of June 1624. at Wansted containing A Declaration of the Universality of the Church of Christ and the Unity of Faith professed therein which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholique Divine under the name of Paulus Veridicus within the compass of about four sheets of Paper D. Potter's Answer to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared And this may suffice for a general Censure of his Answer to Charity Mistaken Concerning my Reply 6. For the second touching my Reply if you wonder at the Bulk thereof compared either with Charity Mistaken or D. Potter's Answer I desire you to consider well of what now I am about to say and then I hope you will see that I was cast upon a meer necessity of not being so short as otherwise might peradventure be desired Charity Mistaken is short I grant and yet very full and large for as much as concerned his design which you see was not to treat of particular Controversies in Religion no not so much as to debate whether or no the Romane Church be the only true Church of Christ which indeed would have required a larger Volume as I have understood there was one then coming forth if it had not been prevented by the Treatise of Charity Mistaken which seemed to make the other intended work a little less seasonable at that time But Charity Mistaken proves only in General out of some Universal Principles well backed and made good by choice and solid Authorities that of two disagreeing in points of Faith one only without repentance can be saved which aim exacted no great bulk And as for D. Potter's Answer even that also is not so short as it may seem For if his marginal notes printed in a small letter were transferred into the Text the Book would appear to be of some bulk though indeed it might have been very short if he had kept himself to the point treated by Charity Mistaken as shall be declared anon But contrarily because the question debated betwixt Charity Mistaken and D. Potter is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined and in regard that there is not a more pernitious Heresie or rather indeed ground of Atheism than a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of civil and moral life I conceive that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering D. Potter but that it was necessary to handle the Question it self somewhat at large and not only to prove in geral that both Protestants and Catholiques cannot be saved but to shew also that Salvation cannot be hoped for out of the Catholique Roman Church and yet withall not to omit to answer all the particulars of D. Potter's Book which may any way import To this end I thought it fit to divide my Reply into two Parts in the former whereof the main question is handled by a continued discourse without stepping aside to confute the particulars of D. Potter's Answer though yet so as even that in this first Part I omit not to answer such passages of his as I find directly in my way and naturally belong to the points whereof I treat and in the second Part I answer D. Potter's Treatise Section by Section as they lie in order I here therefore intreat the Reader that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important Question he do not content himself with that which I say to D. Potter in my second Part but that he take the First before him either all ot at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which press him most For which purpose I have caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part together with their Titles and Arguments to be prefixed before my Reply 7. This was then a chief reason why I could not be very short But yet there wanted not also divers other causes of the same effect For there are so several kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold as that if a man convince but one kind of them the rest will conceive themselves to be as truly unsatisfied and even unspoken to as if nothing had been said therein at all As for example Some hold a necessity of a perpetual
visible Church and some hold no such necessity Some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours and others that their business is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been alwayes visible for then they will conceive that theirs hath been so And the like may be truly said of very many other particulars Besides it is D. Potter's fashion wherein as he is very far from being the first so I pray God he prove the last of that humour to touch in a word many trivial old Objections which if they be not all answered it will and must serve the turn to make the ignorant sort of men believe and brag as if some main unanswerable matter had been subtilly and purposely omitted and every body knows that some Objection may be very plausibly made in few words the clear and solid answer whereof will require more leaves of paper than one And in particular D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compass of so few lines and with so great confusedness and fraud that it requires much time pains and paper to open them so distinctly as that they may appear to every man's eye It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken and the importance of what is omitted and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted all words themselves that are omitted all which could not but add to the quantity of my Reply And as for the quality thereof I desire thee good Reader to believe that whereas nothing is more necessary than Books for answering of Books yet I was so ill furnished in this kind that I was forced to omit the examination of divers Authors cited by D. Potter meetly upon necessity though I did very well perceive by most apparent circumstances that I must probably have been sure enough so finde them plainly misalledged and much wronged and for the few which are examined there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it For the times are not for all men alike and D. Potter hath much advantage therein But Truth is truth and will ever be able to justifie it self in the midst of all difficulties which may occurr And as for me when I alledge Protestant Writers as well Domestical as Forrain I willingly and thankfully acknowledge my self obliged for divers of them to the Author of the Book entituled The Protestant's Apology for the Romane Church who calls himself John Breerly whose care exactness and fidelity is so extraordinary great as that he doth not only cite the Books but the Editions also with the place and time of their Printing yea and often the very page and line where the words are to be had And if you happen not to finde what he cites yet suspend your judgement till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his Book though it be also true that after all diligence and faithfulness on his behalf it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the Print in which Prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons which must needs occurr to any prudent man 8. And forasmuch as concerns the manner of my Reply I have procured to do it without all bitterness or gall of invective words both for as much as may import either Protestants in general or D. Potter's person in particular unless for example he will call it bitterness for me to term a gross impertinency a sleight or a corruption by those very names without which I do not know how to express the things and yet therein I can truly affirm that I have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way to the end I might give as little offence as possibly I could without betraying the Cause And if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen as I hope none hath it was beside and against my intention though I must needs profess that D. Potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remiss than moderate But since in the very title of my Reply I profess to maintain Charity I conceive that the excess will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men if it fall to be in mildness than if it had appeared in too much zeal And if D. Potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature I can and will ease him of that labour by acknowledging in my self as many and more personal defects than he can heap upon me Truth only and sincerity I so much value and profess as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me Rules to be observed if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder 9. In the third and last place I have thought fit to express my self thus If D. Potter or any other resolve to answer my Reply I desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his own reputation the saving of my unnecessary pains and especially to the greater advantage of truth I wish then that he would be careful to consider wherein the point of every difficulty consists and not impertinently to shoot at Rovers and affectedly mistake one thing for another As for example to what purpose for as much as conecrns the question between D. Potter and Charity Mistaken doth he so often and seriously labour to prove that Faith is not resolved into the Authority of the Church as into the formal Object and Motive thereof Or that all Points of Faith are contained in Scripture Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of Faith Or that the Church of Rome as it signifies that particular Church or Diocess is not all one with the Universal Church Or that the Pope as a private Doctor may err With many other such points as will easily appear in their proper places It will also be necessary for him not to put certain Doctrines upon us from which he knows we disclaim as much as himself 10. I must in like manner intreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halfs but to set them down faithfully and entirely for as much as in very deed concerns the whole substance of the thing in question because the want sometime of one word may chance to make void or lessen the force of the whole Argument And I am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat because I find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader not to omit without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken Neither will this course be a cause that his Rejoynder grow too large but it will be occasion of brevity to him and free me also from the pains of setting down all the words which he omits and himself of demonstrating that what he omitted was not material Nay I
I have already satisfied in my Answers to the Second and the Fourth and in my Reply ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25. Ad § 17. To the seventh Whether error against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Unity of faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answer If you suppose as you seem to do the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinced that it is from God so that the denial of it involves also with it the denial of Gods veracity any such Error destroys both faith and salvation But if the Proposal be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinced but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinced of the Divine Verity of the Doctrin proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods Veracity may well consist with such an Error Yet a fault I confess it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the Proposal be sufficient But then I must tell you that the Proposal of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her Proposals being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26. Ad. § 18. To the Eighth How of disagreeing protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs err against some Truth testified by God I answer The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus far agree 1. That those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted Word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very Truths against which they err and Why an implicite faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicite faith in your Church◠I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endevours to believe the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they perform as I hope many on all Sides do truly and sincerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is sincere obedience Why should they not expect that God will perform his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lie without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one Side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations and unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously formed and fashioned they do embrace several Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damn them for such Errors who are lovers of Him and lovers of Truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodness it is to make Man desperate and God a Tyrant But they deny Truths testified by God and therefore shall be damned Yes if they knew them to be thus testified by him and yet would deny them that were to give God the lie and questionless damnable But if you should deny a truth which God had testified but only to a man in the Indies as I said before and this testification you had never heard of or at least had no sufficient reason to believe that God had so testified Would not you think it a hard case to be damned for such a denial Yet consider I pray a little more attentively the difference between them and you will presently acknowledge the question between them is not at any time or in any thing Whether God says true or no or Whether he says this or no But supposing he says this and says true Whether he means this or no As for example Between Lutherans Calvinists and Zwinglians it is agreed that Christ spake these words This is my Body and that whatsoever he meant in saying so is true But what he meant and how he is be understood that is the question So that though some of them deny a Truth by God intended yet you can with no Reason or Justice accuse them of denying the truth of Gods Testimony unless you can plainly shew that God hath declared and that plainly and clearly what was his meaning in these words I say plainly and clearly For he that speaks obscurely and ambiguously and no where declares himself plainly sure he hath no reason to be much offended if he be mistaken When therefore you can shew that in this and all other their Controversies God hath interposed his Testimony on one Side or other so that either they do see it and will not or were it not for their own voluntary and avoidable fault might and should see it and do not let all such Errors be as damnable as you please to make them In the mean while if they suffer themselves neither to be betraid into their Errors nor kept in them by any sin of their will if they do their best endevour to free themselves from all Errors and yet fail of it through humane frailty so well am I perswaded of the goodness of God that if in me alone should meet a confluence of all such Errors of all the Protestants in the World that were thus qualified I should not be so much afraid of them all as I should be to ask pardon for them For whereas that which you affright us with of calling Gods Veracity in Question is but a Panick fear a fault that no man thus qualified is or can be guilty of to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary Errors is tacitely to imply that God is angry with us for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick when he gives no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reap where he sowed not of being offended with us for not doing what he knows we cannot do This I say upon a supposition that they do their best endevours to know Gods will and do it which he that denies to be possible knows not what he sayes for he sayes in effect That men cannot do what they can do for to do what a man can do is to do his best
some sayings of Plato Trismegistus Sibyls Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonical Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internal light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonical Scriptures is a hidden Quality infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the external Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it self alone but by some other extrinsecal Authority 11. And here we appeal to any man of judgement whether it be not a vain brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it self or as D. Potter words it by (y) Pag. 141. that glorious beam of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darkness without any other help than light it self and as our ear knows a voice by the voice it self alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the external Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Potter hold all his Brethren for blind men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporal light may be discerned by it self alone as being evident proportionate and connatural to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the natural capacity and compass of man's understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine Faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum (z) Heb. v. 1. non-apparentium an argument or conviction of things not-evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture do not manifest it self by it self alone but must requâ—re some other means for applying it to our understanding Nevertheless their own similitudes and instances make against themselves For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sun Moon Fire Candle c. and should be brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know Whether it were produced by the Sun or Moon c Or if one hear a voice and had never known the Speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unless they first know the Writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I hear unless I first both know the person who speaks and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceived For there may be Voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceived by them as birds were by the Grapes of that skilful Painter Now since Protestants affirm knowledge concerning God as our supernatural end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discern that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or voice proceeds unless first they know the person who speaketh or writeth Nay I say more by Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirm any thing but only to set down or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himself understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is clear that the Writer speaks or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot hear or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirm that by Scripture it self they can see that the Writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonical Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the holy Ghost 12. But let us be liberal and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporal light by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet the Similitude proves against themselves For light is not visible except to such as have eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be clear only to those who are endued with the eye of Faith or as D. Potter above cited saith to all that have (a) Pag. 141. eyes to discern the shining beams thereof that is to the believer as immediately after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith which can be no other than the Church 13. Others affirm that they know Canonical Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Books But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answer our Argument is strengthned because divers Apocryphal writings have appeared under the Titles and Names of sacred Authors as the Gospel of Thomas mentioned by (b) Cont. Adimantum c. 17. S. Augustine the Gospel of Peter which the Nazaraei did use as (c) L. 2. haeretic fab Theodoret witnesseth with which Seraphion a Catholique Bishop was for some time deceived as may be read in (d) Li. 6. c. 10. Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of (e) Lib. 6. c. 11. Peter The like may be said of the Gospels of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specified by Pope (f) Dist Can. Sancta Romana Gelasius Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which bear the same Titles with the rest of those Books as also both we and they hold for Apocryphal the third and fourth Books which go under the name of Esdras and yet both of us receive his first and second book Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what Books be Canonical which (h) In his defence art 4. pag. 31. D. Covel acknowledgeth in these words It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we do well to think it is the Word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Mark ' s Gospel who was not an
prohibited All which confirmeth your Majesties grave and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneva translation to be warst of all and that in the Marginal notes annexed to the Geneva translation some are very partial untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English translation the Puritans say Our translation of the Psalms comprized in our Book of Common-Prayer doth in addition substraction and alteration differ from the truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they do therefore profess to rest doubtful whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto And M. Carlile saith of the English translators that they have depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the Ignorant that in many places they do detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselves to love darkness more than light falshood more than truth And the Ministers of Lincoln-Diocess give their publique testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirm that you could never see a Bible well Translated into English Thus farr the Author of the Protestants Apologie c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law in favour of Justification by faith alone translateth justified by faith ALONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no less notorious who in the Gospels of S. Matthew Marke and Luke and in S. Paul in place of This is my Body this is my Bloud translates This signifies my Body this signifies my Bloud And here let Protestants consider duely of these Points Salvation cannot be hoped for without true Faith Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err and no greater evidence of truth than that it is evident some of them embrace falshood by reason of their contrary Translations What then remaineth but that Truth Faith Salvation and All must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poor souls 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 therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures flye to the alwayes visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can never so farr prevail as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himself by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confess thus much saying If the Å¿ Li. cont Zuing. de verit corp Christ in Eucha world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raign On the contrary side the Translation approved by the Roman-Church is commended even by our Adversaries and D. Covell in particular saith that it was used in the Church one thousand t In his answer unto M. Joha Burges pag. 94. three hundred years ago and doubteth not to prefer u Ibid. that Translation before othâ—rs In so much that whereas the English-Translations be many and among themselves disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approved Translation authorized by the Church of England is that which cometh nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that Translation which we use must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake 17. But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here No The chiefest difficulty remains concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attaining whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they do Hence Mr. Hooker saith We are w In his Preface to his Books of Eccl. Politie Sect. 6.26 right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have all taught the woâ—ld to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting it self unto some judicial and definiâ—ive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to stand Doctor Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the Controversies x In his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop of Religion in our timâ—s are grown in number so many and in nature to intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgement 18. And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be received from the Church it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Books be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the holy Ghost Why should we not believe her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therefore either bring some proof out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in delivering the true sense thereof Or else give us leave to apply against them the argument which S. Augustine opposed to the Manicheans in these words I would not y Con. Ep. Fund cap. 5. believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying Believe the Gospel why should I not obey saying to me Do not believe Manicheus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou shalt say Believe the Catholiques They warn me not to give any credit to you If therefore I believe them I cannot believe thee If thou say Do not believe the Catholiques thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of Manicheus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospel it self If thou say You did well to believe them Catholiques commending the Gospel buâ— you did not well to believe them discommending Manicheus Dost thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt and not believe what thou wilt not And do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men to whom
is infallible And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on it must of necessity like the Iland of Delos flote up and down for ever And yet upon this Point according to Papists all other Controversies in saith depend 26. To the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. § The sum and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this That it appears by the Confession of some Protestants and the Contentions of others that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture what it is and about the Various Reading and Translations of it which is true and which not are not to be determined by Scripture and therefore that all Controversies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture 27. To which I have already answered saying That when Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which all Controversies of Religion are to be decided Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it self For as that general saying of Scripture He hath put all things under his feet is most true though yet S. Paul tell us That when it is said He hath put all things under him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him So when we say that all Controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we do and must except from this generality those which are touching the Scripture it self Just as a Merchant shewing a Ship of his own may say All my substance is in this Ship and yet never intend to deny that his Ship is part of his substance nor yet to say that his Ship is in it self Or as a man may say that a whole house is supported by the foundation and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it self Or as you your selves use to say that the Bishop of Rome is Head of the whole Church and yet would think us but captious Sophisters should we infer from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or else made him head of himself Your Negative Conclusion therefore that these Questions touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture you needed not have cited any Authorities nor urged any Reason to prove it it is evident of it self and I grant it without more ado But your corollary from it which you would insinuate to your unwary Reader That therefore they are to be decided by your or any Visible Church is a meer inconsequence and very like his collection who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his Wife presently concluded that he must have her as if there had been no more men in the World but Pamphilus and himself For so you as if there were nothing in the World capable of this Office but the Scripture or the present Church having concluded against Scripture you conceive but too hastily that you have concluded for the Church But the truth is neither the one nor the other have any thing to do with this matter For first the Question whether such or such a Book be Canonical Scripture though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture by shewing apparent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other Book confessedly Canonical yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the Ancient Churches any Book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonical or to be doubted of as Uncertain or rejected as Apocryphal according as it was received or doubted of or rejected by them Then for the Question Of various readings which is the true it is in reason evident and confessed by your own Pope that there is no possible determination of it but only by comparison with ancient Copies And lastly for controversies about different translations of Scripture the Learned have the same means to satisfie themselves in it as in the Questions which happen about the translation of any other Author that is skill in the Language of the Original and comparing translations with it In which way if there be no certainty I would know that certainty you have that your Doway old and Rhemish new Testament are true translations And then for the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours Neither is there any reason imaginable why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of of the Translation of our Church that it is free from errour if not absolutely yet in matters of moment as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament or Doway Bible The best direction I can give them is to compare both together and where there is no real difference as in the Translation of controverted places I believe there is very little there to be confident that they are right where they differ there to be prudent in the choice of the Guides they follow Which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible errour yet is it the best that either we or you have it is not required that we use any better than the best we have 28. You will say Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better I answer it would be so if we could be infallibly certain that your Church is infallible that is if it were either evident of it self and seen by its own light or could be reduced unto and setled upon some Principle that is so But seeing you your selves do not so much as pretend to enforce us to the belief hereof by any proofs infallible and convincing but only to induce us to it by such as are by your confession only probable and prudential Motives certainly it will be to very little purpose to put off your uncertainty for the first turn and to fall upon it at the second to please your selves in building your house upon an imaginary Rock when you your selves see and confess that this very Rock stands it self at the best but upon a frame of timber I answer secondly that this cannot be a better way because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible and indeed hath not the real Prescription of this Priviledge but only pleaseth her self with a false imagination and vain presumption of it as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable Arguments 29. Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this Discourse that These controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determined by the Authority of some present Church is irrational and inconsequent I might well forbear to tire myself with an exact and punctual examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which whether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complain of tergiversation I will run over them and let
nothing that is material and considerable pass without some stricture or animadversion 30. You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is God's Word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. § 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall find that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed That ordinaly the first Introduction and probable Motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it self is Divine and Sacred The Question then being by what means we are taught this * Some answer so but he doth not some answer that to learn it we have no other way than Tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that (a) The first outward Motive not the last assurance whereon we rest the first outward Motive leading men to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of God's Church For when we know (b) The whole Church that he speaks of seems to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the Authority of this he makes an Argument which presseth a man's modesty more than his reason And in saying It seems impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implies There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof (c) Therefore the Authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intâ—insâ—cal Arguments afford â—t the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing (d) Somewhat bâ—t not much until it be backed and inforced by farther reason it self therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution somewhat with us before doth now much more prevail when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it self hath setled may be proved a truth infallible (e) Observe I pray Our perswasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true Therefore neither or them was in his account the farthest proof In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to relie upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintain the Authority of the Books of God by Arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and clear that Point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent Principle such as all men acknowledg to be true (f) Natural reason thâ—n built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches Authority is but the first inducement By this time I hope the Reader sees sufficient proof of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelie's great ostentation of exactness is no very certain Argument of his fidelity 31. But seeing the belief of Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be proved by Scripture How can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contained in Scripture 32. I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the material objects of our Faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the means of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the Doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous Nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aims at is the belief of the Gospel the Covenant between God and Man the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the Instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6 Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the final and ultimate Objects of it and not the Means and instrumental Objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covel and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33. But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of Holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. James Kemnitius and other Lutherans the second of Peter the second and third of John The Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of James of Jude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonical 34. So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the Authority of the very same Books and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical or had they not If they had not it seems there is no great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some Books be Canonical or no as you require If they had Why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs
between these two We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the Rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical as they are received by the Church of England 45. You demand Upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand Upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon and agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable than our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say Your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand again some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands until you settle me upon a Rock I mean give such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Universal Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receive it is For we do not profess our selves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so of those Books which have been doubted as of those that never have 46. The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone but by some extrinsecal Authority Which you need not prove for no wise man denies it But then this Authority is that of Universal Tradition not of Your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospel of S. Matthew is the Word of God as that all which your Church sayes is true That Believers of the Scripture by considering the Divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures Divine Authority and that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto internal arguments have their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the Doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one main Pillar of my faith and for want of it I fear should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Believer sees by that glorious Beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internal Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is he is moved to and strengthened in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrel with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragragh I am as willing it should be true as you are to have it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned You might have met with an Answerer that would not have suffered you to have said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48. In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporal light is by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposal Faith still you say must go before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture do move and determine our Understanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else than the Understanding's assent And therefore upon this supposal Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith unto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it self being able as here you suppose to determine and move the Understanding to assent that is to believe them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceive that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soul that is the Understanding or the faculty of assenting to the Bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of Seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposeth the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it self is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moves the Understanding to assent the Understanding that is the eye and object on which it workes must be before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moves and the Underis moved which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already To what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed How were it possible it should be so any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already Or an Architect built a house that is built already Or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade Transubstantion indeed is fruitful of such Monsters But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error will easily perceive that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digress 49. The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other means precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other than the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can have faith but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants
Church which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient but such a Tradition which involves an â—â—ndence of Fact and from hand to hand from age to age bringing us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Thus you Now prove the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it Prove your whole doctrine or the infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition and we will yield to you in all things Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasius and S. Austin in this sense which is your own and they will not press us any thing at all We will say with Athanasius That only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon have so determined 54. We will subscribe to S. Austin and say That we also would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholique Church did move us meaning by the Church the Church of all Ages and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himself and his Apostels Neither would Zwinglius have needed to cry out upon this saying had he conceived as you now do that by the Catholique Church the Church of all Ages since Christ was to be understood As for the Councel of Carthage it may speak not of such Books only as were certainly Canonical and for the regulating of Faith but also of those which were only profitable and lawful to be read in the Church Which in England is a very slender Argument that the book is Canonical where every body knows that Apocryphal books are read as well as Canonical But howsoever if you understand by Fathers not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospel but the succession of them from the Apostles they are right in the Thesis that whatsoever is received from these Fathers as Canonical is to be so esteemed Though in the application of it to this or that particular book they may haply erre and think that book received as Canoniel which was only received as profitable to be read and think that Book received alwaies and by all which was rejected by some and doubted of by many 55. But we cannot be certain in what language the Scriptures remain uncorrupted Not so certain I grant as of that which we can demonstrate But certain enough morally certain as certain as the nature of the thing will bear So certain we may be and God requires no more We may be as certain as S. Austin was who in his second book of Baptism against the Donatists c. 3. plainly implies the Scripture might possibly be corrupted He means sure in matters of little moment such as concern not the Covenant between God and Man But thus he saith The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist cleerly intimates (a) Neque enim sic poturt integrit as atque notitia literarum quamlibet illust is Episcopi castodiri quemadmodum Scritura Canonica tet linguarum literis ordine successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae custoditur contra quam non desuerunt tamâ—n qui sub nominibus Aposiolorum multa consiagerent Frustra quidem quia illa sic commendata sic celebrata sic nota est Verum quid possit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate sundatas etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae conatus audaciae quòd adversus cos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt sese erigere non praetermisit Aug. ep 48. ad Vincent cont Donat. Rogat That in his judgement the only preservative of the Scriptures integrity was the translating it into so many Languages and the general and perpetual use and reading of it in the Church for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kind but the Canonical Scripture being by this means guarded with universal care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts And this assurance of the Scriptures incorruption is common to us with him we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was and that I hope was certain enough Yet if this does not satisfie you I say farther We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was He in his Preface to his Bible tells us (b) In hac germani textus peâ—vestigatione satis perspicue inter omnes constat nullum argumenum esse certius ac sirmius quà m antiquorum probatorum codicum Latinorum fidem c. sie Sâ—xtus in Praef. That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text it was perspicuously manifest to all men that there was no Argument more firm and certain to be relied upon than the Faith of Ancient Books Now this ground we have to build upon as well as he had and therefore our certainty is as great and stands upon as certain ground as his did 56. This is not all I have to say in this matter For I will add moreover that we are as certain in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted as any man in your Church was until Clement the eighth set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar Translation For you do not nor cannot without extream impudence deny that until then there was great variety of Copes currant in divers parts of your Church and those very frequent in various lections all which Copies might possibly be false in some things but more than one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things Neither were it less impudence to pretend that any man in your Church could until Clement's time have any certainty what that one true Copie and Reading was if there were one perfectly true Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible might after the Edition of that very likely think themselves cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation without being beholding to Clement but how foully they were abused and deceived that thought so the Edition of Clemens differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places doth sufficiently demonstrate 57. This certainty therefore in what language the Scripture remains uncorrupted is it necessary to have it or is it not If it be not I hope we may do well enough without it If it be necessary What became of your Church for 1500 years together All which time you must confess she had no such certainty no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say This or that Copy of the Bible is pure and perfect and uncorrupted in all things And now at this present though some of you are grown to a higher degree of Presumption in this Point yet are you as far as ever from any true real and rational assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentique Translation which I suppose my self to have proved unanswerably in divers places 58. In the sixteenth Division It is objected to
Protestants in a long discourse transcribed out of the Protestant's Apology That their Translations of the Scripture are very different and by each other mutually condemned Luther 's Translation by Zwinglius and others That of the Zwinglians by Luther The Translation of Oecolampadius by the Divines of Basil that of Castalio by Beza That of Beza by Castalio That of Calvin by Carolus Molinaeus That of Geneva by M. Parks and King James And lastly One of our Translations by the Puritans 59. All which might have been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church and made use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it For which I desire not that my word but S. Austin's may be taken They which have translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek may be numbred but the Latin Interpreters are innumerable For whensoever any one in the first times of Christianity met with a Greek Bible and seemed to himself to have some ability in both Languages he presently ventured upon an Interpretation So He in his second Book of Christian doctrine Cap. 11. Of all these that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best so we may learn from the same S. Austin in Chap. 15. of the same Book Amongst all these interpretations saith he let the Italian be preferred for it keeps closer to the Letter and is perspicuous in the sense Yet so far was the Church of that time from presuming upon the absolute purity and perfection even of this best Translation that S. Hierom thought it necessary to make a new Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew Fountain which himself testifies in his Book de Viris illustribus and to correct the Vulgar version of the New Testament according to the truth of the Original Greek amending many errors which had crept into it whether by the mistake of the Author or the negligence of the Transcribers which work he undertook and performed at the request of Damasus Bishop of Rome You constrain me saith he to make a new work of an old that after the Copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed through the whole World I should sit as it were an Arbitrator amongst them and because they vary among themselves should determine what are those things in them which consent with the Greek verity And after Therefore this present Preface promises the four Gospels only corrected by collation with Greek Copies But that they might not be very dissonant from the custom of the Latin reading I have so tempered with my stile the Translation of the Ancients that those things amended which did seem to change the sense other things I have suffered to remain as they were So that in this matter Protestants must either stand or fall with the Primitive Church 60. The Corruption that you charge Luther with and the falsification that you impute to Zwinglius What have we to do with them Or why may not we as justly lay to your charge the Errours which Lyranus or Paulus Brugensis or Laurentius Valla or Cajetan or Erasmus or Arias Montanus or Augustus Nebiensis or Pagnine have committed in their Translations 61. Which yet I say not as if these Translations of Luther and Zwinglius were absolutely indefensible for what such great difference is there between Faith without the Works of the Law and Faith alone without the Works of the Law Or why does not Without Alone signifie all one with Alone Without Consider the matter a little better and observe the use of these phrases of speech in our ordinary talk and perhaps you will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground for this invective And then for Zwinglius if it be true as they say it is that the language our Saviour spake in had no such word as Tosignifie but used always to be in stead of it as it is certain the Scripture does in an hundred places then this Translation which you so declaim against will prove no falsification in Zwinglius but a calumny in you 62. But the faith of Protestants relies upon Scripture alone Scripture is delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend upon the skill and honesty of Men who certainly may err because they are Men and certainly do err at least some of them because their Translations are contrary It seems then the Faith and consequently the Salvation of Protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds 63. This Objection though it may seem to do you great service for the present yet I fear you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault that we make mens salvation depend upon uncertainties For the Objection returns upon you many ways as first thus The salvation of many millions of Papists as they suppose and teach depends upon their having the Sacrament of Pennance truly administred unto them This again upon the Minister's being a true Priest That such or such a man is Priest not himself much less any other can have any possible certainty for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals He that will pretend to be certain of it must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow 64. First That he was baptized with due matter Secondly with the due form of words which he cannot know unless he were both present and attentive Thirdly he must know that he was baptized with due Intention and that is that the Minister of his Baptism was not a secret Jew nor a Moor nor an Atheist of all which kinds I fear experience gives you just cause to fear that Italy and Spain have Priests not a few but a Christian in heart as well as Profession otherwise believing the Sacrament to be nothing in giving it he could intend to give nothing nor a Samosatenian nor an Arrian but one that was capable of having due intention from which they that believe not the Doctrine of the Trinity are excluded by you And lastly That he was neither drunk nor distracted at the administration of the Sacrament nor our of negligence or malice omitted his intention 65. Fourthly he must undertake to know that the Bishop which ordained him Priest ordained him compleatly with due Matter Form and Intention and consequently that he again was neither Jew nor Moor nor Atheist nor liable to any such exception as is unconsistent with due Intention in giving the Sacrament of Orders 66. Fifthly he must undertake to know that the Bishop which made him Priest was a Priest himself for your Rule is Nihil dat quod non habet And consequently that there was again none of the former nullities in his Baptism which might make him incapable of Ordination nor no invalidity in his Ordination but a true Priest to ordain him again the requisite matter and form and due intention all concurring 67. Lastly he must pretend to know the same of him that made him Priest and him that made Him
by the President of it the Cardinal S. Cruce And yet he hath written that the Councel in this Decree meant to pronounce this Translation free not simply from all Error but only from such Errors out of which any opinion pernitions to faith and manners might be collected This And radius in his defence of that Councel reports of Vega and assents to it himself Driedo in his Book of the Translation of holy Scripture hath these words very pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose The See Apostolike hath approved or accepted Hierom 's Edition not as so wholly consonant to the Original and so entire and pure and restored in all things that it may not be lawful for any man either by comparing it with the Fountain to examine it or in some places to doubt Whether or no Hierom did understand the true sense of the Scripture but only as an Edition to be preferred before all others then extant and no where deviating from the Truth in the rules of faith and good life Mariana even where he is a most earnest Advocate for the Vulgar Edition yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words â—â—o Eâ—â—t vulg c. 21. p. 99. The faults of the Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Councel of Trent a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of Copie And again We maintain that the Hebrew and Greek were by no means rejected by the Trent-Fathers And that the Latine Edition is indeed approved yet not so as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly some more properly whereof it were easie to produce innumerable examples And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then General of the Society who was a great part of that Councel present at all the Actions of it and of very great authority in it 77. To this so great authority he adds a reason of his opinion which with all indifferent men will be of a far greater authority If the Councel saith he had purposed to approve an Edition in all respects and to make it of equal authority and credit with the Fountains certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the Errors of the Interpreter which certainly they did not 78. Lastly Bellarmine himself though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition yet he acknowledges that the â—ase may and does oft-times so fall out Bâ—ll de verâ—e Dâ—â—d 2. c. 12. p. 120. that it is impossible to discern which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition but only by recourse unto the Originals and dependance upon them 79. From all which it may evidently be collected that though some of you flatter your selves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition yet the matter is not so certain and so resolved but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand and very doubtful sometimes whether your Vulgar Translation be true and sometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Translation and sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your Vulgar Translation is no true Translation nor consonant to the Original as it was at first delivered And what then can be alledged but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred and inforced upon you that not only in your Lay-men but your Clergy-men and Scholars Faith and Truth and Salvation and All depends upon fallible and uncertain grounds And thus by ten several retortions of this one Argument I have endeavoured to shew you How ill you have complyed with your own advice which was to take heed of urging Arguments that might be returned upon you I should now by a direct Answer shew that it presseth not us at all but I have in passing done it already in the end of the second retortion of this Argument and thither I refer the Reader 80. Whereas therefore you exhort them that will have assurance of true Scriptures to fly to your Church for it I desire to know if they should follow your advice how they should be assured that your Church can give them any such assurance which hath been confessedly so negligent as to suffer many whole Books of Scripture to be utterly lost Again in those that remain confessedly so negligent as to suffer the Originals of these that remain to be corrupted And lastly so careless of preserving the integrity of the Copies of her Translation as to suffer infinite variety of Readings to come in to them without keeping any one perfect Copy which might have been as the Standard and Polycletus his Canon to correct the rest by So that which was the true reading and which the false it was utterly undiscernable but only by comparing them with the Originals which also she pretends to be corrupted 81. But Luther himself by unfortunate experience was at length enforced to confess thus much saying If the wordlast longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councels by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raign 82. And what if Luther having a Pope in his belly as he was wont to say that most men had and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations pass without examining spake such words in heat of Argument Do you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to Luther's divinations and angry speeches Will you oblige your self to answer for all the assertions of your private Doctors If not Why do you trouble us with what Luther says and what Calvin says Yet this I say not as if these words of Luther made any thing at all for your present purpose For what if he feared or pretended to fear that the infallibility of Councels being rejected some men would fall into greater Errors than were imposed upon them be the Councels Is this to confess that there is any present visible Church upon whose bare Authority we may infallibly receive the true Scriptures and the true sense of them Let the Reader judge But in my opinion to fear a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the less is not to confess that the less is none at all 83. For D. Covel's commending your Translation What is it to the business in hand Or how proves it the perfection of it which is here contested any more than S. Augustine's commending the Italian Translation argues the perfection of that or that there was no necessity that S. Hierom should correct it D. Covel commends your Translation and so does the Bishop of Chichester and so does D. James and so do I. But I commend it for a good Translation not for a perfect Good may be good and deserve commendations and yet Better may be better And though he says that the then approved Translation of the Church of England is that which cometh nearest the Vulgar yet he does not say that it agrees exactly with it So that whereas you infer that the Truth of your Translation
formerly you rejected from the Canon I instance in the Book of Macchabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews The first of these you held not to be Canonical in S. Gregorie's time or else he was no member of your Church for it is apparent (a) See Grâ—g Maâ—â— 19 〈◊〉 13. He held otherwise The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hierom's time as it is evident out of (b) 〈…〉 there 〈…〉 And again 〈◊〉 c. 8. in 〈…〉 many places of his Works 91. If you say which is all you can say that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church not of the Roman Catholique Church I answer there was none such in his time None that was called so Secondly What he spake of the Roman Church must be true of all other Churches if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine Now then chuse whether you will Either that the particular Roman Church was not then believed to be the Mistress of all other Churches notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fiâ—leles which Cardinal Perron and his Translatress so often translates false Or if you say she was you will run into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholique Church may err in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonical 92. Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the Authority of the Roman Church which hath delivered at several times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authentical and Canonical Which is most evident out of the place of Malachy which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Mass that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Jacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews according to the vulgar Edition But above all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93. And thus you see what reason we have to believe your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books be true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainly is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that He had obliged himself to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture God is not defective in things necessary neither will he leave himself without witness nor the World without means of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruption in those things which he would have known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only means of continuing the knowledge of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us means sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these means he will not constrain or necessitate us to make use of these means For that were to cross the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas Necessity and Freedom cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himself in his dealing with Man and that is to set life and death before him and to leave him in the hands of his own Counsel God gave the Wisemen a Star to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this Star that was left to their liberty God gave the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night and a Pillar of Cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he gives the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be followed like the Wisemen's Star Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and love of the Truth and desire to find the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty than he can of the Sun to shine of the Sea to ebb and flow and of all other Creatures to do those things which by meer necessity they must do and cannot chuse Besides What an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you do not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselves If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they do How comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94. Again Why does your Church thus put her Candle under a Bushel and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture it self tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable Why does she imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unless we must think that fallible interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible interpretations would not be so 95. If you say The Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will do it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to do it I demand Whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth always move to an action when he shews us plainly that it would be for the good of men and honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason Why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot do it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of
she delivers for that reason because she delivers it And if you meant only Protestants will have men to believe some Books to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such may not we then ask as you do Do not Papists perfectly resemble these men which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome 101. And whereas you say S. Austin may seem to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing I answer Until you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the Truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible Expounder of Scriptures and Judg of Controversies Nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a Member of the Church of England who received his Baptism Education and Faith from the Ministery of this Church say just so to you as S. Austin here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me This therefore that Christ Jesus did those Miracles and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Books of the New Testament I believed by Fame strengthened with Celebrity and Consent even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another and lastly by Antiquity which gives an universal and a constant attestation to them But every one may see that you so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture so turbulent that you damn all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you that you profess it is lawful for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your own Doctrine and the extirpation of the contrary Lastly so new in many of your Doctrines as in the lawfulness and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramental Cup the lawfulness and expedience of your Latine Service Transubstantiation Indulgences Purgatory the Pope's Infallibility his Authority over Kings c. So new I say in comparison of the undoubted Books of Scripture which evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our faith I say every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving Authority with wise and considerate men What madness is this Believe then the consent of Christians which are now and have been ever since Christ in the World that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said which contradict and damn all other parts of Christendom Why I beseech you Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my self that I were not to believe in Christ than that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom I believed him at least than that I should learn what his Religion was from you who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine which might give us just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones Who with forging so many false Stories and fals◠Authors have taken a fair way to make the faith of all Stories questionable if we had no other ground for our Belief of them but your Authority who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the Word of Christ and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerful who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted For if you take this Authority upon you upon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that time did not usurp the same Authority upon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so upwards until we come to Christ himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the Fountain of Apostolike Tradition but have insinuated themselves into the Streams by little and little some in one age and some in another some more anciently some more lately and some yet are Embrio's yet hatching and in the shell as the Pope's infallibility the blessed Virgin 's immaculate Conception the Pope's power over the Temporalties of Kings the Doctrine of Predetermination c. all which yet are or in time may be imposed upon Christians under the Title of Original and Apostolike Tradition and that with that necessity that they are told they were as good believe nothing at all as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles which they know to have been brought in but yesterday which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves I am told that I were as good believe nothing at all as believe some points which the Church teacheth me and not others and some things which she teacheth to be Ancient and Certain I plainly see to be New and False therefore I will believe nothing at all Whether I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus and whether this Conclusion be not too often made in Italy and Spain and France and in England too I leave it to the judgement of those that have wisdom and experience Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so far 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 Seeing we receive not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rom◠neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Intepretation of Scripture 102. Ad § 19. In this number this Argument is contained The Judg of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned The Scripture is not so and the Church is so Therefore the Church is the Judge and not
122. And how it can be any way advantagious to Civil government that men without warrant from God should usurp a Tyranny over other mens consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometime against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I do not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say That a man may be a passionate and seditious creature from whence you would have us inferr that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion and raise sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you do make private men infallible Interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harme they can do by their passionate or seditious Interpretations but only endanger both their temporal and eternal happiness I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Judge yet we do not deny but that there are Judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebels and Traitors and Theeves and Murderers 123. Ad § 23. The next § in the beginning argues thus For many ages there was no Scripture in the world and for many more there was none in many places of the world yet men wanted not then and there some certain direction what to believe Therefore there was then an infallible Judge Just as if I should say York is not my way from Oxford to London therefore Bristol is Or a Dog is not a horse therefore he is a man As if God had no other waies of revealing himself to men but only by Scripture and an infallible Church * See Chrysost Hom. 1 in Mat. Isidor Pelus l. 3. ep 106. and also Basil in Ps 28. and then you shall confess that by o her means besides these God did communicate himself unto men and made them receive and understand his laws See also to the same purpose Heb. 1.1 S. Chrysostom and Isidorus Pelusiota conceived He might use other means And Saint Paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his works And that they had the Law written in their hearts Either of these waies might make some faithful men without either necessity of Scripture or Church 124. But D. Potter sayes you say In the Jewish Church there was a living Judge indowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are And where was that infallible direction in the Jewish Church when they should have received Christ for their Messias and refused him Or perhaps this was not a case of moment D. Potter indeed might say very well not that the high Priest was infallible for certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed Besides it is one thing to say that the living Judge in the Jewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the priviledge which you challenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Jews As a man may truely say the Wisemen had an in fallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not do otherwise 125. But either the Church retains still her Infallibility or it was devested of it upon the receiving of Holy Scripture which is absurd An Argument me thinks like this Either you have horns or you have lost them but you never lost them therefore you have them still If you say you never had horns so say I for ought appears by your reasons the Church never had Infallibility 126. But some Scriptures were received in some places and not in others therefore if Scriptures were the Judge of Controversies some Churches had one Judge and some another And what great inconvenience is there in that that one part of England should have one Judge and another another especially seeing the Books of Scripture which were received by those that received fewest had as much of the Doctrin of Christianity in them as they all had which were received by any all the necessary parts of the Gospel being contained in every one of the four Gospels as I have proved So that they which had all the Books of the New Testament had nothing superfluous For it was not superfluous but profitable that the same thing should be said divers times and be testified by divers witnesses And they that had but one of the four Gospels wanted nothing necessary and therefore it is vainly inferred by you that with months and years as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered her rule of Faith and judge of Controversies 127. Heresies you say would arise after the Apostles time and after the writâ—ng of Scriptures These cannot be discovered condemned and avoided unlesse the Church be infallible Therefore there must be a Church infallible But I pray tell me Why cannot Heresies be sufficiently discovered condemned and avoided by them which believe Scripture to be the rule of Faith If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresie seeing Heresie is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the Faith That which is streight will plainly teach us what is crooked and one contrary cannot but manifest the other If any one should deny that there is a God that this God is omnipotent omniscient good just true mercifull a rewarder of them that seek him a punisher of them that obstinately offend him That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the World that it is He by obedience to whom men must look to be saved If any man should deny either his Birth or Passion or Resurrection or Ascension or Sitting at the right hand of God his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth That it is he whom God hath appointed to be Judg of the quick the dead That all men shall rise again at the last day That they which believe and repent shall be saved That they which do not believe or repent shall be damned If a man should hold that either the keeping of the Mosaical Law is necessary to Salvation or that good works are not necessary to Salvation In a word if any man should obstinatly contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture who does not see that every one which believes the Scripture hath a sufficient means to discover and condemn and avoid that Heresie without any need of an infallible guide
Apocalyps is most truly verified in fictions revelations If any (k) Cap. ult v. 18. shall add to these things God will add unto him the plagues which are written in this Book and D. Potter saith to add (l) Pag. 122. to it speaking of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it And therefore to say the Church may add false revelations is to accuse her of high presumption and of pernitious error excluding Salvation 10. Perhaps some will here reply that although the Church may err yet it is nor imputed to her for sin by reason she doth not err upon malice or wittingly but by ignorance or mistake 11. But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve For if the Church be assisted only for Points Fundamental she cannot but know that she may err in Points not Fundamental at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernitious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamental to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith wherein she can have no certainty yea which always imply a falshood For although the thing might chance to be true and perhaps also revealed yet for the matter she for her part doth always expose her self to danger of falshood and error and in fact doth always err in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not Fundamental because she proposeth it as a Point of Faith certainly true which yet is always uncertain if she in such things may be deceived 12. Besides if the Church may err in Points not Fundamental she may err in proposing some Scripture for Canonical which is not such or else err in nor keeping and conserving from corruptions such Scriptures as are already believed to be Canonical For I will suppose that in such Apocryphal Scripture as she delivers there is no Fundamental Error against Faith or that there is no falshood at all but only want of Divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a Fundamental Error to apply Divine revelation to any Point not revealed or else must yield that the Church may err in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture and so we cannot be sure whether she hath not been deceived already in Books recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be observed that some Books of Scripture which were not alwayes known to be Canonical have been afterward received for such but never any on Book or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonical was afterward questioned or rejected for Apocryphal A sign that God's Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost never to propose as Divine truth any thing not revealed by God and that Omission to define Points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not revealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath nor never will permit his Church to fall 13. Nay to limit the general promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to Points only Fundamental namely that the gates (m) Mat. 16.18 of hell shall not prevail against her and that the holy Ghost (n) Joan. 16.13 shall lead her into all Truth c. is to destroy all Faith For we may be that Doctrin and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words and preaching only to Points Fundamental and whatsoever general Texts of Scripture shall be alledged for their infallibility they may be D. Potter's example be explicated and restrained to Points Fundamental By the same reason it may be farther affirmed that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonical Scripture were indued with infallibility only in setting down Points Fundamental For if it be urged that all Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the Word of God c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth Fundamental Points In this manner D. Fotherby saith The Apostle (o) In his Sermons Serm. 2. pag. 50. twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the express Word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamental because as Nature so God is neither defective in (p) Pag. 150. necessaries nor lavish in superfluities Which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to Points necessary to Salvation that so God be not accused as defective in (p) Pag. 150. necessaries or lavish insuperfluities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with (q) Joan. c. 16.13 c. 14.16 you for ever he saith Though that promise was (r) Pag. 151 152. directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirit 's guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church Universal But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be lead into all truths is to know and believe them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of Truths in Nature History Divinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many Truths lie unrevealed in the infinite Treasury of God's wisdom wherewith the Church is not acquainted c So then the Truth it self enforceth us to understand by all Truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reveal but all pertaining to the substance of Faith all Truth absolutely necessary to Salvation Mark what he saith That promise The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth was made directly to the Apostles and is verified in the Universal Church but by all Truth is not understood simply all but all appertaining to the substance of Faith and absolutely necessary to Salvation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being lead into all Truth is to be understood only of all Truth absolutely necessary to Salvation and consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in Points not Fundamental or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine Truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church And as he limits the aforesaid words to Points Fundamental so may he restrain what other Text soever that can be
brought for the universal infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures So he may and so he must lest otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himself How many Truths lie unrevealed in the infinite Treasury of God's wisdom wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verifie such general sayings they must be understood of Truths absolutely necessary to Salvation Are not these fearful consequences And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all Points by her proposed as divine Truths and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all Truth in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach any falshood 14. All that with any colour may be replyed to this Argument is That if once we call any one Book or parcel of Scripture in question although for the matter it contain no Fundamental error yet it is of great importance and Fundamental by reason of the consequence because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonical the whole Canon is made doubtful and uncertain and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universal and not confined within compass of Points Fundamental 15. I answer For the thing it self it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcel of Scripture received for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I infer that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Points we could nor believe her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonical Books or any other Points Fundamental or not Fundamental which thing being most absurd and withal most impious we must take away the ground thereof and believe that she cannot err in any Point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove Yet I add that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other Doctrines which they defend For if D. Potter can tell what Points in particular be Fundamental as in his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he might be sure that whensoever he meets with such Points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it may err in others and not only true but clear because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Salvation the Scripture is so clear that all such necessary Truths are either manifestly contained therein or may be clearly deduced from it Which Doctrines being put together to wit That Scriptures cannot err in Points Fundamental that they clearly contain all such Points and that they can tell what Points in particular be such I mean Fundamental it is manifest that it is sufficient for Salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamental For supposing these Doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all Points necessary to Salvation although it were fallible in other Points of less moment Neither will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other Doctrines and in particular till they believe that Christ's promises to his Church are not limited to Points Fundamental 16 Besides from the fallibility of Christ's Catholique Church in some Points it followeth that no true Protestant learned or unlearned doth or can with assurance believe the universal Church in any one Point of Doctrine Not in Points of lesser moment which they call not-Fundamental because they believe that in such Points she may err Not in Fundamental because they must know what Points be Fundamental before they go to learn of her lest otherwise they be rather deluded than instructed in regard that her certain and infallible direction extends only to Points Fundamental Now if before they address themselves to the Church they must know what Points are Fundamental they learn not of her but will be as sit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously upon so dreadful menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himself counselled and commanded to seek to hear to obey the Church S. Austin was of a very disterent mind from Protestants If saith he the (s) Epist 118. Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madness And in another place he saith That which (t) Lib. 4. de Bapt. cap. 24. the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath always been kept is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolical Authority The sâ—me holy Father teacheth that the custom of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custom of our Mother the (u) Lib. 10. de Geaâ—si ad liter cap. 23. Church saith he in baptizing Infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition And elsewhere Christ (w) Serm. 14. de verbis Apost cap. 18. is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing But God forbid that I should say Infants do not believe I have already said he believes in another who sinned in another It is said he believes and it is of force and he is reckoned among the faithful that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbon gave this round Answer Nos ab Augustino (x) See protocol Monach. edit 2. p 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus In this we plainly disagree from Augustin Now if this Doctrine of baptizing Infants be not Fundamental in D. Potter's sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to Points not Fundamental But if on the other side it be a Fundamental Point then according to the same holy Doctor we must relie on the authority of the Church for some Fundamental Point not contained in Scripture but delivered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not re-baptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner We follow (y) Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 34. indeed in this matter even the most certain authority of Canonical Scriptures But how consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonical Scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us while we do that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceive us whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question must have recourse to the same
Supremacy to be an essential Point of Faith O freedom of the new Gospel Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritans neither Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saved Some as Castalio (p) Vid Gul. Reginald Calv. Turcis l. 2. c. 6. and the whole Sect of the Academical Protestants hold that Doctrins about the Supper Baptism the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and divers other such questions are not necessary to Salvation And that you may observe how ungrounded and partial their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Real presence of our Saviour's Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholiques is a Fundamental Error and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstanding that divers chief Lutherans to their Consubstantiation joyn the prodigious Heresie of Ubiquitation D. Usher in his Sermon of the Unity of the Catholique Faith grants Salvation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptism joyn Circumcision D. Potter (q) Pag. 113 114. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdom of Israel p. 94. cites the Doctrin of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgment that all who profess to love and honour JESUS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgment is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose love and honour to Jesus Christ you may perceive by this saying that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is Faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God For D. Potter (r) Pag. 121. among the arguments to prove Hookers and Morton's opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their gross corruption and Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be members of the true Church For a learned man saith D. Potter (s) Pag. 122. in behalf of Hooker's and Morton's opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies Dear Saviour What times do we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of the Persons the Godhead of our Saviour the necessity of Baptism if we may use Circumcision and with the worship of God joyn Idolatry wherein do we differ from Turks and Jews or rather are we not worse than either of them If they who deny our Saviour's Divinity might be accounted the Church of God How will they deny that savour to those ancient Heretiques who denied our Saviour's true humanity and so the total denial of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary (t) Comment in Mat. cap. 16. maketh it of equal necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we aâ—e to hold that we remember him to be the Son of God and the Son of Man because the one without the other can give no hope of Salvation And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrin of Hooker and Morton The (u) Pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approve or reject it as he shall find cause And in another place (w) Pag. 253. he sheweth so much good liking of this Doctrin that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetual Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his Book he is careful to declare and illustrate it more at large than he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they have no certainty what Points be Fundamental As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but is indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian-like jesting at all Religion (x) A moderate examination c. cap. 1. panlò post initium placeth Arianism among Fundamental Errors Buâ— contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Book in Latine intituled Dissertatio de pace concordia Ecclesiae endeavoureth to prove that even the denial of the Blessed Trinity may stand with Salvation Divers Protestants have taught that the Roman Church erreth in Fundamental Points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be Fundamental Points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error in the matter (y) Pag. 126. and the nature of it properly heretical because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatus And yet many Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrin to be a Fundamental Error that themselves go further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no true Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you have no agreement in specifying what be Fundamental Points neither have you any means to determine what they be for if you have any such means Why do you not agree You tell us The Creed contains all Points Fundamental which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge and agreement in such Points And no wonder For besides what I have said already in the beginning of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and paper spent to pâ—ove that the Creed contains all Fundamental Points you conclude It remains (a) Pag. 241. very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those Fundamental truths whereof consists the Unity of Faith and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remain very probable and so all remain as full of uncertainty as before The whole Rule say you and the sole Judge of your Faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldom doth qualifie them or declare whether they be or be nor absolutely necessary to Salvation You fall (b) Pag. 215. heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental Points which yet you are obliged in conscience to do if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no be have Faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in all part if we again and again demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairly I will perform on our behalf what we request of you and do here deliver a Catalogue wherein
they judge aright and that they proceed according to the Evidence that is given when they condemn a Thief or a murderer to the Gallows A Traveller is not always certain of his way but often mistaken and doth it therefore follow that he can have no assurance that Charing-cross is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall The ground of your Error here is your not distinguishing between Actual Certainty and Absolute Infallibility Geometricians are not infallible in their own Science yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated And Carpenters are not Infallible yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their Rule and Square So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her Definitions whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters she shall proceed according to her Rule yet being certain of the Infallibility of her Rule and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it she may be certain of the Truth of some particular Decrees and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true 27. Ad § 12. But if the Church may err in points not fundamental she may err in proposing Scripture and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been deceived already The Church may err in her Proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture if you understand by the Church any present Church of one denomination for example the Roman the Greek or so Yet have we sufficient certainty of Scripture not from the bare testimony of any present Church but from Universal Tradition of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part So that here you fall into the Fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For in effect this is the sense of your Argument Unless the Church be infallible we can have no certainty of Scripture from the Authority of the Church Therefore unless the Church be infallible we can have no certainty hereof at all As if a man should say If the Vintage of France miscarry we can have no Wine from France Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all And for the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rational assurance we can have of it than such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Books that is the consent of ancient Copies such I mean for the kind though it be far greater for the degree of it And if the Spirit of God give any man any other Assurance hereof this is not rational and discursive but supernatural and infused And Assurance it may be to himself but no Argument to another As for the infallibility of the Church it is so far from being a proof of Scriptures Incorruption that no proof can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible than any other and made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time to bring all under their Authority Now then if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted because the Church says so which is infallible I would demand again touching this very thing That there is an Infallible Church seeing it is not of it self evident how shall I be assured of it And what can he answer but that the Scripture says so in these and these places Hereupon I would ask him how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these places seeing it is possible and not altogether improbable that these men which desire to be thought Infallible when they had the government of all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot do so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28. Now for your Observation that some Books which were not always known to be Canonical have been afterwards received for such But never any Book or Syllable defined for Canonical was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal I demand touching the first sort Whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonical or not If not seeing the whole Faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations How can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canonical And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a Divine Truth which is not revealed by God If they were How then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture which hath suffered some Books of Canonical Scripture to be lost and others to lose for a long time their being Canonical at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalness unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore your Churche's omission to teach it for some Ages as an Article of Faith nay degrading it from the number of Articles of Faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 19. And then for the other part of it that never any Book or Syllable defined for Canonical was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphal Certainly it is a bold Asseveration but extremely false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom the Epistle of St. James and to the Hebrews were they by the Apostles approved for Canonical or no If not With what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrin is Apostolical Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you do so then I shall be bold to ask you what Books you meant in saying before Some Books which were not always known to be Canonical have been afterwards received Then for the Book of Macchabees I hope you will say it was defined for Canonical before S. Gregorie's time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it
after this manner Concerning which matter we do not amiss if we produce a testimony out of Books although not Canonical yet set forth for the edification of the Church For Eleazar in the Book of Macchabees c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonical is without question at least to question it Moreover because you are so punctual as to talk of words and syllables I would know whether before Sixtus Quintus his time your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture or not If not then was your Church surely a most Vigilant Keeper of Scripture that for 1500. years had not defined what was Scripture and what was not If it had then I demand Was it that set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it were that set forth by Sixtus then is it now condemned by Clement if that of Clement it was condemned I say but sure you will say contradicted and questioned by Sixtus If different from both then was it questioned and condemned by both and still lies under the condemnation But then lastly Suppose it had been true That both some Book not known to be Canonical had been received and that never any after receiving had been questioned How had this been a sign that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what mood or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premisses Certainly your flying to such poor signs as these are is to me a great sign that you labour with penury of better Arguments and that thus to catch at shadows and bulrushes is a shrewd sign of a sinking cause 3. Ad. § 13. We are told here That the general promises of Infallibility to the Church must not be restrained only to points Fundamental Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained The Argument put in form and made compleat by supply of the concealed Proposition runs thus The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any Age is as absolute and unlimited as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamentals Therefore neither is the Churche's Infallibility thus to be limited Or thus The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and Writing may be limited to Fundamentals as well as the Infallibility of the present Church But that is not to be done Therefore this also is not to be done Now to this Argument I answer that if by may be as well in the Major Proposition be understood may be as possibly it is true but impertinent If by it we understand may be as justly and rightly It is very pertinent but very false So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentals so another may limit the Apostles unto them also He may do it de facto but de jure he cannot that may be done and done lawfully this also may be done but not lawfully That may be done and if it be done cannot be confuted This also may be done but if it be done may easily be confuted It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph by five words taken out of Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church Shew where it is written That all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversie will be at end Besides there is not the same reason for the Churche's absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scripture's For if the Church fall into error it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we have recourse for the discovering and correcting their error Again there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation and if but wise men have the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the foundation shall not fail the building than that the building shall not fall from the foundation And though the building be to be of Brick or Stone and perhaps of Wood yet if it may be possibly they will have a Rock for their Foundation whose stability is a much more indubitable thing than the adherence of the structure to it Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonical Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul Built upon the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets therefore their stability in reason ought to be greater then the Churche's which is built upon them Again a dependant Infallibility especially if the dependance be voluntary cannot be so certain as that on which it depends But the Infallibility of the Church depends upon the Infallibility of the Apostles as the straitness of the thing regulated upon the straitness of the Rule and besides this dependance is voluntary for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule being nothing else but an aggregation of men of which every one hath free-will and is subject to passions and error Therefore the Churche's Infallibility is not so certain as that of the Apostles 31. Lastly Quid verba audiam cum facta videam If you be so Infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Mark and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signs following It is impossible that God should lye and that the eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falshood or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed therefore it was intirely true and in no part either false or uncertain I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certain divine Truth and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles For that the Apostles themselves even after the sending of the Holy Ghost were and through inadvertence or prejudice continued for a time in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth it is as I have already noted unanswerably evident from the Story of the Acts of the Apostles For notwithstanding our Saviour's express Warrant and Injunction To go and preach to all Nations yet until S. Peter was better informed by a Vision from Heaven and by the conversion of Cornelius both he and the rest of the Church held it unlawful for them to go or preach the Gospel to any but the Jews 32. And for those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence and not as divine Revelations why we should take them to be divine Revelations I see no reason nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles and God himself Therefore when S. Paul says in the 1. Epist to the Corinth 7.12 To the rest speak I not the Lord And again Concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the
one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Let this therefore be granted and what will come of it Why then you say we cannot believe her in propounding Canonical Books If you mean still as you must do unless you play the Sophister not upon her own Authority I grant it For we believe Canonical Books not upon the Authority of the present Church but upon Universal Tradition If you mean Not at all and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonical which the Church proposes I deny it There is no more consequence in the Argument than in this The devil is not infallible therefore if he sayes there is one God I cannot believe him No Geometrician is Infallible in all things therefore not in these things which he demonstrates M. Knot is not infallible in all things therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled Charity Maintained 37. But though the Reply be good Protestants cannot make use of it with any good coherence to this distinction and some other Doctrins of theirs because they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamental and what not and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others yet they might be sure it erred not in these To this I answer That if without dependance on Scripture they did know what were Fundamental and what not they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentals and erroneous in other things But seeing they ground their belief that such and such things only are Fundamentals only upon Scripture and goe about to prove their assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing that these only Points are Fundamental For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamental therefore this is true that these only are so For every Fresh-man in Logick knows that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But on the other side this reason is firme and demonstrative The Scripture is true in all things But the Scripture sayes that these only Points are the Fundamentals of Christian Religion therefore it is true that these only are so So that the knowledge of Fundamentals being it self drawn from Scripture is so far from warranting us to believe the Scripture is or may be in part True and in part False that it self can have no foundation but the Universal truth of Scripture For to be a Fundamental Truth presupposes to be a Truth now I cannot know any Doctrin to be a Divine and supernatural Truth or a true part of Christianity but only because the Scripture sayes so which is all true Therefore much more can I not know it to be a Fundamental Truth 38. Ad. § 16. To this Paragraph I answer Though the Church being not infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or Universal Tradition be it Fundamental or be it not Fundamental This you say we cannot in Points not Fundamental because in such we believe she may erre But this I know we can because though she may erre in some things yet she does not erre in what she proves though it be not Fundamental Again you say We cannot do it in Fundamentals because we must know what Points be Fundamental before we go to learn of her Not so But seeing Faith comes by Hearing and by hearing those who give testimony to it which none doth but the Church and the Parts of it I must learn of the Church or of some part of it or I cannot know any thing Fundamental or not Fundamental For how can I come to know that there was such a man as Christ that he taught such Doctrin that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in Confirmation of it that the Scripture of GOD's Word unless I be taught it So then the Church is though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary Introduction to it 39. But the Churches infallible Direction extending only to Fundamentals unless I know them before I go to learn of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her The reason and connexion of this consequence I fear neither I nor you do well understand And besides I must tell you you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you That the Church is an Infallible Director in Fundamentals For if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her but also learn of her what is Fundamental and take all for Fundamental which she delivers to be such In the performance whereof if I knew any one Church to be Infallible I would quickly be of that Church But good Sir you must needs do us this favour to be so acute as to distinguish between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide in Fundamentals That there shall be alwaies a Church infallible in Fundamentals we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be alwais a Church But that there shall be alwaies such a Church which is an infallible Guide in Fundamentals this we deny For this cannot be without setling a known Infallibility in some one known Society of Christians as the Greek or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which Guide men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentals A man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himself and to himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A Man or a Church that were invisible so that none could know how to repair to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be in himself infallible You see then there is a wide difference between these two and therefore I must beseech you not to confound them nor to take the one for the other 40. But they that know what Points are Fundamental otherwise than by the Churches Authority learn not of the Church Yes they may learn of the Church that the Scripture is the Word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamental others are not so and consequently learn even of the Church even of your Church that all is not Fundamental nay all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so Neither do I see what hinders but a man may learn of a Church how to confute the errors of that Church which taught him as well as of my Master in Physick or the Mathematicks I may learn those rules and principles by which I may confute my Master's erroneous Conclusions 41. But you ask If the Church be not an Infallible
Trents profession To receive them and the written Word with like affection of Piety are now rejected and neglected by the Church of Rome For example Immersion in Baptism Tasting a mixture of milk and honey presently after Abstaining from Baths for a week after Accounting it an impiâ—ty to pray kneeling on the Lord's Day or between Easter and Pentecost I say having reckoned up these and other Traditions in Chap 3. He adds another in the 4. of the Veiling of Women And then adds Since I find no law for this it follows that Tradition must have given this observation to custom which shall gain in time Apostolique Authority by the interpretation of the reason of it By these examples therefore it is declared That the observing of unwritten Tradition being confirmed by custom may be defended The perseverance of the observation being a good testimony of the goodness of the Tradition Now Custom even in civil affairs where a Law is wanting passeth for a Law Neither is it material on which it is grounded Scripture or reason seeing reason is commendation enough for a Law Moreover if Law be grounded on reason all that must be Law which is so grounded A quocunque productum Whosoever is the producer of it Do ye think it is not lawful Omni fideli for every faithful man to conceive and constitute Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation seeing the Lord says Why even of our selves judge ye not what is right And a little after This reason now demand saving the respect of the Tradition A quocunque Traditore censetur nec Authorem respiciens sed Authoritatem From whatsoever Tradition it comes neither regard the Author but the Authority Quicunque Traditor Any Author whatsoever is Founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the Direction then was (b) Hier. Pracepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45. No less you say is S. Chrysostom for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as Universal as the Tradition of the undoubted Books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither doth being written make the Word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the less infallible Not therefore in her Universal Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this Point when you speak you shall have an Answer but hitherto you do but wander 46. But let us see what S. Chrysostom says They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Julius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many works which our Saviour did which S. John supposes would not have been contained in a world of Books if they had been written or if God by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much more a faithful keeper Records are than Report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitely more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his Providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the Obligation of believing them for every Obligation ceaseth when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive Interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholique Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few ages after Christ So that if we consult the Ancient Interpreters we shal hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinal Perron in his Discourse of Traditions having alledged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us We must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist to the Thess yet were afterwards written and in other Books of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist which was never written that he lays this injunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist But what if they did not perform their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shal we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to Salvation to be lost and he hath suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such Authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to do that which you cannot do your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what witholdeth Or do you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can ye or dare you say this or this was this hinderance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot go then and vaunt your Church for the only Watchful Faithful Infallible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine Faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodness of God who seeing that what was not written was in such
of Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely If this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouths with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require For if to set down such a Proposition wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serve you instead of a Catalogue you shall have Catalogues enough As we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe There 's one Catalogue We are obliged under Pain of damnation to believe all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word and all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what those Doctrins are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods Word Then I beseech you do us reason and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church-proposals without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Bankrupts 54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we find with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by Believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know Whether your Churches Infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no and if any what they be I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholike visible Church In particular whether the Decree of the Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging Proposal Whether men without danger of Damnation may examin such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Councel without the Pope's Confirmation be such an obliging Proposal or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtful who is Pope Whether the Decree of a general Councel confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councel confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrin not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrin or practice to be Tradition or to be the Doctrin or practice of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to believe every Text of the vulgar Bible now authorized by the Roman Church to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholike visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and opportunity be not bound to endevour to know explicitely the Proposals of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not save him that actually and explicitely disbelieves some Doctrin of the Church not knowing it to be so and actually believes some damnable Heresie as that God hath the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation to believe an Errour Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can have that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you mean all that ever she proposed or that only which she now proposeth and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and proposed as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this Declaration afterward If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under pain of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical at least not to disbelieve it and believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans Salvation to use the best means he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you have given fair and ingenuous Answers you shall hear farther from me 55. Ad § 20. At the first entrance into this Paragraph From our own Doctrin That the Church cannot erre in Points necessary it is concluded if we are wise we must forsake it in nothing lest we should forsake it in something necessary To which I answer First that the supposition as you understand it is falsly imposed upon us and as we understand it will do you no service For when we say that there shall be a Church alwaies some where or other unerring in Fundamentals our meaning is but this that there shall be alwaies a Church to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentals for if it should do so it would want the very Essence of a Church and therefore cease to be a Church But we never annexed this priviledge to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greek or the Roman Church which if we had done and set up some setled certain Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our Guide in Fundamentals then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty have
believed Now all these sorts of Doctrins are impertinent to the present Question For D. Potter never affirmed either that the necessary duties of a Christian or that all Truths piously credible but not necessary to be believed or that all Truths necessary to be believed upon the supposal of divine Revelation were specified in the Creed For this he affirms only of such speculative divine Verities which God hath commanded particularly to be preached to all and believed by all Now let the Doctrins objected by you be well considered and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded and then of all these Instances against D. Potter's Assertion there will not remain so much as one 33. First the Questions touching the conditions to be performed by us to obtain remission of sins the Sacraments the Commandements and the possibility of keeping them the necessity of imploring the Assistance of Gods Grace and Spirit for the keeping of them how far obedience is due to the Church Prayer for the Dead the cessation of the old Law are all about Agenda and so cut off upon the first consideration 34. Secondly the Question touching Fundamentals is profitable but not fundamental He that believes all Fundamentals cannot be damned for any error in Faith though he believe more or less to be Fundamental than is so That also of the procession of the Holy-Ghost from the Father and the Son of Purgatory of the Churches Visibility of the Books of the New-Testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the Primitive Church until I see better reason for the contrary than the bare authority of men I shall esteem of the same condition 35. Thirdly These Doctrins That Adam and the Angels sinned that there are Angels good and bad that those Books of Scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the Church are the Word of God that S. Peter had no such Primacy as you pretend that the Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith and consequently that no necessary Doctrine is unwritten that there is no one Society or Succession of Christians absolutely infallible These to my understanding are Truths plainly revealed by God and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so but not so necessary that every man and woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be divine Revelations and explicitely to believe them And for this reason these with innumerable other Points are to be referred to the third sort of Doctrins above-mentioned which were never pretended to have place in the Creed There remains one only Point of all that Army you mustered together reducible to none of these heads and that is that God is and is a Remunerator which you say is questioned by the denyal of Merit But if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this Point and the Doctrine of merit me-thinks with as much reason and more charity you might conclude That we hold Merit because we hold this Point than that we deny this Point because we deny Merit Besides when Protestants deny the Doctrine of Merits you know right-well for so they have declared themselves a thousand times that they mean nothing else but with David that their well-doing extendeth not is not truly beneficial to God with our Saviour when they have done all which they are commanded they have done their duty only and no curtesie And lastly with S. Paul that all which they can suffer for God and yet suffering is more then doing is not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed So that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying Merit or you must discharge their Doctrin of this odious consequence or you must charge it upon David and Paul and Christ himself Nay you must either grant their denial of true Merit just and reasonable or you must say that our good actions are really profitable to God that they are not debts already due to him but voluntary and undeserved Favours and that they are equal unto and well worthy of eternal glory which is prepared for them As for the inconvenience which you so much fear That the denial of Merit makes God a Giver only and not a Rewarder I tell you good Sir you fear where no fear is And that it is both most true on the one side that you in holding good Works meritorious of eternal glory make God a Rewarder only and not a Giver contrary to plain Scripture affirming that The gift of God is eternal life And that it is most false on the other side that the Doctrin of Protestants makes God a Giver only and not a Rewarder In as much as their Doctrin is That God gives not Heaven but to those which do something for it and so his Gift is also a Reward but withal that whatsoever they do is due unto God before-hand and worth nothing to God worth nothing in respect of Heaven and so mans work is no Merit and Gods Reward is still a Gift 36. Put the case the Pope for a reward of your service done him in writing this Book had given you the honor and means of a Cardinal would you not not only in humility but in sincerity have professed that you had not merited such a Reward And yet the Pope is neither your Creator nor Redeemer nor Preserver nor perhaps your very great Benefactor sure I am not so great as God Almighty and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as God hath in respect of precedent Obligations Besides the work you have done him hath been really advantagious to him and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the fore-mentioned Reward And therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you have or hope to have deserved immortal happiness I beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a Cardinals cap than a Crown of immortal glory and with that Cardinal to prefer a part in Paris before a part in Paradise 37. In the next Paragraph you beat the air again and fight manfully with your own shadow The Point you should have spoken to was this That there are some Points of simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed which yet are not contained in the Creed Instead hereof you trouble your self in vain to demonstrate That many important Points of Faith are not contained in it which yet D. Potter had freely granted and you your self take particular notice of his granting of it All this pains therefore you have imployed to no purpose saving that to some negligent Reader you may seem to have spoken to the very Point because that which you speak to at the first hearing sounds somewhat near it But such a one I must intreat to remember there be many more Points of Faith than there be Articles of Simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed And that though all of
the former sort are not contained in the Creed yet all of the latter sort may be As for your Distinction between Heresies that have been and Heresies that are and Heresies that may be I have already proved it vain and that whatsoever may be an Heresie that is so and whatsoever is so that alwayes hath been so ever since the publication of the Gospel of Christ The Doctrine of your Church may like a Snow-ball increase with rowling and again if you please melt away and decrease But as Christ Jesus so his Gospel is yesterday and today and the same for ever 38. Our Saviour sending his Apostles to preach gave them no other Commission than this Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy-Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you These were the bounds of their Commission If your Church have any larger or if she have a Commission at large to teach what she pleaseth and call it the Gospel of Christ let her produce her Letters-patents from heaven for it But if this be all you have then must you give me leave to esteem it both great sacriledge in you to forbid any thing be it never so small or ceremonious which Christ hath commanded as the receiving of the Communion in both kinds and as high a degree of presumption to enjoyn men to believe that there are or can be any other Fundamental Articles of the Gospel of Christ then what Christ himself commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verities 39. Ad § 16 17. The saying of the most learned Prelate and excellent man the Arch-Bishop of Armach is only related by D. Potter p. 155. and not applauded though the truth is both the Man deserves as much applause as any man and his saying as much as any saying it being as great and as good a Truth and as necessary for these miserable times as possibly can be uttered For this is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Unity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of Opinions touching matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Unity in Communion 40. Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle unless that could be done which is impossible to be performed though it be often pretended that is unless it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves What then remains but that the other way must be taken Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high Points of Faith and Obedience wherein they agree than upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectual to joyn them in one Communion than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them When I say in one Communion I mean in a common Profession of those Articles of Faith wherein all consent A joynt-worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful and a mutual performance of all those works of Charity which Christians owe one to another And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of than to demonstrate that what was universally believed of al Christians if it were joyned with a love of truth and with holy obedience was sufficient to bring men to heaven For why should men be more rigid then God Why should any error exclude any man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of eternal Salvation Now that Christians do generally agree in all those Points of Doctrin which are necessary to Salvation it is apparent because they agree with one accord in believing all those Books of the Old New Testament which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted Word of God And it is so certain that in all these Books all necessary Doctrins are evidently contained that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent that in every one of their Books they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospel of Christ For what reason can be imagined that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet as apparently all of them have done put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospel of Christ would do so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospel of Christ for the Indians think you he would have left out any Fundamental Doctrin of it If not I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Matthew and S. Mark and S. Luke and S. John as you do of Xaverius Besides if every one of them have not in them all necessary Doctrins how have they complyed with their own design which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospel of Christ and not a part of it Or how have they not deceived us in giving them such Titles By the whole Gospel of Christ I understand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes up the Covenant between God and man Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospel of S. Mark and S. John I believe every considering man will be inclinable to believe that then without doubt it is contained with the advantage of many other profitable things in the larger Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke And that S. Mark 's Gospel wants no necessary Article of this Covenant I presume you will not deny if you believe Irenaeus when he says Matthew to the Hebrews in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospel When Peter and Paul did preach the Gospel and found the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the scholar of Peter delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by Peter and Luke and the follower of Paul compiled in a Book the Gospel which was preached by him And afterwards John residing in Asia in the City of Ephesus did himself also set forth a Gospel 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques that pretended as you know who do now adays that some necessary Doctrins of the Gospel were unwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must mean sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not Tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospel which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some other
before I told you if you will believe all the Points of the Creed you cannot choose but believe all the Points of it that are Fundamental though you be ignorant which are so and which are not so Now I believe your desire to know which are Fundamentals proceeds only from a desire to be assured that you do believe them which seeing you may be assured of without knowing which they be what can it be but curiosity to desire to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your self herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as far to seek as we in this Point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter Fundamental and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain Whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Burial his Descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be Points of their own nature and matter Fundamental Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63. But you will say at least they give this certain Rule that all Points defined by Christ's visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain Rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonical and submits himself indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things Fundamental and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides What certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I do not understand and as little why all Points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your self to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamental truths But you will say D. Potter himself acknowledges that you do not err in Fundamentals If he did so yet me-thinks you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemn of error in many other matters Perhaps excess of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably than he should do But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hopes that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaims them damnable and such as he fears will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64. Ad § 20 21 22 〈◊〉 In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potter's Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your self instead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed contains not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptism is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For. D. Potter as you have also confessed never said nor undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all Points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposal not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Now neither of these objections do any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrin all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonical Nor the second because Baptism is not a matter of Faith but practice not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at than builds upon in answering these objections as the Creeds being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregery of Valentia in the place above cited seems to me to confess to have been the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creeds intimating the authority of Canonical Scripture and making mention of Baptism These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirm that the Creed contains all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some Point of simple belief necessary to be explicitely believed which is not contained either in terms or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confess I cannot But all this while you do but trifle and are so far from hitting the Mark that you rove quite beside the Butt 65. Ad § 23 24 25. D. Potter demands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed than the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgment of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to do and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which contains not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of simple Faith Now though the Apostles Belief be in the former sense a larger thing than that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your self have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingness to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of Which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large
pretend or only as you say I know not what is another Question and which comes now to be farther examined D. Potter in confirmation of it besides the authorities which you formerly shifted off with so egregious tergiversation urges five several Arguments 73. The sense of the first is this If all the necessary Points of simple of Belief be not comprized in the Creed it can no way deserve the name of the Apostles Creed as not being their Creed in any sense but only a part of it To this you Answer § 25. Upon the same affected ambiguity c. Answ It is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent but that was not the Question But whether all the Points of simple belief which they taught as necessary to be explicitely believed be not contained in it And if thus much at least of Christian Religion be not comprized in it I again desire you to inform me How it could be called the Apostles Creed 74. Four other Reasons D. Potter urges to the same purpose grounded upon the practice of the Ancient Church The last whereof you answer in the second part of your Book But to the rest drawn from the ancient Churches appointing her Infants to be instructed for matters of simple belief only in the Creed From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptism and of Strangers to her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed you have not for ought I can perceive thought fit to make any kind of Answer 75. The difficulties of the 27. and last § of this Chapter have been satisfied So that there remains unexamined only the 26. Section wherein you exceed your self in Sophistry Especially in that trick of Cavillers which is to answer objections by other objections an excellent way to make controversies endless D. Potter desires to be resolved Why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed and be altogether silent of others Instead of resolving him in this difficulty you put another to him and that it is Why are some Points not Fundamental expressed in it rather than others of the same quality Which demand is so far from satisfying the former Doubt that it makes it more intricate For upon this ground it may be demanded How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Articles simply necessary and put in others not necessary especially if their intention were as you say it was to deliver it in such Articles as were fittest for those times Unless which were wondrous strange unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times than necessary But now to your Question the Answer is obvious These unnecessary things might be put in because they were circumstances of the necessary Pontius Pilate of Christ's Passion The third day of the Resurrection Neither doth the adding of them make the Creed ever a whit the less portable the less fit to be understood and remembred And for the contrary reasons other unnecessary things might be left out Beside who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affectation And therefore not so great a fault nor deserving such a censure as the omission of any thing essential to the work undertaken and necessary to the end proposed in it 76. You demand again as it is no hard matter to multiply demands Why our Saviour's descent to Hell and Burial was expressed end not his Circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings and working of Miracles I answer His Resurrection Ascension and Sitting at the right hand of God are very great Miracles and they are expressed Besides S. John assures us That the Miracles which Christ did were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed but for a farther end that we might believe that Jesus was the Christ and believing have eternal life He therefore that believe this may be saved though he have no explicite and distinct faith of any Miracle that our Saviour did His Circumcision and Manifestation to the Wise men for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings are neither things simply necessary to be known nor have any neer relation to those that are so As for his Descent into hell it may for ought you know be put in as a thing necessary of it self to be known If you ask why more than his Circumcision I refer you to the Apostles for an answer who put that in and left this out of their Creed and yet sure were not so forgetful after the receiving of the Holy Ghost as to leave out any prime and principal foundation of the Faith which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr. 2. c. 10. num Likewise his Burial was put in perhaps as necessary of it self to be known But though it were not yet hath it manifestly so near relation to these that are necessary his Passion and Resurrection being the Consequent of the one and the Antecedent of the other that it is no marvel if for their sakes it was put in For though I verily believe that there is no necessary Point of this nature but what is in the Creed yet I do not affirm because I cannot prove it that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary You demand thirdly Why did they not express Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamental Points of Faith tending to practice as well as those which rest in Belief I answer Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary Points which rest in Belief which appears because of practical Points there is not in it so much as one 77. D. Potter subjoyns to what is said above That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church and sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us believe we have all when we have not all This consequence you deny and neither give reason against it nor satisfie his reason for it which yet in my judgment is good and concluding The Proposition to be proved is this That if your Doctrin were true this short Creed I believe the Roman Church to be infallible would have been better that is more effectual to keep the believers of it from Heresie and in the true Faith than this Creed which now we have A Proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your Religion or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope do not rightly apprehend the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of these several supposed Creeds 78. The former Creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the believers of it An impossibility of being in any formal Heresie A necessity of
being prepared in mind to come out of all Error in Faith or material Heresie which certainly you will not deny or if you do you pull down the only pillar of your Church and Religion and deny that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole Book 79. The latter Creed which now we have is so uneffectual for these good purposes that you your self tell us of innumerable gross damnable Heresies that have been are and may be whose contrary Truths are neither explicitly nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed So that no man by the belief of this Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefs that it is more likely to ensnare them into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary Points of Faith which is apt as experience shews to mis-guide men into this as you conceive it pernitious error That believing the Creed they believe all necessary Points of Faith whereas indeed according to you they do not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better than that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed propos'd by me I believe the Roman Church to be infallible if your doctrin be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrin be true would without controversie be better than the latter 80. But say you by this kind of arguing one might infer quite contrary If the Apostles Creed contain all Points necessary to Salvation What need have we of any Church to teach us And consequently what need of the Article of the Church To which I answer that having compared your inference and D. Potter's together I cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them nor any shew of Reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it Much less why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the belief of a part of it unnecessary As well for ought I understand you might avouch this inference to be as good as D. Potters The Apostles Creed contains all things necessary therefore there is no need to believe in God Neither doth it follow so well as D. Potter's Argument follows That if the Apostles Creed contains all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechisms wherein are added divers other Particulars are superfluous For these other Particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable Points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still contain all Points of Belief that are simply necessary These therefore are poor consequences but no more like D. Potters than an apple is like an oister 81. But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it at length you promise us news and pretend to grant it But what is that which you mean to grant That the Apostles did put no Article in their Creed but only that of the Church Or that if they had done so they had done better than now they have done This is D. Potter's inference out of your Doctrin and truly if you should grant this this were news indeed Yes say you I will grant it but only thus far that Christ hath referred us only to his Church Yea but this is clean another thing and no news at all that you should grant that which you would fain have granted to you So that your dealing with us is just as if a man should proffer me a courtesie and pretend that he would oblige himself by a note under his hand to give me twenty pound and instead of it write that I owe him forty and desire me to subsctibe to it and be thankful Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberal 82. You tell us afterward but how it comes in I know not that it were a childish argument The Creed contains not all things necessary Ergo It is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means Ergo She must teach us without means These indeed are childish arguments but for ought I see you alone are the father of them for in D. Potter's book I can neither meet with them nor any like them He indeed tels you that if by an impossible supposition your Doctrin were true another and a far shorter Creed would have been more expedient even this alone I believe the Roman Church to be infallible But why you should conclude he makes this Creed which we have unprofitable because he says another that might be conceived upon this false supposition would be more profitable or that he lays a necessity upon the Church of teaching without means or of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught these things are so subtil that I cannot apprehend them To my understanding by those words And sent us to the Church for all the rest he does rather manifestly imply that the rest might be very well not only profitable but necessary and that the Church was to teach this by Creeds or Catechisms or Councels or any other means which she should make choice of for being Infallible she could not chuse amiss 83. Whereas therefore you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows that the Apostles if your doctrin be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we have if in stead thereof they had commanded in plain terms that for mens perpetual direction in the Faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to have taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion For then the Church not having learnt it of them could not have taught it us This therefore I do not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they have written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrin which they did preach and done all other things as they have done besides the composing their Symbol I say if your doctrin were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the Church of Christ if they had never composed their Symbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary Points of simple Belief and no distinctive mark as a Symbol should
way How come you on the suddain to hold the Determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That General Councels may erre even fundamentally And doe you now say with us that to oppose the Declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresie which is a Point so often impugned by you 43. It is therefore most evident that no pretended Scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and ought to have rectified by means enough if Pride Ambition Obstinacy c. had given him leave I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ and I beseech all Protestants for the love they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Blood of our Blessed Saviour attentively to ponder and unpartially to apply to their own Conscience what this Man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he did my trembling heart (p) Tom. 2. Germ. Ien fol. 9. et tom 2. Witt. of anno 1562. de abrog Miss privat fol. 244. beat within me and reprehending me object against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Do so many words erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And in another place he saith Dost thou who art but One and of no (q) Tom. 5. Ano not brevis account take upon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councels the Customes the multitudes and greatness of wise men Whom do not these Mountains of arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soul that he often wisht and desired that he had (r) Colloq mensal fol. 158. never begun this business wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried (f) Prefat in tom German Ien. in eternal oblivion Behold what remorse Luther felt and how he wanted no strength of malice to cross his own conscience and therefore it was no scruple or conceived obligation of conscience but some other motives which induced him to oppose the Church And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter and strength to master all reluctations of conscience heare an example or two for that purpose Of Communion under both kinds thus he saith If the Councel (t) De formula missae should in any case decree this least of all would we then use both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councel and the Decree we would use either but one kind only or neither or in no case both Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience that to use neither kind was against our Saviours command Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of as you said all men ought to do And that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart and if occasion had been offered would have been as good as his word mark what he saith of the Elevation of the Sacrament I did know (u) In parva Confess the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatrical yet nevertheless I did retain it in the Church at Wittemberg to the end I might vex the Devil Carolostadius Was not this a Conscience large and capaciouâ— enough that could swallow Idolatry Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome as these men are wont to blaspheme if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberg If Carolostadius Luther's off-spring was the Devil who but himself must be his dam Is Almighty God wont to lend such Furies to preach the Gospel And yet further which makes most directly to the point in hand Luther in his Book of abrogating the Private Mass exhorts the Augustine Fryers of Wittemberg who first abrogated the Mass that even against their Conscience accusing them they should persist in what they had begun Vid. Tan. tom 2. disput 1. q. 2. dub 4. n. 108. acknowledging that in some things he himself had done the like And Joannes Mathesius a Lutheran Preacher saith Antonius Musa the Parish Priest (w) In orat Germ. 12. de Luth. of Rocklitz recounted to me that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the Doctor he means Luther that he himself could not believe what he preached to others And that D. Luther answered Praise and thanks be to God that this happens also to others for I had thought it had happened only to me Are not these conscionable and fit Reformers And can they be excused from Schism under pretence that they held themselves obliged to forsake the Roman Church If then it be damnable to proceed against ones Conscience what will become of Luther who against his Conscience persisted in his division from the Roman Church 44. Some are said to flatter themselves with another pernicious conceit that they forsooth are not guilty of sin Because they were not the first Authors but only are the continuers of the Schism which was already begun 45. But it is hard to believe that any man of judgment can think this excuse will subsist when he shall come to give up his final account For according to this reason no Schism will be damnable but only to the Beginners Whereas contrarily the longer it continues the worse it grows to be and at length degenerates to Heresie as Wine by long keeping grows to be Vinegar but not by continuance returns again to his former nature of Wine Thus S. Augustine saith that Heresie is (x) Lib. 2. cont Cresc c. 7. Schism inveterate And in another place We object to you only the (y) Ep. 164. crime of Schism which you have also made to become Heresie by evil persevering therein And S. Hierom saith Though Schism (z) Upon these words ad Tit. 3. Haereticum hominem c. in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be different from Heresie yet there is no Schism which doth not fain to it self some Heresie that it may seem to have departed from the Church upon just cause And so indeed it falleth out For men may begin upon passion but afterward by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintain their Schism as lawful they fall into some Heresie without which their Separation could not be justified with any colour as in our present case the very affirming that it is lawful to continue a Schism unlawfully begun is an errour against the main principle of Christianity that it is not lawful for any Christian to live out of Gods Church within which alone Salvation can be had Or that it is not damnable to disobey her decrees according to the words of our Saviour If he shall not hear (a)
contempt Dissimulation Opposition Oppression of them may consist with salvation I truly for my part though I hope very well of all such as seeking all truth find that which is necessary who endeavouring to free themselves from all Errors any way contrary to the purity of Christianity yet fail of performance and remain in some yet if I did not find in my self a love and desire of all profitable truth If I did not put away idleness and prejudice and worldly affections and so examin to the bottom all my opinions of divine matters being prepar'd in mind to follow God and God only which way soever He shall lead me If I did not hope that I either do or endeavour to do these things certainly I should have little hope of obtaining salvation 62. But to oblige any man under pain of damnation to forsake a Church by reason of such errours against which Christ thought it superfluous to promise his assistance and for which he neither denies his grace here nor his glory hereafter what is it but to make the narrow way to heaven narrower than Christ left it Answ It is not for Christ himself hath obliged us hereunto He hath forbad us under pain of damnation to profess what we believe not and consequently under the same penalty to leave that Communion in which we cannot remain without this hypocritical profession of those things which we are convinc'd to be erroneous But then besides it is here falsely supposed as hath been shewed already that Christ hath not promised assistance to those that seek it but only in matters simply necessary Neither is there any reason why any Church even in this world should despair of victory over all errours pernitious or noxious provided she humbly and earnestly implore divine assistance depend wholly upon it and be not wanting to it Though a Triumph over all sin and errour that is security that she neither doth nor can err be rather to be desired than hoped for on earth being a felicity reserved for heaven 63. Ad § 21. But at least the Roman Church is as infallible as Protestants and Protestants as fallible as the Roman Church therefore to forsake the Roman Church for errours what is it but to flit from one erring Society to another Ans The inconsequence of this Argument is too apparent Protestants may err as well as the Church of Rome therefore they did so Boys in the Schools know that à Posse ad Esse the Argument follows not He is equally fallible who believes twice two to be four as he that believes them to be twenty yet in this he is not equally deceived and he may be certain that he is not so One Architect is no more infallible than another and yet he is more secure that his work is right and streight who hath made it by the level than he which hath made it by guess and by chance So he that forsakes the errours of the Church of Rome and therefore renounceth her communion that he may renounce the profession of her errours though he knows himself fallible as well as those whom he hath forsaken yet he may be certain as certain as the nature of the thing will bear that he is not herein deceived because he may see the doctrin forsaken by him repugnant to Scripture and the doctrin embraced by him consonant to it At least this he may know that the doctrin which he hath chosen to him seems true and the contrary which he hath forsaken seems false And therefore without remorse of conscience he may profess that but this he cannot 64. But we are to remember that according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to err in Fundamentals in which any private Reformer may fail therefore there was no necessity of forsaking the Church out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into damnable errours Answ The visible Church is free indeed from all errours absolutely destructive and unpardonable but not from all errour which in it is self damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them that keep themselves in them by their own voluntary and avoidable fault From such errours which are thus damnable D. Potter doth no where say that the visible Church hath any priviledge or exemption Nay you your self teach that he plainly teacheth the contrary and thereupon will allow him to be no more charitable to Papists than Papists are to Protestants and yet upon this affected mistake your Discourse is founded in almost forty places of your Book Besides any private man who truly believes the Scripture and seriously endeavours to know the will of God and to do it is as secure as the visible Church more secure than your Church from the danger of erring in fundamentals for it is impossible that any man so qualified should fall into any errour which to him will prove damnable For God requires no more of any man to his Salvation but his true endeavour to be saved Lastly abiding in your Churches Communion is so farr from securing me or any man from damnable errour that if I should abide in it I am certain I could not be saved For abide in it I cannot without professing to believe your entire doctrin true profess this I cannot but I must lie perpetually and exulcerate my conscience And though your errours were not in themselves damnable yet to resist the known Truth and to continue in the profession of known errours and falsehood is certainly a capital sin and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven 65. But neither is the Church of Protestants perfectly free from errours and corruptions so the Doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse by saying they are not fundamental as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed not to be fundamental And what man of judgment will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one Ans And yet you your self make large Discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to have some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgment continue in this Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as a Church supposed to be corrupted requires the belief and profession of her supposed corruptions as the condition of her Communion which this Church confessedly corrupted doth not What man of judgment will think it any disparagement to his judgment to preferr the better though not simply the best before that which is stark naught To preferr indifferent good health before a diseased and corrupted state of Body To preferr a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-run with weeds and thorns And therefore though Protestants have some Errours yet seeing they are neither so great as yours nor impos'd with such tyranny nor maintained with such obstinacy he that conceives it any disparagement to his
difference between justifying his separation from Schism by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawful matter to his lawful Soveraign should say to him Herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebel because I acknowledg you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawful should not he be an egregious Sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I do well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawful Soveraign Certainly he that joyns this acknowledgment with his necessitated obedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of disobedience doth ill Urge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceive that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to be the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allows you to be a Part of it 76. And whereas you pretend to find such unspeakable comfort herein that we cannot clear our selves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too dear For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damn men for errour who were without their own fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who have eyes to see and will not see who have ears to hear and will not hear this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperately inconsistent nor to say we must be damn'd unless you may be saved but that we assure our selves if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that we hope and I tell you again Spes est rei incertae nomen that some of you may possibly be saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77. For our brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that do so unless you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you do then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errours in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78. But Schism consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must profess you say that we agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamental points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schism divide from that Church which errs in any point of faith Fundamental or otherwise if she require the profession of this Error among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the later I deny the syllogism as having manifestly four tearms and being cosen-german to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79. But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be just and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which have understanding and means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to be slattered with hope of salvation they do cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques but D. Potter doth the former therefore he is a schismatique Ans No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and means to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church and therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80. Ad § 28 29. Whereas D. Potter says There is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves this you say is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your judgment that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism that to this day never any Theef or Murtherer should have been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know Whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not consorming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up Altar against Altar because having fallen in persecution they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the World because all the World would not excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Errour in Doctrin neither pernitious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety sepatate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious conversation they are impatient of their Churches censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any face or without extream impudency put in this plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a reformation of our selves This you reply
is no good justification because it may be pretended by any Schismatique Very true any Schismatique that can speak may say the same words as any Rebel that makes Conscience the cloak of his impious disobedience may say with Saint Peter and Saint John We must obey God rather than men But then the question is whether any Schismatique may say so truly And to this question you say just nothing but conclude because this defence may be abused by some it must be used by none As if you should have said S. Peter and S. John did ill to make such an answer as they made because impious Hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their Disobedience and Rebellion against the lawful commands of lawful Authority 81. But seeing their pretended Reformation consisted in forsaking the Churches corruptions their Reformation of themselves and their division from you falls out to be one and the same thing Just as if two men having been a long while companions in drunkenness one of them should turn sober this Reformation of himself and desertion of his companion in this ill custom would be one and the same thing and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all or his society in other things So Protestants forsaking their own former corruptions which were common to them with you could not choose but withal forsake you in the practice of these corruptions yet this they might and would have done without breach of Charity towards you and without a renunciation of your company in any act of piety and devotion confessedly lawful And therefore though both these were by accident joyned together yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at was not a separation from you but a reformation of themselves 82. Neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the Reformation which yet when you measure it without partiality you will find to be farr short of infinite nor their symbolizing in the general of forsaking your corruptions prove any thing to the contrary or any way advantage your design or make for your purpose For it is not any sign at all much less an evident sign that they had no setled design but only to forsake the Church of Rome for nothing but malice can deny that their intent at least was to reduce Religion to that original purity from which it was fallen The declination from which some conceiving to have begun though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in work and after their departure to have shewed it self more openly Others again believing that the Church continued pure for some Ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some aiming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times Others thinking they should do God and Men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fifth Ages Some taking their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the Decrees of Councels of the first five Ages certainly it is no great marvail that there was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholique written-Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow 83. Ad § 30 31 32. To this effect D. Potter p. 81 82. of his Book speaks thus If a Monastery should reformat it self and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline when others would not In this case could it be charged with Schism from others or with Apostacy from its rule and order So in a Society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from it could they be therefore said to separate from the Society He presumes they could not and from hence concludes that neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schism that is separating from the Church and making themselves no members of it if all they did was as indeed it was to reform themselves Which Cases I believe any understanding man will plainly see to have in them an exact parity of Reason and that therefore the Argument drawn from them is pressing and unanswerable And it may well be suspected that you were partly of this mind otherwise you would not have so presum'd upon the simplicity of your Reader as pretending to answer it to put another of your own making in place of it and then to answer that 84. This you do § 31 32. of this Chapter in these words I was very glad to find you in a Monastery c. Where I beseech the Reader to observe these things to detect the cunning of your tergiversation First That you have no reason to say That you found D. Potter in a Monastery and as little That you find him inventing wayes how to forsake his vocation and to maintain the lawfulness of Schism from the Church and Apostacy from a Religious Order Certainly the innocent case put by the Doctor of a Monastery reforming it self hath not deserved such grievous accusations Unless Reformation with you be all one with Apostacy and to forsake sin and disorder be to forsake ones Vocation And surely if it be so your vocations are not very lawlful your Religious Orders not very religious Secondly that you quite pervert and change D. Potters cases and instead of the case of a whole Monastery reforming it self when other Monasteries of their Order would not and of some men freeing themselves from the common disease of their Society when others would not you substitute two others which you think you can better deal with of some particular Monks upon pretence of the neglect of lesser monastical observances going out of their Monastery which Monastery yet did confessedly observe their substantial Vows and all Principal Statutes And of a diseased Reason quitting the company of those that were infected with the same disease though in their company there was no danger from his disease it being impossible that should be mortal and out of it no hope of escaping others like that for which he forsook the first infected Company I appeal now to any indifferent judge whether these cases be the same or neer the same with D. Potters Whether this be fair and ingenuous dealing in stead of his two Instances which plainly shewed it possible in other Societies and consequently in that of the Church to leave the faults of a Society and not leave being of it to foist in two others clean cross to the Doctors purpose of men under colour of faults abandoning the Society wherein they lived I know not what others may think of this dealing but
if this be a strange matter to you that which I shall tell you will be much stranger I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist and the day that he did so as all things that are done are perfected some day or other and yet thinks he was no Schismatique for doing so and desires to be informed by you whether or no he was mistaken The same man afterwards upon better consideration became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirm'd Protestant And yet this man thinks himself no more to blame for all these changes than a Travailer who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote City where he had never been as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven did yet mistake it and after find his error and amend it Nay he stands upon his justification so far as to maintain that his alterations not only to you but also from you by Gods mercy were the most satisfactory actions to himself that ever he did and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himself and his affections to those things which in this world are most pretious as wherein for Gods sake and as he was verily perswaded out of love to the Truth he went upon a cerain expectation of those inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible So that though there were much weakness in some of these alterations yet certainly there was no wickedness Neither does he yield his weakness altogether without Apologie seeing his deductions were rational and out of some Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists and which by his education had got possession of his understanding Ad § 40 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his Book to prove our Separation from you not only lawful but necessary hath these words Although we confess the Church of Rome in some sense to be a true Church and her errours to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she errs in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errours He means not in the belief of those errours for that is presupposed to be done already for whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that she errs hath for matter of belief forsaken that is ceased to believe those errours This therefore he meant not nor could 〈◊〉 mean but that whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that the Church of Rome erres cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errours And the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must profess what he believes not and practise what he approves not Which is no more than your self in thesi have divers times affirmed For in one place you say It is unlawful to speak any the least untruth Now he that professeth your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetual lie Again in another you have called them that profess one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errours the belief whereof they had already forsaken what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And lastly § 42. of this Chapter within three leaves after this whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable external obedience to the Declaration of the Church though perhaps erroneous provided it be in matter not of Faith but of Opinions or Rites condemning those men who by occasion of errours of this quality disturb the Churches peace and cast off her Communion Upon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter Sarcasm I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may err in some points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgment or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture I answer for him No It is not he but you that would have men do so not he who says plainly that whosoever is convinc'd in Conscience that any Church errs is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her profession and practice of these errours but you who find fault with him and make long discourses against him for thus affirming Not he who can easily wind himself out of your Imaginary Labyrinth by telling you that he no where denyes it lawful for any man to oppose any Church erring in matter of Faith for that he speaks not of matters of Faith at all but only of Rites and Opinions And in such matters he sayes indeed at first It is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgment to the publique But he presently explains himself by saying not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the publique resolution but besides that he may offer it to be considered of so far is he from requiring any sinful dissimulation Provided he do it with great Probability of Reason very modestly and respectfully and without separation from the Churches Communion It is not therefore in this case opposing a mans private judgment to the publique simply which the Doctor finds fault with But the degree only and malice of this Opposition opposing it factiously And not holding a mans own conceit different from the Church absolutely which here he censures But a factious advancing it and despising the Church so farr as to cast off her Communion because forsooth she errs in some opinion or useth some inconvenient though not impious Rites and Ceremonies Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there as if he required That men should dissemble against their Conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture But certainly a great deal less to quarrel with him for saying which is all that here he says That men under pain of damnation are not to dissemble but if they be convinc'd in conscience that your or any other Church for the reason is alike for all errs in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errours 105. But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat what more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falshoods and impertinencies The first falshood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Unless you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church errs in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet profess what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking
most certain and infallible wherein it surpasseth humane Opinion it must relie upon some motive and ground which may be able to give it certainly and yet not release it from Obscurity For if this motive ground or formal Object of Faith were any thing evidently presented to our understanding and if also we did evidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we believe our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but evident which as we said is against the nature of our faith If likewise the motive and ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us but were not in it self infallible it would leave our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therefore for the ground of our faith find out a motive obscure to us but most certain in it self that the act of faith may remain both obscure and certain Such a motive as this can be no other but the divine authority of Almighty God revealing or speaking those truths which our faith believes For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfâ—â—â— Certainty to our faith and yet not draw it out of obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can evince that God revealeth any supernatural truth since God hath been no less perfect than he is although hâ—â—â—â— never revealed any of those objects which we now believe 4 Nevertheless because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdom and sweetness doth conour with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper and exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endued with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Understanding any other then as the Apostle faith rationabile (f) Rom. 12.1 obsequium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appear if our Understanding were summoned to believe with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certain And therefore Almighty God obliging us under pain of eternal camnation to believe with greatest certainty divers verities not known by the light of natural reason cannot fail to furnish our Understanding with such inducements motives and arguments as may sufficiently perswade any mind which is not partial or passionate that the objects which we believe proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceived so Good that it cannot deceive according to the words of David Thy Testimonies are made (g) Psal 92. credible exceedingly These inducements are by Divines called argumenta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in one wisdom and prudence the objects of faith deserve credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God For without such reasons and inducements our judgment of faith could not be conceived prudent holy Scripture telling us that be who soon (h) Eccles 19. â— believes is light of heart By these arguments and inducements our Understanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility and the objects of faith retain their obsenrity because it is a different thing to be evidently credible and evidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not evidently see their doctrin to be true for then it had not been Faith but Science and all had been necessitated to believe which we see fell out otherwise but they were evidently convinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truth revealed by God 5 These evident arguments of Credibility are in great abundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetually existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we have from our next Predecessors and these from theirs upward till we come to the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour which gradation is known by evidence of sense by reading books or hearing what one man delivers to another And it is evident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in private ends did or could agree to tell one and the self same thing if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves as ancient Tertullian well saith How is it likely that so many (i) Praescript c. 28. and so great Churches should err in one saith Among many events there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs have varied But that which among many is sound to be One is not mistaken but delivered Dare then any body say that they erred who delivered it With this never-interrupted existence of the Church are joyned the many and great miracles wrought by mâ—n of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories over so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernal spirits and lastly the perpetual existence of so holy a Church being brought up to the Apostles themselves she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerful ways did communicate to their Doctrin to the Church of their times together with the divine Certainty which they received from our blessed Saviour himself revealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father and so we conclude with Tertullian We receive it from the Churches the Churches (k) Praese c. 21. 37. from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made known by means of holy Tradition we cannot conjoyn the present Church and doctrin with the Church and doctrin of the Apostles buâ— must invent some new means and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out and prove a true Church and faith independently of the preaching and writing of the Apostles neither of which can be known but by Tradition as is truly observed by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that (l) Praesc c. 22. there is no means to prove what the Apostles preached but by the same Church which they sounded 6 Thus then we are to proceed By evidence of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath always been a never interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles time believing professing and practising such and such doctrines By evident arguments of credibility as Miracles Sanctity Unity c. and by all those ways whereby the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour himself confirmed their doctrin we are assured that what the said never-interrupted Church proposeth doth deserve to be accepted and acknowledged as a divine truth By evidence of Sense we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrins as divine truths that is as revealed and testified by Almighty God By this divine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe and so the last period ground motive and formal object of our Faith is the infallible testimony of that supreme Verity which
3. Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla who went flying out of the Catholique Church because she had been justly checked by Caecilianus And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist saith Here did he first (x) Ep. 163. attempt to affirm that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth c. but because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby nevertheless they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meer necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread over the world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest than he who should affirm that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole Earth being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the Sect of the Donatists I have no desire to prosecure the similitude of Protestanes with Donatists by remembring that the Sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of Lucilla and Who is ignorant what influence two women the Mother and Daughter ministred to Protestancy in England Nor will I stand to observe their very likeness of phrase with the Donatists who called the Chair of Rome the Chair of pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot which is D. Potter's own phrase wherein he is less excusable than they because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ and therefore let him duly ponder these words of S. Augustin against the Donatists If I persecute him justly who detracts (y) Conc. super gest cum Emerit from his Neighbour why should I not presecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ and saith This is not she but this is an Harlot And least of all will I consider whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Dona i st who wrote against Parmenianus likewise a Donatist who blasphemed that the Church of Christ had perished as you do even in this your Book write against some of your Protestant Brethren or as you call them Zelots among you who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresie and yet remained among them even after Parmenianus had excommunicated him as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power and yet like Ticonius you remain in their Communion and come nor into that Church which is hath been and shall ever be universal For which very cause S. Augustin complains of Ticonius that although he wrote against the Donatists yet he was of an heart (z) De doctr Christ lib. 3. cap. 30. so extremely absurd as not to forsake them altogether And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes that although Ticonius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished yet he saw not saith this holy Father that which in good consequence (a) Cont. Parm. l. 1. cap. 1. he should have seen that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world who remained united not with them who were divided from the communion and unity of the same world but with such as did communicate with the whole world But Parmenianus and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which Ticonius maintained than by yielding thereto to be overcome by those Churches in Africa which enjoyed the Communion of that Unity which Ticonius defended from which they had divided themselves How firly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants I desire the Reader to consider But these and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists I willingly let pass and only urge the main point That since Luther's Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was because so forsooth they will needs have it in the Apostles time they must of necessity affirm heretically with the Donatists that the true and unsported Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O blasphemy an Harlot Moreover the same heresie follows out of the doctrin of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may err in points not fundamental because we have shewed that every errour against any one revealed truth is Heresie and damnable whether the matter be otherwise of it self great or small And how can the Church more truly be said to perish than when she is permitted to maintain a damnable Heresie Besides we will hereafter prove that by any act of Heresie all divine faith is lost and to imagine a true Church of faithful persons without any faith is as much as to fancy a living man without life It is therefore clear that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished yea they are worse than the Donatists who said that the Church remained at least in Africa whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant that for a long space before Luther she was no where at all But let us go forward to other reasons 18 The holy Scripture and Ancient Fathers do assign Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie according to that of S. John They went out (b) 2. Joan. 19. from us And Some who (c) Act. 15.24 went out from us And Out of you shall (d) Act. 20.30 arise men speaking perverse things And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Who ever (e) Lib. adversus haer c. 34. began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Universality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church But it is manifest that when Luther appeared there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman out of which she could depart as it is likewise wel known that Luther and his followers departed out of her Therefore she is no way liable to this Mark of Heresie but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words A Christian communicating (f) Dimid temp cap. 5. with the universal Church is a Catholique and he who is divided from her is an Heretique and Antichrist But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholique Church of those times because he began his Reformation by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church we must therefore say with S. Prosper that he was an Heretique c. Which likewise is no less clearly proved out of S. Cyprian saying Not we (g) Ep. 57. ad Damas departed from them but they from us and since Heresies and Schisms are bred afterwards while they make to themselves divers Conventicles they have forsaken the head and origin of Truth 19. And that we might not remain doubtful what Separation
it is which is the mark of Heresie the Ancient Fathers tell us more in particular that it is from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of Peter And therefore D. Potter need not to be so hot with us because we say and write that the Church of Rome in that sense as she is the Mother-Church of all others and with which all the rest agree is truly called the Catholique Church S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion (h) Lib. 1. Apolog of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon that Rock Whosoever shall eat the Lamb out of this house he is prophane If any shall not be in the Ark of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And elsewhere Which doth he (i) Ibid. lib. 3. call his faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen If he answer The Roman then we are Catholiques who have translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet farther Know thou that the k Roman faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions though an Angel should denounce otherwise than it hath once been preached S. Ambrose recounting how his Brother Satyrus inquiring for a Church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from shipwrack saith He called unto him (l) De obitu Satyri fratris the Bishop neither did he esteem any favour to be true except that of the true faith and he asked of him whether be agreed with the Catholique Bishops that is with the Roman Church And having understood that he was a Schismatique that is separated from the Roman Church he abstained from communicating with him Where we see the privâ—ledge of the Roman Church confirmed both by word and deed by doctrin and practice And the same Saint saith of the Roman Church From thence the Rites (m) Lib. 1. ep 4. ad Imperatores of Venerable Communion do flow to all Saint Cyprian saith They are bold (n) Epist 55. ad Cornel. to sail to the Chair of Peter and to the principal Church from whence Priestly Unity hath sprung Neither do they consider that they are Romans whose faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have access Where we see this holy Father joyns together the principal Church and the Chair of Peter and affirmâ—th that falshood not only hath not had but cannot have access to that Sea And elsewhere Thou wrotest that I should send (o) Epist 52. a Copy of the same letters to Cornelius our Colleague that laying aside all sollicitude he might now be assured that thou didst communicate with him that is with the Catholique Church What think you M. Doctor of these words Is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to communicate with the Catholique Church S. Irenaeus saith Because it were long to number the succession of all Chuâ—ches (p) Lib. 3 cont haer c. 3. we declaring the Tradition and faith preached to men and coming to us by Tradition of the most great most ancient and most known Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles coming to us by succession of Bishops we confound all those who any way either by evil complacence of themselves or vain glory or by blindness or ill opinion do gather otherwise than they ought For to this Church for a more powerful Principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithful people of what place soever in which Roman Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who are every where Saint Augustine saith It grieves us (q) In Psal coâ—t patrâ—m Donati to see you so to lie cut off Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter and consider in that order of Fathers who succeded to whom She is the Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome And in another place speaking of Caecilianus he saith He might contemâ— the conspiring (r) Ep. 162. multitude of his Enemies because he knew himself to be united by Communicatory letters both to the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique did alwayes flourish and to other Countâ—ies from whence the Gospel came first into Africa Ancient Tertullian saith If thou be neer Italy thou hast Rome whose (s) Praescr cap. 36. Authority is nâ—er at hand to us a happy Church into which the Apostles have poured all Doctrine together with their bloud Saint Basil in a letter to the Bishop of Rome saith In very deed that which was given (t) Epist ad Pont. Rom. by our Lord to thy Piety is worthy of that must excellent voyce which procâ—â—â—med thee Blessed to wit that thou mayst discern betwixt that which is counterfeit and that which is lawful and pure and without any diminution mayest preach the faith of our Ancestours Maximâ—nianus Bishop of Constantinople about twelve hundred years ago said All the bounds of the earth who have siâ—ccrely acknowledged our Lord and Catholiques through the whole world professing the true faith look upon the power of the Bishop of Rome as upon the Sun c. For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world elected him he speaks of S. Peter to whom he granted the Chair of Dectour to be principally possessed by a perpetual right of Priviledge that whosoever is desirous to know any Divine and profound thing may have recourse to the Oracle and Doctrin of this Instruction John Patriarch of Constantinople more than eleven hundred years ago in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda writeth thus Because (u) Epist ad Hormis P. P. the beginning of salvation is to conserve the rule of right Faith and in no wise to swarve from the Tradition of our Fore Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot fail saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church the proofs of deeds have made good those words because in the Sea Apostolical the Catholique Religion is alwayes conserved inviolable And again We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique Many other Authorities of the Ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose but these may serve to shew that both the Latin and Greek Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholique or an Heretique To have been united or divided from the Sea of Rome And I have purposely alleadged only such Authorities of Fathers as speak of the priviledges of the Sea of Rome as of things permanent and depending
though I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree infallibly certain of the truth of the things which we believe for this were to know and not believe neither is it possible unless our evidence of it be it natural or supernatural were of the highest degree yet I deny not but we ought to be and may be infallibly certain that we are to believe the Religion of Christ For first this is most certain that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and reason rather than against it Secondly this is as certain That wisdom and Reason require that we should believe those things which are by many degrees more credible and probable than the contrary Thirdly this is as certain that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of Christianity and what poor things they are which may be said against it either for any other Religion or for none at all it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible that Christian Religion is true than the contrary And from all these premisses this conclusion evidently follows that it is infallibly certain that we are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion 9 Your discourse therefore touching the fourth requisite to faith which is Prudence I admit so far as to grant 1. That if we were required to believe with certainty I mean a Moral certainty things no way represented as infallible and certain I mean morally an unreasonable obedience were required of us And so likewise were it were we required to believe as absolutely certain that which is no way represented to us as absolutely certain 2. That whom God obligeth to believe any thing he will not fail to furnish their understandings with such inducements as are sufficient if they be not negligent or perverse to perswade them to believe 3. That there is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible inducing men to believe the Truth of Christianity I say so credible that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdom and prudence the Articles of it deserve credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God 4. That without such reasons and inducements our choice even of the true faith is not to be commended as prudent but to be condemned of rashness and levity 10 But then for your making Prudence not only a commendation of a believer and a justification of his faith but also essential to it and part of the definition of it in that questionless you were mistaken and have done as if being to say what a man is you should define him A Reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy For as all Astronomers are men but all men are not Astronomers and therefore Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of Men where nothing should have place but what agrees to all men So though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may believe aright which are not wise I could wish with all my heart as Moses did that all the Lords people could Prophesie That all that believe the true Religion were able according to S. Peter's injunction to give a reason of the hope that is in them a reason why they hope for eternal happiness by this way rather than any other neither do I think it any great difficulty that men of ordinary capacities if they would give their mind to it might quickly be enabled to do so But should I affirm that all true believers can do so I suppose it would be as much against experience and modesty as it is against Truth and Charity to say as you do that they which cannot do so either are not at all or to no purpose true believers And thus we see that the foundations you build upon are ruinous and deceitful and so unfit to support your Fabrick that they destroy one another I come now to shew that your Arguments to prove Protestants Heretiques are all of the same quality with your former grounds which I will do by opposing clear and satisfying Answers in order to them 11 Ad § 13. To the first then delivered by you § 13. That Protestants must be Heretiques because they opposed divers Truths propounded for divine by the Visible Church I answer It is not heresie to oppose any truth propounded by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essential part of the Gospel of Christ 2. The Doctrins which Protestants opposed were not Truths but plain and impious falshoods Neither thirdly were they propounded as Truths by the Visible Church but only by a Part of it and that a corrupted Part. 12 Ad § 14. The next Argument in the next Particle tell us That every error against any doctrin revealed by God is damnable Heresie Now either Protestants or the Roman Church must err against the word of God But the Roman Church we grant perforce doth not err damnably neither can she because she is the Catholique Church which we you say confess cannot err damnably Therefore Protestants must err against God's word and consequently are guilty of formal Heresie Whereunto I answer plainly that there be in this argument almost as many falshoods as assertions For neither is every error against any Doctrin revealed by God a damnable Heresie unless it be revealed publiquely and plainly with a command that a I should believe it 2. D. Potter no where grants that the Errors of the Roman Church are not in themselves damnable though he hopes by accident they may not actually damn some men amongst you and this you your self confess in divers places of your Book where you tell us that he allows no hope of Salvation to those amongst you whom ignorance cannot exouse 3. You beg the Question twice in taking for granted First That the Roman Church is the truly Catholique Church which without much favour can hardly pass for a part of it And again that the Catholique Church cannot fall into any error of it self damnable for it may do so and still be the Catholique Church if it retain those Truths which may be an antidote against the malignity of this error to those that held it out of a simple un-affected ignorance Lastly though the thing be true yet I might well require some proof of it from you that either Protestants or the Roman Church must err against God's word For if their contradiction be your only reason then also you or the Dominicans must be Heretiques because you contradict one another as much as Protestants and Papists 13 Ad § 15. The third Argument pretends that you have shewed already that the Visible Church is Judge of Controversies and therefore infallible from whence you suppose that it follows that to oppose her is to oppose God To which I answer that you have said only and not shewed that the Visible Church is Judg of Controversies
And indeed how can she be Judge of them if she cannot decide them And how can she decide them if it be a question Whether she be judge of them That which is question'd it self cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide other questions and much less this question Whether it have Authority to judge and decide all questions 2. If she were Judge it would not follow that she were infallible for we have many Judges in our Courts of Judicature yet none infallible Nay you cannot with any modesty deny that every man in the world ought to judge for himself what Religion is truest and yet you will not say that every man is infallible 3. If the Church were supposed infallible yet it would not follow at all much less manifestly that to oppose her Declaration is to oppose God unless you suppose also that as she is infallible so by her opposers she is known or believed to be so Lastly If all this were true as it is all most false yet were it to little purpose seeing you have omitted to prove that the Visible Church is the Roman 14 Ad § 16. Instead of a fourth Argument this is presented to us That if Luther were an Heretique then they that agreed with him must be so And that Luther was a formal Heretique you endeavour to prove by this most formal Syllogism To say the Visible Church is not Universal is properly an Heresie But Luther 's Reformation was not Universal Therefore it cannot be excused from formal Heresie Whereunto I Answer first to the first part that it is no way impossible that Luther had he been the inventor and first broacher of a false Doctrin as he was not might have been a formal Heretique and yet that those who follow him may be only so materially and improperly and indeed no Heretiques Your own men out of St. Austin distinguish between Haeretici Haereticorum sequaces And you your self though you pronounce the leaders among the Arrians formal Heretiques yet confess that Salvian was at least doubtful whether those Arrians who in simplicity followed their Teachers might not be excused by ignorance And about this suspension of his you also seem suspended for you neither approve nor condemn it Secondly to the second part I say that had you not presumed upon our ignorance in Logick as well as Metaphysicks and School-Divinity you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of sand for a formal Syllogism It is even Consen-German to this To deny the Resurrection is properly an Heresie But Luther's Reformation was not Universal Therefore it cannot be excused from formal Heresie Or to this To say the Visible Church is not Universal is properly an Heresie But the preaching of the Gospel at the beginning was not Universal Therefore it cannot be excused from formal Heresie For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not deny the Resurrection so many he also not deny the Churches Universality And as the Apostles who preached the Gospel in the beginning did believe the Church Universal though their preaching at the beginning was not so So Luther also might and did believe the Church Universal though his Reformation were but particular I say he did believe it Universal even in your own sense that is Universal de jure though not de facto And as for Universality in fact he believed the Church much more Universal than his Reformation For he did conceive as appears by your own Allegations out of him that not only the Part reformed was the true Church but also that they were Part of it who needed Reformation Neither did he ever pretend to make a new Church but to reform the old one Thirdly and lastly to the first proposition of this unsyllogistical syllogism I answer That to say the true Church is not always de facto universal is so far from being an Heresie that it is a certain truth known to all those that know the world and what Religions possess far the greater part of it Donatus therefore was not to blame for saying that the Church might possibly be confin'd to Africk but for saying without ground that then it was so And S. Augustin as he was in the right in thinking that the Church was then extended farther than Africk so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwayes must be so but most palpably mistaken in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth and known to all nations which if passion did not trouble you and make you forget how lately almost half the world was discovered and in what estate it was then found you would very easily see and confess 15 Ad § 17. In the next Section you pretend that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with the Donatists and yet you do it with as much spight and malice as could well be devised but in vain For Lucilla might do ill in promoting the Sect of the Donatists and yet the mother and the daughter whom you glance at might do well in ministring influence as you phrase it to Protestants in England Unless you will conclude because one woman did one thing ill therefore no woman can do any thing well or because it was ill done to promote one Sect therefore it must be ill done to maintain any 16 The Donatists might do ill in calling the Chair of Rome the Chair of Pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot and yet the state of the Church being altered Protestants might do well to do so and therefore though S. Austin might perhaps have reason to persecute the Donatists for detracting from the Church and calling her harlot when she was not so yet you may have none to threaten D. Potter that you would persecute him as the Application of this place intimates you would if it were in your power plainly shewing that you are a curst Cow though your horns be short seeing the Roman Church is not now what it was in S. Austin's time And hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony where you tell us out of Saint Austin that one grand impediment which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion was a calumny raised against the Catholiques That they did set some strange thing upon their Altar To how many saith S. Austin did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter who said that we put I know not what upon the Altar Out of detestation of the calumny and just indignation against it he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged and therefore by a Rhetorical figure calls it I know not what But compare with him Optatus writing of the same matter and you shall plainly perceive that this I know not what pretended to be set upon the Altar was indeed a Picture which the Donatists knowing how detestable a thing it
conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be alwayes so he sayes not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ that the Roman Church in particular was fore-warned that she also Rom. 11. Nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they lookt not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no Reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appears manifestly out of this Book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the doctrin of the Chiliasts was in his judgement Apostolique Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appears to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgements in the point are any way recorded are for it and Justin Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not In Dial. cum Tryphon he reckons amongst Heretiques Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Irenaeus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Heretical and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions Fifthly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noon that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the doctrin which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques of his â—ime viz. That there is one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witness of Tradition in general Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaim'd the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrin and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of this Excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church Cardinal Perron to avoid the stroak of this convincing argument raiseth a cloud of eloquent words Lib. 3. cap. 2. Of his Reply to King Iames. c. 2. sect 32. which because you borrow them of him in your Second part I will here insert and with short censures dispel and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants His words are these The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures is taken from Eusebius a an Arrian author and from Ruffinus b enemie to the Roman Church his translator who writ c that S. IRENAEUS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. JOHN had introduced d for a time in their Provinces Calv. ubi supra because of the neighbourhood of the Jews and to bury the Synagogue with honour and not according to the universal Tradition of the Apostles Irenaeus saith Calvin reprehended Pope Victor bitterly because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church There is this in the Text that Calvin produceth he reprehended him that he had not done well to cut off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches But against whom maketh this Ruffin in vers hist Eccl Eus l. 5 c. 24. but e against those that object it for who sees not that S. IRENAEUS doth not there reprehend the Pope for the f want of power but for the ill use of his power and doth not reproach to the Pope that he could not excommunicate the Asians but admonisheth him that for g so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Irenaeus saith Eusebius did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which â—eld this ancient tradition And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith Ruffin ib. c. 24. Iren l. 3. c. 3.1 Book Ch. 25. He questioned Victor that he had not done well in cutting off from the Body of Unity so many and so great Churches of God And in truth how could S. IRENAEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power he that cites To the Roman Church because of a more powerful principality that is to say as above appeareth h because of a principality more powerful than the temporal or as we have expounded otherwhere because of a more powerful Original i It is necessary that every Church should agree And k therefore also S. IRENAEUS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him and of the other Bishops of the Gauls assembled in a Council holden expresly for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 22. nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in another Council holden expresly for the same effect who had not excommunicated them nor the example of Palmas and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus who had not excommunicated them but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors Iren. apud Euseb hist Eccl. 5. c. 26. The Prelates saith he who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest Anisius Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Sixtus have not observed this custom c. and nevertheless none of those that observed it have been excommunicated And yet O admirable providence of God the l success of the after-ages shewed that even in the use of his power the Popes proceeding was just For after the death of Victor the Councils of Nicea of Constantinople and of Ephesus Conc. Antioch c. 1. Conc. Const c. 7. Conc. Eph. p. 2. act 6. excommunicated again those that held the same custom with the Provinces that the Pope had excommunicated and placed them in the Catalogue of Heretiques under the titles of heretiques Quarto-decumans But to this instance Calvins Sect do annex two
God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knows signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should do because that the affairs of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus sayes not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the Adjacent Churches for so he expounds himself in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithful round about should resort With much more reason therefore we return the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the Roman how could he and all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinal Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily than truly that all Cardinal Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two hours Had Cardinal Perron wrote his Book in two hours sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a Consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actual practice which Proceeding there he justly condemns of evident injustice His words are * In his Letter to Casaubon towards the end For who knows not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose Illation there is always some Paralogism hid against the express words and the lively and actual practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that it may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Judges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imployed against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectual than forrain and for his omitting to press him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent-Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he parallels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himself and others not Bishops of Rome Both they saith he speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and we also among our selves retain it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to do so l If the Pope's proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why do you account them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councels did no way shew the Pope's proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent and not as a matrer of faith or necessity as it is evident out of * In ep ad Episcopos in Africa Where he clearly shews that this question was not a question was not a question of faith by saying The Council of Nice was celebrated by occasion of the Arrian Heresie and the difference about Easter In so much as they in Syria and Cilicia and Mesopotamia did differ herein from us and kept this Feast on the same day with the Jews But thanks be to God an agreement was made as concerning the Faith so also concerning this holy Feast Athanasius and consequently they rather declare Victor's proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seems then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himself the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the high Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commands us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay-men in one kind to use the Latin Service c. we may very fitly say to him It is better to obey God than men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning me-thinks there should be some difference and Polycrates says no more but he was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinal is fain to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is clearly inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods Commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councel of Nice embrace the Censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinal neither doth pretend nor can produce any proof any way comparable to the fore-alledged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though perventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austin and to the first place out of him where he seems to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said Upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austin himself was not but retracts it as uncertain and leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly What he says of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he says it elsewhere of all the Successions in all other
in the very next Chapter before that which you alledge Against these men being thus necessitated to do so they did urge Tradition but what or whose Tradition was it Certainly no other but the joint Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrin Or if for brevity sake they produced the Tradition of any one Church yet is it apparent that that one was then in conjunction with all the rest Irenaeus Tertullian Origen testifie as much in the words cited and S. Austin in the place before alledged by me This Tradition they did urge against these men and in a time in comparison of ours almost contiguous to the Apostles So near that one of them Irenaeus was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. John the Apostle Tertullian and Origen were not an age remov'd from him and the last of them all little more then an age from them Yet after all this they urg'd it not as a demonstration but only as a very probable argument far greater then any their Adversaries could oppose against it So Tertullian in the place above quoted § 5. How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should err in one faith it should be should have erred into one faith And this was the condition of this argument as the Fathers urg'd it Now if you having to deal with us who question no Book of Scripture which was not anciently questioned by some whom you your selves esteem good Catholiques nay who refuse not to be tried by your own Canon and your own Translation who in interpreting Scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose only except that we will not allow you to be our Judges if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apostles a fair time for the purest Church to gather much dross and corruption and for the mysterie of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection which in the Apostles time began to work If I say you will come thus long after and urge us with the single Tradition of one of these Churches being now Catholique to it self alone and Heretical to all the rest nay not only with her ancient and original Traditions but also with her post-nate introduc'd Definitions and these as we pretend repugnant to Scripture and ancient Tradition and all this to decline an indifferent trial by Scripture under pretence wherein also you agree with the calumny of the old Heretiques that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition If I say notwithstanding all these differences you will still be urging us with this argument as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urg'd the old Heretiques certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have not only that we have no School-Divinity nor Metaphysicks but no Logick or common sense that we are but pictures of men and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain 41 But now suppose I should be liberal to you and grant what you cannot prove that the Fathers make Succession a certain and perpetual mark of the true Church I beseech you what will come of it What that want of Succession is a certain sign of an Heretical company Truly if you say so either you want Logick which is a certain sign of an ill disputer or are not pleas'd to use it which is a worse For speech is a certain sign of a living man yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead for he may be dumb and yet living still and we may have other evident tokens that he is so as eating drinking breathing moving So though the constant and universal delivery of any doctrin by the Apostolique Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great argument of the truth of it yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its universality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so lose this argument and yet not want others to justifie and support it self For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens hearts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contain'd in Scripture in express terms or deducible from it by apparâ—â—â— consequence If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetual Succession of Professors a certain note of Heresie you must not content your self to shew that having it is one sign of truth but you must shew it to be the only sign of it and inseparable from it But this if you be well advis'd you will never undertake First because it is an impossible attempt and then because if you do it you will marr all for by proving this an inseparable sign of Catholique doctrin you will prove your own which apparently wants it in many points not to be Catholique For whereas you say this Succession requires two things agreement with the Apostles doctrin and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it It will be prov'd against you that you fail in both points and that some things wherein you agree with the Apostles have not been held alwayes as your condemning the Doctrine of the Chiliasts and holding the Eucharist not necessary for Infants and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many ages after For example In mutilation of the Communion in having your Service in such a language as the Assistants generally understand not your offering to Saints your picturing of God your worshipping of Pictures 42 Ad § 24. As for Universality of place the want whereof you object to Protestants as a mark of Heresie You have not set down clearly and univocally what you mean by it Whether universality of fact or of right and if of fact Whether absolute or comparative and if comparative Whether of the Church in comparison of any other Religion or only of heretical Christians or if in comparison of these whether in comparison of all other Sects conjoyn'd or in comparison only of any One of them Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of heresie For those places of S. Austin do not deserve the name And truly in my judgment you have done advisedly in proving it no better For as for Universality of right or a right to Universality all Religions claim it but only the true has it and which has it cannot be determin'd unless it be first determin'd which is the true An absolute Universality and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to all the world would laugh at you If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion Mahumetism would carry the victory from you If you should oppose yourselves against all other Christians besides you it is certain you would be cast in this suit also If lastly being hard driven you
true doctrin this Position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith For they all require not your self excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring Party to be one of those which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe And therefore the contradiction of Protestants though this vain doctrin of your Divines were supposed true is but a weak argument That any of them have no divine Faith seeing you neither have nor ever can prove without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility that the truths about which they differ are of this quality and condition But though out of courtesie we may suppose this doctrin true yet we have no reason to grant it nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundless fancie and that this very weak and inartificial argument from the authority of your Divines is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it Two reasons you alleadge for it out of Thomas Aquinas the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charitie is quite exstirpated And for the second though you cry it up for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone and in confidence of it insult upon Doctor Potter as if he durst not come neare it yet in very truth having considered it well I finde it a serious grave prolixe and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it begges without all proof or colour of proof the main Question between us That the infallibilitie of your Church is either the formal motive or rule or a necessarie condition of faith which you know we flatly deny and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation But to this answer I will adde a large consutation of this vain fancie out of one of the most rational and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Essius who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist the 13. § writes thus It is disputed saith he whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith and disbelieves others or perhaps some one there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe In which question we must before all carefully distinguish between those who retaining a general readiness to believe whatsoever the Church believes yet erre by ignorance in some Doctrin of faith because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches Doctrin do yet choose to dissent from it either by doubting of it or affirming the contrary For of the former the answer is easie but of these that is of Heretiques retaining some part of wholesome Doctrin the question is more difficult and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they do not erre first experience seems to convince For many at this day denying for example sake Purgatory or Invocation of Saints nevertheless firmly hold as by divine revelation that God is Three and One that the Son of God was incarnate and suffered and other like things As anciently the Novatians excepting their peculiar error of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution held other things in common with Catholiques So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist Moreover the same is proved by the example of the Apostles who in the time of Christ's passion being scandaliz'd lost their faith in him as also Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity and calls Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection John 20. Whereupon S. Austin also in his preface upon the 96 Psalme saith That after the Resurrection of Christ the faith of those that fell was restored again And yet we must not say that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity of the Creation of the world of Eternal life and such like other Articles Besides the Jewes before Christs comming held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ yet we cannot say that they lost the faith of one God but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before Add hereunto that neither Jews nor Heretiques seem to lye in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets or the four Gospels it being apparent enough that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority though they hold not the true sense of them to which purpose is that in the Acts chap. 20. Believest thou the Propheis I know that thou believest Lastly it is manifest that many gifts of God are found even in bad men and such as are out of the Church therefore nothing hinders but that Jews and Heretiques though they erre in many things yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright So S. Austine seems to teach in his book De Unico Baptismo contra Petilianum c. 3. in these words When a Jew comes to us to be made a Christian we destroy not in him God's good things but his own ill That he believes One God is to be worshipped that he hopes for eternal life that he doubts not of the Resurrection we approve and commend him we acknowledge that as he did believe these things so he is still to believe them and as he did hold so he is still to hold them Thus he subjoyning more to the same purpose in the next and again in the 26 Chapter and in his third Book De Bapt. contr Donat. cap. ult and upon Psal 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary Because the formal object of faith seems to be the first verity as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrin as the Divine and infallible Rule wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule although he assent to some matters of faith yet he embraces them not with faith but with some other kind of assent as if a man assent to a conclusion not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated he hath not true knowledge but an opinion only of the same conclusion Now that an Heretique adheres not to the rule aforesaid it is manifest Because if he did adhere to it as divine and infallible he would receive all without exception which the Church teacheth and so would not be an Heretique After this manner discourseth Saint Thom. 2.2 q. 5. art 3. From whom yet Durand dissents upon this distinction thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith in respect of the Article in which he doth not erre Others as Scotus and Bonaventure define not the matter plainly but seem to choose
adhere For you abuse the world and them if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles That these particular Books are the word of God for so I think you mean either to be in it selfe evidently certain or of it self and being devested of the motives of credibility evidently credible For they are not so fond as to conceive nor so vain as to pretend that all men do assent to it which they would if it were evidently certain nor so ridiculous as to imagine that if an Indian that never heard of Christ or Scripture should by chance find a Bible in his owne Language and were able to read it that upon the reading it he would certainly without a miracle believe it to be the word of God which he could not chuse if it were evidently credible What then do they affirm of it Certainly no more than this that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse minde shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation those great moments of reason which may incline him to believe the Divine authority of Scripture and compare them with the leight objections that in prudence can be made against it he shall not chuse but finde sufficient nay abundant inducements to yeeld unto it firm faith and sincere obedience Let that learned man Hugo Grotius speak for all the rest in his Book of the truth of Christian Religion which Book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a Christian without dependance upon your Church for any part of it and that your Religion is no foundation of but rather a scandal and an objection against Christianity He then in the last Chapter of his second Book hath these excellent words If any be not satisfied with these arguments above-said but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of Christian Religion let such know that as there are variety of things which be true so are there divers wayes of proving or manifesting the truth Thus is there one way in Mathematicks another in Physicks a third in Ethicks and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspicion of untruth otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history and a great part of the Art of Physick together with all dutifulness that ought to be between parents and children for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies Now it is the pleasure of Almighty God that those things which he would have us to believe so that the very belief thereof may be imputed to us for obedience should not so evidently appear as those things which are apprehended by sense and plain demonstration but only be so farre forth revealed as may beget faith and a perswasion thereof in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate That so the Gospel may be as a touch-stone for triall of mens judgements whether they be sound or unsound For seeing these arguments whereof we have spoken have induced so many honest godly and wise men to approve of this Religion it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other mens infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilful desires it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honors and set at naught other commodities which thing they know they ought to do if they admit of Christ's doctrin and obey what he hath commanded And this is the rather to be noted of them for that many other historical narrations are approved by them to be true which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority and not by any such strong proofs and perswasions or tokens as do declare the history of Christ to be true 52. And now you see I hope that Protestants neither do need nor protend to any such evidence in the doctrin they believe as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith Let us come now to the last Nullity which you impute to the faith of Protestants and that is want of Prudence Touching which point as I have already demonstrated that wisdome is not essential to faith but that a man may truly believe truth though upon insufficient motives So I doubt not but I shall make good that if prudence were necessary to faith we have better title to it than you and that if a wiser then Solomon were here he should have better reason to believe the Religion of Protestants than Papists the Bible rather than the Councel of Trent But let us hear what you can say 53. Ad § 31. You demand then first of all What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other Visible Church of Christ upon earth I answer Against God and truth there lies no Prescription and therefore certainly it might be great wisdome to forsake ancient errors for more ancient Truths One God is rather to be follow'd then innumerable worlds of men And therefore it might be great wisdome either for the whole Visible Church nay for all the men in the world having wandred from the way of Truth to return unto it or for a part of it nay for one man to do so although all the world besides were madly resolute to do the contrary It might be great wisdome to forsake the errors though of the only Visible Church much more of the Roman which in conceiving her self the whole Visible Church does somwhat like the Frog in the Fable which thought the ditch he liv'd in to be all the world 54. You demand again What wisdome was it to forsake a Church acknowledg'd to want nothing necessary to Salvation indued with Succession of Bishops c. usque ad Election or Choice I answer Yet might it be great wisdome to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation but accused and convicted of Many damnable errors certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them had they still persisted in them after their conviction though perhaps pardonable which is all that is acknowledg'd to such as ignorantly continued in them A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetual Succession of Bishops holding alwaies the same doctrin and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetual possession of all the world whereas the world knowes that a little before Luther's arising your Church was confined to a part of a part of it Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependance of other Churches upon her which yet she supports no more than those crouching Anticks which seem in great buildings to labour under the weight they bear do indeed support the Fabrick For a corrupted and salfe Church may give authority to preach the truth and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions Besides a
answer is a great supererogation in point of civility Nevertheless partly that I may the more ingratiate my self with you but especially that I may stop their mouths who will be apt to say that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to is an unanswerable argument I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctally and particularly 19. First then to your little parenthesis which you interline among D. Potter's words § 7. That any small error in faith destroyes all faith To omit what hath been said before I answer here what is proper for this place that S. Austin whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident You are with us saith he to the Donatists Ep. 48. as Baptism in the Creed and the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast Faith prove to me likewise that thou hast Charity Parallel to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiastical conversation common lessons the same faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgement of these Fathers even Donatists though Heretiques and Scismatiques gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramental Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true Extream Unction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire for so he saies in express terms in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrin if you can reconcile with the present Doctrin of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20. Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. You deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the possibility of your Salvation is for simple people alone but for all men I answer Certainly whosoever is moved with it must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd by the confession of Protestants which is indeed all that they confess therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church and he that does think so what reason is there why he should not think this as good Ignorant Protestants may be saved by the confession of Papists by name Mr. K. therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church Whereas you say that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unless yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer This cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the terms but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many ages For neither do you shew neither does it appear that the genetation of Churches is univocal that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages any more than the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetual pedegree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence over-watching and over-ruling it may preserve the means of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men Thus the Jewes preserve means to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church do as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talk vainly as if you were the only men in the world before Luther yet the world knows that this is but talk and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not been Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant Salvation to it unless by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusual Synechdoche 21. Whereas you say that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himself granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists 22. Whereas you say that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austin the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptism when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatists addes No Church no salvation Ans You wrong D. Potter who pretends not to cite S. Austins formal words but only his sense which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleadged by D. Potter His words are Pertilianus dixit Venite ad Ecclesiam Populi aufugiâ—e Traditores si perire non vultis Petilian saith Come to the Church yee people and flie from the Traditours if yee will not be damn'd for that yee may know that they being guilty esteem very well of our Faith Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have Baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely And therefore no Church no salvation was not D. Potter's addition And whereas you say the Catholiques never yeeld that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation I say it appears by what I have alledged out of S. Austin that they yeelded both these were among the Donatists as much as we yeeld them to be among the Papists As for D. Potter's acknowledgement that They maintained an error in the matter and nature of it Heretical This proves them but Material Heretiques whom you do not exclude from possibility of Salvation So that all things considered this argument must be much more
necessary which the latter according to their own grounds have no obligation to do nay cannot do so upon any firm and sure and infallible foundation THE CONCLVSION AND thus by God's assistance and the advantage of a good cause I am at length through a passage rather tyring than difficult arriv'd at the end of my undertaken Voyage and have as I suppose made appear to all dis-interessed and unprejudicate Readers what in the beginning I undertook that a vein of Sophistry and Calumny runs clean through this first part of your Book wherein though I never thought of the directions you have been pleas'd to give me in your Pamphlet entituled A direction to N. N. yet upon consideration of my Answer I find that I have proceeded as if I had had it alwayes before my eyes and steer'd my course by it as by a card and compass For first I have not proceeded by a meer destructive way as you call it nor objected such difficulties against your Religion as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all Religion but have shewed that the truth of Christianity is cleerly independent upon the truth of Popery and that on the other side the arguments you urge and the courses you take for the maintenance of your Religion do manifestly tend if they be closely and consequently followed to the destruction of all Religion and lead men by the hand to Atheism and Impiety whereof I have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book but especially in my answer to your Direction to N. N. Neither can I discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other though I have used many more judicious and more searching eyes than mine own to make if it were possible such a discovery and therefore am in good hope that though the musick I have made be but dull and flat and even downright plain-song even your curious and critical ears shall discover no discord in it but on the other side I have charg'd you frequently and very justly with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions and not seldom of the main grounds you build upon and the principal conclusions which you endeavour to maintain which I conceive my self to have made apparent even to the eye c. 2. § 5. c. 3. § 88. c. 4. § 14. and 24. c. 5. § 93. c. 6. § 6 7 12 17. c. 7. § 29. and in many other parts of my Answer And though I did never pretend to defend D. Potter absolutely and in all things but only so farre as he defends Truth neither did D. Potter desire me nor any law of God or man oblige me to defend him any farther yet I do not find that I have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment particularly not concerning the infallibility of God's Church which I grant with him to be infallible in fundamentals because if it should erre in fundamentals it were not the Church Nor concerning the supernaturality of Faith which I know and believe as well as you to be the gift of God and that flesh and bloud reveal'd it not unto us but our Father which is in heaven But now if it were demanded What defence you can make for deserting Charity Mistaken in the main Question disputed between him and Dr. Potter Whether Protestancy without a particular repentance and dereliction of it destroy Salvation whereof I have convinc'd you I believe your answer would be much like that which Ulysses makes in the Metamorphosis for his running away from his friend Nestor that is none at all For Opposing the Articles of the Church of England the Approbation I presume cleers my Book from this imputation And whereas you give me a Caution that my grounds destroy not the belief of diverse Doctrins which all good Christians believe yea and of all verities that cannot be prov'd by natural reason I profess sincerely that I do not know nor believe that any ground laid by me in my whole Book is any way inconsistent with any one such Doctrin or with any verity revealed in the Word of God though never so improbable or incomprehensible to Natural Reason and if I thought there were I would deal with it as those primitive Converts dealt with their curious Books in the Acts of the Apostles For the Epistle of St. James and those other Books which were anciently controverted and are now received by the Church of England as Canonical I am so far from relying upon any Principles which must to my apprehension bring with them the denial of the authority of them that I my self believe them all to be Canonical For the overthrowing the Infallibility of all Scripture my Book is so innocent of it that the Infallibility of Scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds And lastly for Arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all Divine Supernatural Infallible Faith and Religion I assure my self that if you were ten times more a Spider than you are you could suck no such poyson from them My heart I am sure is innocent of any such intention and the Searcher of all hearts knows that I had no other end in writing this Book but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the Divine and Infallible Religion of our dearest Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus which I am ready to seal and confirm not with my Arguments only but my Bloud Now these are the Directions which you have been pleas'd to give me whether out of a fear that I might otherwise deviate from them or out of a desire to make others think so But howsoever I have not to my understanding swarved from them in any thing which puts me in good hope that my Answer to this first Part of your Book will give even to you your self indifferent good satisfaction I have also provided though this were more than I undertook a just and punctual examination and refutation of your second Part But if you will give your consent I am resolv'd to suppress it and that for divers sufficient and reasonable considerations First because the discussion of the Controversies intreated of in the first Part if we shall think fit to proceed in it as I for my part shall so long as I have truth to reply will I conceive be sufficient employment for us though we cast off the burden of those many lesser disputes which remain behind in the Second And perhaps we may do God and his Church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few â—â—an by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner Secondly because the addition of the Second Part whether for your purpose or mine is clearly unnecessary there being no understanding man Papist or Protestant but will confess that for as much as concerns the main question now in agitation about the saveableness of Protestants if the first part of your Book be answered there needs no reply to the Second
repugnant to the word of God Ibid. p. 201 202 203 204 205. Lastly his discourse wherein he shews that it is unlawful for the Church of after Ages to add any thing to the Faith of the Apostles And many of his Arguments whereby he proves that in the judgement of the Ancient Church the Apostles Creed was esteem'd a sufficient summary of the necessary Points of simple belief and a great number of great authorities to justifie the Doctrin of the Church of England touching the Canon of Scripture especially the old Testament S. 7. p. 221 223 228 229. All these parts of Doctor Potter's book for reason best known to your self you have dealt with as the Priest and Levite in the Gospel did with the wounded Samaritan that is only look't upon them and pass'd by But now at least when you are admonish't of it that my Reply to your second part if you desire it may be perfect I would entreat you to take them into your consideration and to make some shew of saying something to them lest otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plain confession that you can say nothing FINIS THE Apostolical Institution OF EPISCOPACY DEMONSTRATED BY WILL. CHILLINGWORTH Master of Arts of the UNIVERSITY of OXFORD NOSCE TE IPSVM NE QUID NIMIS LONDON Printed by E. Cotes dwelling in Aldersgate-street Anno Dom. M.DC.LXIV THE Apostolical Institution OF EPISCOPACY DEMONSTRATED SECT I. IF we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals and consider only what is essential and necessary to it we shall finde in it no more but this An appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the Churches within a certain Precinct or Diocess and furnishing him with authority not absolute or arbitrary but regulated and bounded by Laws and moderated by joyning to him a convenient number of assistants to the intent that all the Churches under him may be provided of good and able Pastors and that both of Pastors and people conformity to Laws and performance of their duties may be required under penalties not left to discretion but by Law appointed SECT II. To this kind of Government I am not by any particular interest so devoted as to think it ought to be maintained either in opposition to Apostolick Institution or to the much desired reformation of mens lives and restauration of Primitive discipline or to any Law or Precept of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for that were to maintain a means contrary to the end for Obedience to our Saviour is the end for which Church-Government is appointed But if it may be demonstrated or made much more probable than the contrary as I verily think it may I. That it is not repugnant to the government setled in and for the Church by the Apostles II. That it is as complyable with the Reformation of any evill which we desire to reform either in Church or State or the introduction of any good which we desire to introduce as any other kind of Government And III. That there is no Law no Record of our Saviour against it Then I hope it will not be thought an unreasonable Motion if we humbly desire those that are in Authority especially the High Court of Parliament That it may not be sacrificed to Clamour or over-born by Violence and though which God forbid the greater part of the Multitude should cry Crucifie Crucifie yet our Governours would be so full of Justice and Counage as not to give it up until they perfectly understand concerning Episcopacy it self Quid mali fecit SECT III. I shall speak at this time only of the first of these three points That Episcopacy is not repugnant to the Government setled in the Church for perpetuity by the Apostles Whereof I conceive this which follows is as clear a Demonstration as any thing of this nature is capable of That this Government was received universally in the Church either in the Apostles time or presently after is so evident and unquestionable that the most learned adversaries of this Government do themselves confess it SECT IV. Petrus Molinaeus in his Book De munere pastorali purposely written in defence of the Presbyterial-government acknowledgeth That presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained That in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have pre-eminence over his Colleagues to avoid confusion which oft times ariseth out of equality And truly this form of Government all Churches every where received SECT V. Theodorus Beza in his Tract De triplici Episcopatûs genere confesseth in effect the same thing For having distinguished Episcopacy into three kinds Divine Humane and Satanical and attributing to the second which he calls Humane but we maintain and conceive to be Apostolical not only a priority of Order but a superiority of Power and Authority over other Presbyters bounded yet by Laws and Canons provided against Tyranny he clearly professeth that of this kind of Episcopacy is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the authority of Bishops or Presidents as Justin Martyr calls them in Ignatius and other more ancient Writers SECT VI. Certainly from * To whom two others also from Geneva may be added Daniel Chamierus in Panstratia tom 2. lib. 10. cap. 6. Sect. 24. and Nicol. Vedelius Exereitat 3. in epist Ignatii ad Philadelph cap. 14. Exercit. 8. in Epist ad Mariam cap. 3. which is fully also demonstrated in D. Hammond's Dissertations against Blondel which never were answered and never will by the testimonies of those who wrote in the very next Age after the Apostles these two great Defenders of the Presbytery we should never have had this free acknowledgement so prejudicial to their own pretence and so advantagious to their adversaries purpose had not the evidence of clear and undeniable truth enforced them to it It will not therefore be necessary to spend any time in confuting that uningenuous assertion of the anonymous Author of the Catalogue of Testimonies for the equality of Bishops and Presbyters who affirms That their disparity began long after the Apostles times But we may safely take for granted that which these two learned Adversaries have confessed and see whether upon this foundation laid by them we may not by unanswerable reason raise this superstructure That seeing Episcopal Government is confessedly so Ancient and so Catholique it cannot with reason be denyed to be Apostolique SECT VII For so great a change as between Presbyterial Government and Episcopal could not possibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time Had Episcopal Government been an aberration from or a corruption of the Government left in the Churches by the Apostles it had been very strange that it should have been received inany one Church so suddainly or that it should have prevailed in all for many Ages after Variâsse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod
I say our Saviour took to perform an admirable miracle even upon the man himself and that he brought about by as unlikely a course only with inviting himself to his house By which unexpected affability and courtesie of our Saviour this so notorious and famous Publican and sinner was so surpriz'd with joy and comfort that presently he gives over all thought and consideration of his trade as a thing of no moment and being to receive Christ into his house and knowing how ill agreeing companions Christ and Mammon would prove in the same lodging he resolves to sweep it and make it clean for the entertaining of him he empties it of that dross and dung wherewith before it was defiled half of his estate goes away at a clap upon the poor and the remainder in all likelihood is in great danger to be consum'd by that noble and generous offer which he makes in the words of my Text Whomsoever I have defrauded by forged cavillation I restore c. 4. In which words I shall observe unto you these two General Parts Division First a Discovery and it may be confession of his beloved bosome sin the sin of his trade in these words If I have defrauded any man or whomsoever I have defrauded Secondly Satisfaction tendered in the words following I restore unto him four fold In the former General we may take notice of two particulars 1. Zacchaeus his willingness and readiness of his own accord to discover and confess his sin when he said Whomsoever I have defrauded And 2. the nature and heinousness of the crime discovered which is called a defrauding by forged cavillation or as some Translations read with false accusation In the second General likewise which is the satisfaction tendered by Zacchaeus there offer themselves two particulars more namely 1. So much of the satisfaction as was necessary to be performed by virtue of an indispensable Precept and that is Restitution in these words I restore unto him 2. That which was voluntary and extraordinary namely the measure and excess of this Restitution which he professeth should be four fold Of these two parts therefore with their several particulars in the same order as they have been proposed briefly and with all the plainness and perspicuity I can imagine And 1. Of the former General and therein of the first Particular namely Zacchaeus his readiness to confess his Sin in these words If I c. 5. I said even now only General I. It may be this was a confession of his crime but now I will be more resolute Partic. 1. and tell you peremptorily this was a confession for without all question Zacchaeus as the case stood now with him was in no humour of Justifying himself he had no mind to boast his integrity in his office Or if he had he might be sure that common fame if that were all yet that alone might be a sufficient argument at least too great a presumption against him to confute him But to put it out of question Our Saviour himself by applying the 10. verse of this Chapter to him acknowledgeth him for a sinful undone man one that had so far lost himself in the wandring mazes of this wicked world that unless Christ himself had taken the pains to search and enquire after him and having found him by the power and might of his Grace to rescue and recover him from the errour of his ways by restoring him his eyes whereby he might take notice towards what a dangerous precipice he was hastening there had been no possibility but at last he must have needs fallen headlong into the gulf of destruction 6. Now it being I suppose evident that Zacchaeus was guilty and that in a high degree and openly and scandalously guilty of the crime here discover'd there is no doubt to be made but that he who was so willing to unlock and disperse his ill gotten treasures would not begin to divert his covetousness upon his sins he would not hoard them up but would place his glory even in his shame and whereas he had been the servant and slave of sins he would wear his shackles and fetters as signs of the glorious victory which through Christ he had won and emblemes of that blessed change which he found in himself being rescued from the basest slavery that possibly can be imagined into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God 7. But it may be you will say Suppose Zacchaeus did freely and voluntarily confess his sin to Christ who had authority to forgive him his sins though he had never discovered them what collection shall be made from hence Zacchaeus might be as bold as he would with himself but as for us his example shall be no rule to us we thank God this is Popery in these daies and since we have freed our selves from this burden we will not be brought into bondage to any man we will confess our sins I warrant you only to God who is only able to forgive us them as for the Minister it may be we will sometimes be beholding to him to speak some comfortable words now and then to us when we are troubled in conscience and we have not been taught to go any further 8. I confess I find no great inclination in my self especially being in the Pulpit to undertake a controversie even where it may seem to offer it self much less to press and strein a Text for it for I desire to have no adversaries in my Preaching but only the Devil and Sin Only having now mentioned Confession and considering how much the Doctrine of our holy Mother the Church hath been traduc'd not only by the malice and detraction of our professed enemies of the Church of Rome but also by the suspicious ignorance and partiality of her own children who out of a liking of the zeal or rather fury of some former Protestant Writers have laid this for a ground of stating Controversies of our Religion That that is to be acknowledged for the Doctrine of these Reformed Churches which is most opposite and contradicting to the Church of Rome So that as the case goes now Controversies of Religion are turn'd into private quarrels and it is not so much the Truth that is sought after as the salving and curing the reputation of particular men 9. These things therefore considered truly for my part I dare not take upon me so much to gratifie the Papists as to think my self oblig'd to maintain many incommodious speeches of some of our Divines in this point Hoc Ithacus velit magno mercentur Atridae They will never be unfurnish'd of matter to write Books to the worlds end if this shall be the method of stating Controversies Oh what an impregnable cause should we have against the Church of Rome if we our selves did not help to weaken and betray it by mixing therewith the interests and conceits of particular men 10. Give me therefore leave I pray you to give you