Philosophers and Heresies of Christians are none of his his is but one to wit the Catholick Church c. S. Epiphan in fine Panar 11. A man may not call the Conventicles of Hereticks I mean Marcionites Manichees and the rest Churches therefore the Tradition appoints you to say I believe one Holy Catholick Church c. S. Cyrill Catech. 18. And these Testimonies I think are sufficient to shew the judgment of the Ancient Church that this Title of the Church one is directly and properly exclusive to all companies besides one to wit that where there are diverse professions of Faith or diverse Communions there is but one of these which can be the Catholick Church Upon this ground I desire some company of Christians to be named professing a diverse Faith and holding a diverse Communion from the Roman which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers rising and if no other in this sense can be named than was she the Catholick Church at that time and therefore her judgment to be rested in and her Communion to be embraced upon peril of Schism and Heresie Mr. Chillingworths Answer Upon the same ground if you pleased you might desire a Protestant to name some Company of Christians professing a diverse Faith and holding a diverse Communion from the Greek Church which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers rising and seeing he could name no other in this sense concludes that the Greek Church was the Catholick Church at that time Upon the very same ground you might have concluded for the Church of the Abyssines or Armenians or any other society of Christians extant before Luthers time And seeing this is so thus I argue against your ground 1. That ground which concludes indifferently for both parts of a contradiction must needs be false and deceitful and conclude for neither part But this ground concludes indifferently both parts of a contradiction viz. That the Greek Church is the Catholick Church and not the Roman as well as That the Roman is the Catholick Church and not the Greek Therefore the ground is false and deceitful seem it never so plausible 2. I answer Secondly that you should have taken notice of my Answer which I then gave you which was that your major as you then framed your Argument but as now your minor is not always true if by one you understand one in external Communion seeing nothing hindred in my Judgment but that one Church excommunicated by another upon an insufficient cause might yet remain a true member of the Catholick Church and that Church which upon the overvaluing this cause doth excommunicate the other though in fault may yet remain a member of the Catholick Church which is evident from the difference about Easter-day between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Asia for which vain matter Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Churches of Asia And yet I believe you will not say that either the Church excommunicating or the Church excommunicated ceased to be a true member of the Church Catholick The case is the same between the Greek and the Roman Church for though the difference between them be greater yet it is not so great as to be a sufficient ground of excommunication and therefore the excommunication was causeless and consequently Brutum fulmen and not ratified or confirmed by God in Heaven and therefore the Church of Greece at Luthers rising might be and was a true member of the Catholick Church As concerning the places of Fathers which you alledge I demand 1. If I can produce you an equal or greater number of Fathers or more ancient than these not contradicted by any that lived with them or before them for some doctrin condemned by the Roman Church whether you will subscribe it If not with what face or conscience can you make use of and build your whole Faith upon the Authority of Fathers in some things and reject the same authority in others 2. Secondly because you urge S. Cyprians Authority I desire you to tell me whether this Argument in his time would have concluded a necessity of resting in the Judgement of the Roman Church or no If not how should it come to pass that it should serve now and not then fit this time and not that as if it were like an Almanack that would not serve for all Meridians If it would why was it not urged by others upon S. Cyprian or represented by S. Cyprian to himself for his direction when he differed from the Roman Church and all other that herein conformed unto her touching the point of Re-baptizing Hereticks which the Roman Church held unlawful and damnable S. Cyprian not only lawful but necessary so well did he rest in the Judgment of that Church Quid verba audiam cùm facta videam says he in the Comedy And Cardinal Perron tells you in his Epistle to Casaubon that nothing is more unreasonable than to draw consequences from the words of Fathers against their lively and actual practice The same may be said in refutation of the places out of S. Austin who was so far from concluding from them or any other a necessity of resting in the Judgment of the Roman Church that he himself as your Authors testifie lived and died in opposition of it even in that main fundamental point upon which Mr. Lewgar hath built the necessity of his departure from the Church of England and embracing the Communion of the Roman Church that is The Supream Authority of that Church over other Churches and the power of receiving Appeals from them Mr. Lewgar I know cannot be ignorant of these things and therefore I wonder with what conscience he can produce their words against us whose Actions are for us If it be said that S. Cyprian and S. Austin were Schismaticks for doing so it seems then Schismaticks may not only be members of the Church against Mr. Lewgars main conclusion but Canoniz'd Saints of it or else S. Austin and S. Cyprian should be rased out of the Roman Kalendar If it be said that the point of Re-baptization was not defined in S. Cyprians time I say that in the Judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome and their adherents it was For they urged it as an Original and Apostolick Tradition and consequently at least of as great force as any Church definition They excommunicated Firmilianus and condemned S. Cyprian as a false Christ and a false Apostle for holding the contrary and urged him Tyrannico terrore to conform his judgment to theirs as he himself clearly intimates If it be said they differed only from the particular Church of Rome and not from the Roman Church taking it for the universal society of Christians in Communion with that Church I Answer 1. They know no such sense of the word I am sure never used it in any such which whether it had been possible if the Church of Rome had been in their judgment to other Churches in
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 joyn'd 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 general 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 termed 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 publick 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 err in defining what Scriptures be Canonical 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 epon natural wit and judgment 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 Gods 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 die 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 Catholicks while we consider that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church but jointly he must be left to his own wit and ways 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 denyal 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 denialaof 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 Popes 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 it a facis Sir Why do you thus 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 In as much 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 Laws and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such Interpretations without judging of them and though to his private judgment 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 obeys only the Interpreter As if I should submit to the Laws of the King of England but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sence 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 accordingly to the sense which the chief Mufty should put upon it who would not say that I were a Christian in pretence 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 foul 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 Primative Church would not have thought it as utterly improbable
true Priest he cannot possibly escape damnation Such a man for his comfort you tell first you that will have mens Salvation depend upon no uncertainties that though he verily believe that his sorrow for sins is a true sorrow and his purpose of amendment a true purpose yet he may deceive himself perhaps it is not and if it be not he must be damned Yet you bid him hope well But Spes est rei incertae nomen You tell him secondly that though the party he confesses to seem to be a true Priest yet for ought he knows or for ought himself knows by reason of some secret undiscernable invalidity in his Baptism or Ordination he may be none and if he be none he can do nothing This is a hard saying but this is not the worst You tell him thirdly that he may may be in such a state that he cannot or if he can that he will not give the Sacrament with due Intention and if he does not all 's in vain Put case a man by these considerations should be cast into some agonies what advice what comfort would you give him Verily I know not what you could say to him but this that first for the Qualification required on his part he might know that he desired to have true sorrow and that that is sufficient But then if he should ask you why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow as well as his desire to be sorrowful to be a true desire I believe you would be put to silence Then secondly to quiet his fears concerning the Priest and his intention you should tell him by my advice that Gods goodness which will not suffer him to damn men for not doing better than their best will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were unavoidable And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one and if he gave Absolution without Intention yet in doing so he should hurt himself only and not his penitent This were some comfort indeed and this were to settle mens Salvation upon reasonable certain grounds But this I fear you will never say for this were to reverse many Doctrines established by your Church and besides to degrade your Priesthood from a great part of their honour by lessening the strict necessity of the Laities dependance upon them For it were to say that the Priests Intention is not necessary to the obtaining of absolution which is to say that it is not in the Parsons power to damn whom he will in his Parish because by this Rule God should supply the defect which his malice had caused And besides it were to say that Infants dying without Baptism might be saved God supplying the want of Baptism which to them is unavoidable But beyond all this it were to put into my mouth a full and satisfying answer to your Argument which I am now returning so that in answering my objection you should answer your own For then I should tell you that it were altogether as abhorrent from the goodness of God and as repugnant to it to suffer an ignorant Lay-mans Soul to perish meerly for being misled by an undiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had reason to rely upon either above all other or as much as any other as it is to damn a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution which his Gostly Father perhaps was an Atheist and could not give him or was a villiain and would not This answer therefore which alone would serve to comfort your penitent in his perplexities and to assure him that he cannot fail of Salvation if he will not for fear of inconveniencies you must forbear And seeing you must I hope you will come down from the Pulpit and Preach no more against others for making mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain grounds lest by judging others you make your selves and your own Church inexcusable who are strongly guilty of this fault above all the men and Churches of the World whereof I have already given you two very pregnant demonstrations drawn from your presumptions tying God and Salvation to your Sacraments And the efficacy of them to your Priests Qualifications and Intentions 69. Your making the Salvation of Infants depend on Baptism a Casual thing and in the power of man to confer or not confer would yield me a Third of the same nature And your suspending the same on the Baptizers intention a Fourth And lastly your making the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist depend upon the casualties of the Consecrators true Priesthood and Intention and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine for ought they can possibly know may be nothing else but a piece of Bread so exposing them to the danger of Idolatry and consequently of Damnation doth offer me a Fisth demonstration of the same conclusion if I thought fit to insist upon them But I have no mind to draw any more out of this Fountain neither do I think it Charity to cloy the Reader with uniformity when the Subject affords variety 70. Sixthly therefore I return it thus The Faith of Papists relies alone upon their Churches infallibility That there is any Church infallible and that theirs is it they pretend not to believe but only upon prudential motives Dependance upon prudential motives they confess to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring What then remaineth but Truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground 71. Seventhly The Faith of Papists relies upon the Church alone The Doctrine of the Church is delivered to most of them by their Parish Priest or Ghostly Father or at least by a company of Priests who for the most part sure are men and not Angels in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to Err. What then remaineth but that Truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground 72. Eighthly thus It is apparent and undeniable that many Thousands there are who believe your Religion upon no better grounds than a man may have for the belief almost of any Religion As some believe it because their Forefathers did so and they were good People Some because they were Christened and brought up in it Some because it is the Religion of their Country where all other Religions are persecuted and profcribed Some because Protestants cannot shew a perpetual succession of Professors of all their Doctrine Some because the service of your Church is more stately and pompous and magnificent Some because they find comfort in it Some because your Religion is farther spread and hath more Professors of it than the Religion of Protestants Some because your Priests compass Sea and Land to gain
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 Popes 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 them 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 persuade 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 false 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 Apostolick 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 Popes Infallibility the Blessed Virgins immaculate conception the Popes power over the Temporalities 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 Apostolick 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 teaches me and not others and some things which she teaches 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 judgment 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 Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 102. Ad § 19. In this number this Argument is contained The Judge 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 the Scripture 103. To this I answer As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Judge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Judge otherwise you might make your self Judge of Controversies by arguing The Scripture is not intelligible by all but I am therefore I am Judge of Controversies If you say your intent was to conclude against the Scripture and not for the Church I demand why then but to delude the simple with Sopistry did you say in the close of this § Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such but that you would leave it to them to infer in the end which indeed was more than you undertook in the beginning Therefore the Church is Judge and the Scripture not I say Secondly that you still run upon a false supposition that God hath appointed some Judge of all Controversies that may happen among Christians about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein in those words of S. Paul Quisque abundet in sensu suo c. I say Thirdly Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Judge of Controversies that they have the Authority of Fathers to warrant their manner of speaking as of * Contra Parmen l. 5. in Prin. Optatus 104. But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Judge nor cannot be but only a sufficient Rule for those to judge by that believe it to be the word of God as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both do what they are to believe and what they are not to believe I say sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intellible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether they be learned or unlearned And my reason hereof is convincing and demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed
Books and not the Authority of the Books and therefore if a man should profess the not believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equal reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the VIII King of England as that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of him yet it were no mortal sin nor no sin at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should perform the whole Will of the dead should fully satisfie the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160. This discourse whether it be rational and concluding or no I submit to better judgment But sure I am that the corollary which you draw from this position that this point is not Fundamental is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth of it because we say the whole Church much more particular Churches and private men may err in points not Fundamental A pretty Sophism depending upon this Principle that whosoever possibly may err he cannot be certain that he doth not err And upon this ground what shall hinder me from concluding that seeing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are Infallible even in Fundamentals that even the Fundamentals of Christianity remain to you uncertain A Judge may possibly err in judgment can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right A Traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London These you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your own as an Egg to an Egg or Milk to Milk 163. Ad § 27. C. M. S. Austin plainly affirms that to oppose the Churches definitions is to resist God himself speaking of the Controversie of Rebaptization de Unit. Eccl. cap. 22. where he saith that Christ bears witness to his Church and whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself who by his testimony recommends the Church c. I HIL I Answer First that in many things you will not be tried by S. Augustines judgment nor submit to his authority not concerning Appeals to Rome not concerning Transubstantiation not touching the use and worshiping of Images not concerning the State of Saints souls before the day of judgment not touching the Virgin Maries freedom from actual and original sin not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants not touching the damning Infants to Hell that die without Baptism not touching the knowledge of Saints departed not touching Purgatory not touching the fallibility of Councils even general Councils not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation not touching Auricular Confession not touching the half Communion not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue In these things I say you will not stand to S. Austines judgment and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heat delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmly and moderately where he says In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris Scriptur is omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem moresque vivendi 3. We say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholick Church of far greater extent and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the Roman Church 4 He speaks of a point not expressed but yet not contradicted by Scripture whereas the errors we charge you with are contradicted by Scripture 5. He says not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an Infallible definer of all emergent controversies but for a credible witness of Ancient Tradition Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the Church understand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to us who cast off no practiecs of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times Lastly it is evident and even to impudence it self undeniable that upon this ground of believing all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Error was held for example the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants and that in S. Austines time and that by S. Austine himself and therefore without controversie this is no certain ground for truth which may support falshood as well as truth 164. To the Argument wherewith you conclude I Answer That though the visible Church shall always without fail propose so much of Gods revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes add to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtful nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without sin to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ But you press us farther and demand what Visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to infer that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unless it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor CHAP. III. The ANSWER to the Third CHAPTER Wherein it is maintained That the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this present Controversie
the Assumption of the Mother of God c. Others again mince and palliate the matter with this pretence that your Church undertakes not to coyn new Articles of Faith but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any Doctrin an Article of Faith then this Doctrin which before wanted it was not before an Article of Faith and your Church by giving it the Essential form and last complement of an Article of Faith makes it though not a Truth yet certainly an Article of Faith But I would fain know whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrin which you pretend hath the matter but wants the form of an Article of Faith that is sufficient declaration whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the Faith or no! If they knew it not to be so then either they taught what they knew not which were very strange or else they taught it not and if not I would gladly be informed seeing you pretend to no new Revelations from whom you learnt it If they knew it then either they concealed or declared it To say they concealed any necessary part of the Gospel is to charge them with far greater Sacriledg than what was punished in Ananias and Saphira It is to charge these glorious Stewards and dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward which is Fidelity It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's even to Angels in case they should teach any other doctrin than what they had received from them which sure could not merit an Anathema if they left any necessary part of the Gospel untaught It is in a word in plain terms to give them the lie seeing they profess plainly and frequently that they taught Christians the whole Doctrin of Christ If they did know and declare it then was it a full and formal Article of Faith and the contrary a full and formal Heresie without any need of further declaration and then their Successors either continued the declaration of it or discontinued If they did the latter how are they such faithful depositaries of Apostolick Doctrin as you pretend Or what assurance can you give us that they might not bring in new and false Articles as well as suffer the old and true ones to be lost If they did continue the declaration of it and deliver it to their Successors and they to theirs and so on perpetually then continued it still a full and formal Article of faith and the repugnant doctrin a full and formal Heresie without and before the definition or declaration of a Council So that Councils as they cannot make that a truth or falshood which before was not so so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith or an Heresie which before was not so The supposition therefore on which this argument stands being false and ruinous whatsoever is built upon it must together with it fall to the ground This explication therefore and restriction of this doctrin whereof you make your advantage was to my understanding unnecessary The Fathers of the Church in after times might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake 20. Ad § 7.8 9. I come now to shew that you also have requited D. Potter with a mutual courteous acknowledgment of his assertion That the Creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary Articles of Faith which are meerly Credenda 21. First then § 8. You have these words That it cannot be denied that the Creed is most full and compleat to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspired by God meant that it should serve and in that manner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular points of Faith but such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the Faith of Christ to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learnt and remembred These words I say being fairly examined without putting them on the rack will amount to a full acknowledgment of D. Potters Assertion But before I put them to the question I must crave thus much right of you to grant me this most reasonable postulate that the doctrin of repentance from dead works which S. Paul saith was one of the two only things which he preacht and the doctrin of Charity without which the same S. Paul assures us that the knowledge of all mysteries and all faith is nothing were doctrins more necessary and requisite and therefore more fit to be preacht to Jews and Gentiles than these under what judge our Saviour suffered that he was buried and what time he rose again which you have taught us cap. 3. § 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be Fundamental 22. And upon this grant I will ask no leave to conclude that whereas you say the Apostles Creed was intended for a comprehension of such heads of faith as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ c. You are now for fear of too much debasing those high doctrines as Repentance and Charity to restrain your assertion as D. Potter does his and though you speak indefinitely to say you meant it only of those heads of faith which are meerly Credenda And then the meaning of it if it have any must be this That the Creed is full for the Apostles intent which was to comprehend all such general heads of faith which being points of simple belief were most fit and requisite to be preached to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred Neither I nor you I believe can make any other sence of your words than this And upon this ground thus I subsume But all the points of belief which were necessary under pain of damnation for the Apostles to preach and for those to whom the Gospel was preached particularly to know and believe were most fit and requisite nay more than so necessary to be preached to all both Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easie learn'd and remembred therefore the Apostles intent by your confession was in this Creed to comprehend all such points And you say the
Sacraments Commandments c. for that is not here the point to be proved but only that they taught them all things necessary so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them But how much of this they put into their Creed whether all the necessary points of simple belief as we pretend or only as you say I know not what is another Question now to be examined 73. We urge against you That if all necessary points of simple 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 say That the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent than their Creed Answer It is very true that their whole Faith was of a larger extent but that was not the Question but whether all 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. To other Reasons grounded upon the practice of the Ancient Church appointing her Infants to be instructed for matters of simple belief only in the Creed From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptism and of Strangers unto her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed you have not that I perceive thought fit to make any kind of answer 75. Ad § 26. In this Section you practise that trick of a Caviller 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 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 in it 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 Christs passion The third day of the Resurrection neither doth the adding of them make the Creed ever a whit the less probable the less fit to be understood and remembred And for the contrary reasons other unnecessary things might be left out Besides who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affection 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 Saviours descent into Hell and Burial was expressed and 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 further end that we might believe that Jesus was the Christ and believing have eternal life He therefore that believes 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 near 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 Cont. 2. c. 10. num 10. 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 neer 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. We affirm That if your Doctrin were true this short Creed viz. 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 a 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 misguide men into this pernitious error That believing the Creed they believe all necessary points of faith whereas indeed they do not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better then that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed proposed 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 83. Whereas you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholick 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 instead 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 Symbole should be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so but instead thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be forever Infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of Faith 84. Whereas you say If we will believe we have all in the Creed when we have not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether soever they lead me Now I say they have led me into this perswasion because they have given me great reason to believe it and none to the contrary The reason they have given me to believe it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselves in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might have a form by which for matter of Faith they might profess themselves Catholicks So Putean out of Thomas Aquinas That the faithful might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitly So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Cardinal Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectual unless it contain at least all points of simple belief which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitly known by all men So that if it be a fault in me to believe this it must be my fault to believe the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot do if I believe not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore says of God himself I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an Error which I believe it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspicion That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I have which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to induce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I have more evident grounds than this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths be granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church and dependent only in respect of us upon universal Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of Faith That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. The ANSWER to the Fifth CHAPTER Shewing that the separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism 1. AD § 1.2 3 4 5 6 7. In the seven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue and deserve a censure As 2. First That Schism could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unless there always had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falsehood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schism might now be and be a Division from the present Visible Church As though in France there never had been until now a lawful Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Sovereign Authority 3. That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithful people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithful as it is plain you do free from all error in faith then
devise to dissuade him from this Resolution And if you can devise none what reason then or sense is there but that a probable hope of infinite and Eternal Happiness provided for all those that obey Christ Jesus and much more a firm Faith though not so certain in some sort as sense or science may be able to sway our will to obedience and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Blood can suggest to avert us from it Men may therefore talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty but did they generally believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a City as Constantinople nay but as much as Caesars Commentaries or the History of Salust I believe the lives of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are Thus therefore out of your own Words I argue against you He that requires to true Faith an absolute and infallible certainty for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overbear our will c. imports that if a less degree of Faith were able to do this then a less degree of Faith may be true and Divine and saving Faith But experience shews and reason confirms that a firm Faith though not so certain as sense or science may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections And therefore it follows from your own reason that Faith which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge may be true and Divine and saving Faith 6. All these Reasons I have imployed to shew that such a most certain and infallible Faith as here you talk of is not so necessary but that without such a high degree of it it is possible to please God And therefore the Doctrines delivered by you § 25. are most presumptuous and uncharitable viz. That such a most certain and Infallible Faith is necessary to Salvation necessitate Finis or Medii so necessary that after a man is come to the use of reason no man ever was or can be saved without it Wherein you boldly intrude into the judgment seat of God and damn men for breaking Laws not of Gods but your own making But withal you clearly contradict your self not only where you affirm That your Faith depends finally upon the Tradition of Age to Age of Father to Son which cannot be a fit ground but only for a Moral Assurance nor only where you pretend that not alone Hearing and Seeing but also Histories Letters Relations of many which certainly are things not certain and infallible are yet Foundations good enough to support your Faith Which Doctrine if it were good and allowable Protestants might then hope that their Histories and Letters and Relations might also pass for means sufficient of a sufficient Certainty and that they should not be excluded from Salvation for want of such a Certainty But indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compelled you to speak here what I believe you will not justifie and with a pretty tergiversation to shew D. Potter your means of moral certainty whereas the Objection was that you had no means or possibility of infallible certainty for which you are plainly at as great a loss and as far to seek as any of your Adversaries And therefore it concerns you highly not to damn others for want of it lest you involve your selves in the same condemnation according to those terrible Words of S. Paul Inexcusabilis es c. In this therefore you plainly contradict your self And lastly most plainly in saying as you do here you contradict and retract your pretence of Charity to Protestants in the beginning of your Book For there you make profession that you have no assurance but that Protestants dying Protestants may possibly die with contrition and be saved And here you are very Peremptory that they cannot but want a means absolutely necessary to Salvation and wanting that cannot but be damned 7. The third Condition you require to Faith is that our assent to Divine Truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernatural evidence Which words must have a very favourable construction or else they will not be sense For who can make any thing of these words taken properly that Faith must be an unknown unevident assent or an assent absolutely obscure I had always thought that known and unknown obscure and evident had been affections not of our Assent but the Object of it not of our belief but the thing believed For well may we assent to a thing unknown obscure or unevident but that our assent it self should be called therefore unknown or obscure seems to me as great an impropriety as if I should say your sight were green or blew because you see something that is so In other places therefore I answer your words but here I must answer your meaning which I conceive to be That it is necessary to Faith that the Objects of it the points which we believe should not be so evidently certain as to necessitate our understandings to an Assent that so their might be some merit in Faith as you love to speak who will not receive no not from God himself but a penny-worth for a penny but as we some obedience in it which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the understanding does all and the will nothing Now seeing the Religion of Protestants though it be much more credible than yours yet is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration therefore I might let this Doctrine pass without exception for any prejudice that can redound to us by it But yet I must not forbear to tell you that your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to the merit but yet not to the essence of Faith without it Faith were not an act of obedience but yet Faith may be Faith without it and this you must confess unless you will say either the Apostles believed not the whole Gospel which they preached or that they were not eye-witnesses of a great part of it unless you will question S. John for saying that which we have seen with our Eyes and which our hands have handled c. declare we unto you nay our Saviour himself for saying Thomas because thou seest thou believest Blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed Yet if you will say that in respect of the things which they saw the Apostles assent was not pure and proper and meer Faith but somewhat more an assent containing Faith but superadding to it I will not contend with you for it will be a contention about words But then again I must crave leave to tell you that the requiring this condition is in my judgment a plain
pretend is the true sense of them When you have produced certain grounds for all these things I doubt not but it will appear that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion which is nothing else but the Bible without dependence on the Churches infallibility Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present believes neither Church nor Scripture nor God but is ready and willing to believe them all if you can shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds by which he may be converted or there are If you say the first you make all Religion an uncertain thing If the second then either you must ridiculously perswade that your Church is infallible because it is infallible or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility 46. Obj. The Holy Scripture is in it self most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain means to know what Scripture is Canonical nor what Translations be faithful nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Ans But all these things must be known before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible for no other proof of it can be pretended but only some Texts of Canonical Scripture truly interpreted Therefore either you are mistaken in thinking there is no other means to know these things but your Churches infallible direction or we are excluded from all means of knowing her direction to be infallible 47. Obj. But Protestants though they are perswaded their own opinions are true and that they have used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer conferring of Texts c. Yet by their disagreement shew that some of them are deceived Now they hold all the Articles of their faith upon this only ground of Scripture interpreted by these rules and therefore it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all Ans The first of these suppositions must needs be true but the second is apparently false I mean that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is clearly inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds that the rules of the one and the principles of the other do sometimes fail because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived Might not a Jew conclude as well against all Christians that they have no certain ground whereon to relie in their understanding of Scripture because their disagreements shew that some are deceived because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church and others no such matter So likewise a Turk might use the same argument against both Jews and Christians and an Atheist against all Religions and a Sceptick against all reason Might not the one say Mens disagreement in Religion shews that there is no certainty in any and the other that experience of their contradictions teacheth that the rules of reason do sometimes fail Do not you see and feel how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is And how transported with zeal against Protestants you urge arguments against them which if they could not be answered would overthrow not only your own but all Religion But God be thanked the answer is easie and obvious For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men and then it will easily appear that there may be sufficient certainty in reason in Religion in the rules of interpreting Scripture though men through their faults take not care to make use of them and so run into divers errors and dissentions 48. Obj. But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamental and therefore must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error Ans By like reason since you acknowledge that every error in points defined and declared by your Church destroys the substance of Faith and yet cannot determine what points be defined it followeth that you must remain uncertain whether or no you be not in some fundamental error and so want the substance of Faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation But though we cannot perhaps say in particular thus much and no more is fundamental yet believing all the Bible we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental As he that in a receipt takes twenty ingredients whereof ten only are necessary though he know not which those ten are yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary 49. Ad § 29. Obj. It is generally delivered by Catholick Divines that he who erreth against any one revealed truth tâ—seth all Divine Faith Now certainly some Protestants must do so because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true Therefore some of them at least have no divine faith Ans I pass by your weakness in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines Yet if the Authority of your Divines were even Canonical certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter there being not one of them who delivers for true doctrin this position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroys all divine faith For they all require not your self excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publickly 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 But if the Reader will be at the pains he may see this vain fancy confuted out of one of the most rational and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Estius upon the third Book of the Sententes the 23. Distinct and the 13. Section beginning thus It is disputed 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 50. But if Protestants have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph but I can find nothing in it to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith of an object not so evident as to beget science If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions If certainty and obscurity will stand together what reason can be imagined that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist Your bodies and souls your understandings and wills are I think of the same
Council of Trent so accordingly on the other side by the Religion of Protestants I do not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechism of Heidelburg nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherein they all agree and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions that is The Bible The Bible I say The Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Whatsoever else they believe besides it and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismatical presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe and hope impartial search of the true way to Eternal Happiness do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one Age against a Consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Fountain but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an Age after Christ or that in such an Age it was not in In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon This therefore and this only I have reason to believe This I will profess according to this I will live and for this if there be occasion I will not only willingly but even gladly lose my life though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me Propose me any thing out of this Book and require whether I believe it or no and seem it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with Hand and Heart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this God hath said so therefore it is true In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him neither shall any man take mine from me I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian I will love no man the less for differing in opinion from me And what measure I mete to others I expect from them again I am fully assured that God does not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it 57. This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily persuaded that I have chosen wisely much more wisely than if I had guided my self according to your Churches authority For the Scripture being all true I am secured by believing nothing else that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith And if I mistake the sense of Scripture and so fall into Error yet am I secure from any danger thereby if but your grounds be true because endeavouring to find the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my Error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being as I have proved plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary Truth And he that does so if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should fail of Salvation 58. Besides whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide all that and much more may be said for the Scripture Hath your Church been Ancient The Scripture is more Ancient Is your Church a means to keep men at Unity So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and will obey it in Unity of belief in matters necessary or very profitable and in Unity of Charity in points unnecessary Is your Church Universal for time or place Certainly the Scripture is more Universal For all the Christians in the World those I mean that in truth deserve this name do now and always have believed the Scripture to be the Word of God whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God and all Christians besides you deny it 59. Thirdly following the Scripture I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have or what notion could we have and by so doing tacitely confess that your selves are surer of the Truth of the Scripture than of your Churches authority For we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved otherwise it is no proof 60. Fourthly following the Scripture I follow that which must be true if your Church be true for your Church gives attestation to it Whereas if I follow your Church I must follow that which though Scripture be true may be false nay which if Scripture be true must be false because the Scripture testifies against it 61. Fifthly to follow the Scripture I have Gods express warrant and command and no colour of any prohibition But to believe your Church infallible I have no command at all much less an express command Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to do so in these Words call no man Master on Earth They fell by infidelity Thou standest by Faith Be not high minded but fear The Spirit of truth The World cannot receive 62. Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it if any thing be against it whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities many things above reason but nothing against it many things which had they not been revealed reason could never have discovered but nothing which by true reason may be confuted many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that I ought to believe it For reason will convince any man unless he be of a perverse mind that the Scripture is the Word of God And then no reason can be greater than this God says so therefore it is true 63. Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgment that will give himself the liberty of judgment will seem much more plainly contradicted by Scripture than the infallibility of your Church appears to be confirmed by it and consequently must be so
each to other without having these parts in several places then the distinction is vain But it is impossible that any thing should have several parts one out of another without having these parts in several places Therefore the distinction is vain The Major of this Syllogism he took for granted The Minor he proved thus Whatsoever body is in the proper place of another body must of necessity be in that very body by possessing the demensions of it therefore whatsoever hath several parts one out of the other must of necessity have them one out of the place of the other and consequently in several places For illustration of this Argument he said If my head and belly and thighs and legs be all in the very same place of necessity my head must be in my belly and my belly in my thighs and my thighs in my legs and all of them in my feet and my feet in all of them and therefore if my head be out of my belly it must be out of the place where my belly is and if it be not out of the place where my belly is it is not out of my belly but in it Again to shew that according to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation our Saviours body in the Eucharist hath not the several parts of it out of one another he disputed thus Wheresoever there is a body having several parts one out of the other there must be some middle parts severing the extreme parts But here according to this Doctrin the extreme parts are not severed but altogether in the same point Therefore here our Saviours Body cannot have parts one out of other Mr. Dan. To all this for want of a better Answer gave only this Let all Scholars peruse these After upon better consideration he wrote by the side of the last Syllogism this Quoad entitatem verum est non quoad locum that is according to entity it is true but not according to place And to Let all Scholars peruse these he caused this to be added And weigh whether there is any new matter worth a new Answer Chillingworth Replyed That to say the extreme parts of a body are severed by the middle parts according to their entity but not according to place is ridiculous His reasons are first Because severing of things is nothing else but putting or keeping them in several places as every silly woman knows and therefore to say they are severed but not according to place is as if you should say They are heated but not according to heat they are cooled but not according to cold Indeed is it to say they are severed but not severed VIII An account of what moved the Author to turn a Papist with his own Confutation of the Arguments that perswaded him thereto I Reconciled my self to the Church of Rome because I thought my self to have sufficient reason to believe that there was and must be always in the World some Church that could not err and consequently seeing all other Churches disclaimed this priviledge of not being subject to error the Church of Rome must be that Church which cannot err I was put into doubt of this way which I had chosen by D. Stapleton and others who limit the Churches freedom from Error to things necessary only and such as without which the Church can be a Church no longer but grantted it subject to error in things that were not necessary Hereupon considering that most of the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholicks were not touching things necessary but only profitable or lawful I concluded that I had not sufficient ground to believe the Roman Church either could not or did not err in any thing and therefore no ground to be a Roman Catholick Against this again I was perswaded that it was not sufficient to believe the Church to be an infallible believer of all doctrins necessary but it must also be granted an infallible teacher of what is necessary that is that we must believe not only that the Church teacheth all things necessary but that all is necessary to be believed which the Church teacheth to be so in effect that the Church is our Guide in the way to Heaven Now to believe that the Church was an infallible Guide and to be believed in all things which she requires us to believe I was induced First because there was nothing that could reasonably contest with the Church about this Office but the Scripture and that the Scripture was this Guide I was willing to believe but that I saw not how it could be made good without depending upon the Churches authority 1. That Scripture is the Word of God 2. That the Scripture is a perfect rule of our duty 3. That the Scripture is so plain in those things that concern our duty that whosoever desires and endeavors to find the will of God there shall either find it or at least not dangerously mistake it Secondly I was drawn to this belief because I conceived that it was evident out of the Epistle to the Ephesians that there must be unto the worlds end a Succession of Pastors by adhering to whom men might be kept from wavering in matters of faith and from being carried up and down with every wind of false doctrin That no Succession of Pastors could guard their adherents from danger of error if themselves were subject unto error either in teaching that to be necessary which is not so or denying that to be necessary which is so and therefore That there was and must be some Succession of Pastors which was an infallible guide in the way to Heaven and which should not possibly teach any thing to be necessary which was not so nor any thing not necessary which was so upon this ground I concluded that seeing there must be such a Succession of Pastors as was an infallible guide and there was no other but that of the Church of Rome even by the confession of all other Societies of Pastors in the world that therefore that Succession of Pastors is that infallible Guide of Faith which all men must follow Upon these grounds I thought it necessary for my salvation to believe the Roman Church in all that she thought to be and proposed as necessary Against these Arguments it hath been demonstrated unto me and First against the first That the reason why we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God neither is nor can be the Authority of the present Church of Rome which cannot make good her Authority any other way but by pretence of Scripture and therefore stands not unto Scripture no not in respect of us in the relation of a Foundation to a building but of a building to a Foundation doth not support Scripture but is supported by it But the general consent of Christians of all Nations and Ages a far greater company than that of the Church of Rome and delivering universally the Scripture for the word of God is the ordinary
and most Royal Charity Besides it is in a manner nothing else but a pursuance of and a superstruction upon that blessed Doctrin wherewith I have adorn'd and arm'd the Frontispiece of my Book which was so earnestly recommended by your Royal Father of happy memory to all the lovers of Truth and Peace that is to all that were like himself as the only hopeful means of healing the breaches of Christendom whereof the Enemy of souls makes such pestilent advantage The lustre of this blessed Doctrin I have here endeavoured to uncloud and unveil and to free it from those mists and fumes which have been rais'd to obscure it by that Order which envenoms even poison it self and makes the Roman Religion much more malignant and turbulent than otherwise it would be whose very Rule and Doctrin obliges them to make all men as much as lies in them subjects unto Kings and servants unto Christ no farther than it shall please the Pope So that whether Your Majesty be considered either as a pious Son towards your Royal Father K. James or as a tender hearted and compassionate Son towards your distressed Mother the Catholick Church or as a King of your Subjects or as a Servant unto Christ this work to which I can give no other commendation but that it was intended to do you service in all these capacities may pretend not unreasonably to your Gracious acceptance Lastly being a Defence of that whole Church and Religion you profess it could not be so proper to any Patron as to the great Defender of it which stile 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 Forein enemies of which they can have no ground but their own malice and want of Charity But it 's an argument of a despairing and lost cause to support it self with these impetuous outcries and clamors the faint refuges of those that want better arguments like that Stoick in Lucian that cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O damn'd 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 peremptory 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 truly 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 Eccommunicate for fashion sake on Maundy-Thursday for detaining part of S. 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 undertakeable 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 concerns 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 endeavors 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 has 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 PREFACE TO THE AUTHOR OF Charity Maintained With an Answer to his 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 Catholick brought to his conference with Faustus the Manichee For as he thought that if any thing more then ordinary might be said in defence of the Manichean Doctrine Faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected So my persuasion concerning you was Si Pergama dextrâ defendi possunt certè hac defensa videbo If Troy by any Power could stand 'T would be defended by your hand 1. For I conceived that among the Champions of the Roman Church the English in Reason must be the best or equal 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 Jesuits 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 choice 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 Doctrin 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 than I was to have it effected For my desire is to go the right way to Eternal
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 Murther who knows not 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 Child 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 selfe 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 alwaies God whereas he that followeth a Company of Men may oftimes 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 the Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their actions not whether they acknowledg the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more than S. Paul in exhorting all Christians to try all things and to hold fast that which is good than S. Peter in commanding all Christians to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them than our Saviour himself in forewarning all his followers that if they blindly followed blind 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 ye not what is right And though by passion or precipitation or prejudice by want of Reason or not using that they have Men may be and are oftentimes led into 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 Err 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 irreconcilable 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 denied no man can be assured that any parcel 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 first because the experience of innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assured that the Scripture is Divinely inspired and yet deny the infallible Authority of your Church or any other The second because if I cannot have ground to be assured of the Divine Authority of Scripture unless I first believe your Church infallible then I can have no ground at all to believe it because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe your Church Infallible unless I first believe the Scripture Divine 16. Had I a mind to recriminate now and to charge Papists as you do Protestants that they lead Men to Socinianism I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence than you have done For I would not tell you you deny the Infallibility of the Church of England Ergo you lead to Socinianism which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Roman Church Ergo they induce Socinianism Nor would I resume my former Argument and urge you that by holding the Popes Infallibility you submit your self to that Capital and Mother Heresie by advantage whereof he may lead you at ease to believe vertue vice and vice vertue to believe Antichristianity Christianism and Christianity Antichristian he may lead you to Socinianism to Turcism nay to the
commits them Not you will say if he Die in them without repentance and such Protestants you speak of who without Repentance Die in their Errors Yea but what if they Die in their Errors with Repentance than I hope you will have Charity enough to think they may be saved Charity Mist takes it indeed for granted In the place above quoted that this supposition is distructive of it self and that it is impossible and incongruous that a Man should repent of those Errors wherein he Dies or Die in those whereof he repents But it was wisely done of Him to take it for granted for most certainly He could not have spoken one word of sense for the confirmation of it For seeing Protestants believe as well as you Gods infinite and most admirable perfections in himself more than most worthy of all possible love seeing they believe as well as you his infinite goodness to them in Creating them of nothing in Creating them according to his own Image in Creating all things for their use and benefit in streaming down his Favours on them every moment of their Lives in designing them if they serve him to infinite and Eternal Happiness in Redeeming them not with corruptible things but the Pretious Blood of his beloved Son seeing they believe as well as you His infinite goodness and Patience towards them in expecting their Conversion in Wooing Alluring Leading and by all means which his Wisdom can Suggest unto him and Mans nature is capable of drawing them to Repentance and Salvation Seeing they believe these things as well as you and for ought you know consider them as much as you and if they do not it is not their Religion but they that are to blame what can hinder but that the consideration of Gods most infinite goodness to them and their own almost infinite wickedness against him Gods Spirit cooperating with them may raise them to a true and sincere and a cordial love of God And seeing sorrow for having injured or offended the Person beloved or when we fear we may have offended him is the most natural effect of true love what can hinder but that love which hath oftimes constrained them to lay down their lives for God which our Saviour assures us is the noblest Sacrifice we can offer may produce in them an universal sorrow for all their sins both which they know they have committed and which they fear they may have In which number their being negligent or not dispassionate or not unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth and the effect thereof their Errors if they be sins cannot but be compriz'd In a word what should hinder but that that Prayer Delicta sua quis intelligit who can understand his faults Lord cleanse thou me from my secret sins may be heard and accepted by God as well from a Protestant that Dies in some Errors as from a Papist that Dies in some other sins of Ignorance which perhaps he might more easily have discovered to be sins than a Protestant could his Errors to be Errors As well from a Protestant that held some Error which as he conceived Gods Word and his Reason which is also in some sort Gods Word led him unto as from a Dominican who perhaps took up his opinion upon trust not because he had reason to believe it true but because it was the opinion of his Order for the same man if he had light upon another Order would in all probability have been of the other Opinion For what else is the cause that generally all the Dominicans are of one Opinion and all the Jesuits of the other I say from a Dominican who took up his Opinion upon trust and that such an Opinion if we believe the writers of your Order as if it be granted true it were not a point matter what Opinions any man held or what actions any man did for the best would be as bad as the worst and the worst as good as the best And yet such is the partiality of your Hypocrisie that of disagreeing Papists neither shall deny the truth testified by God but both may hope for Salvation but of disagreeing Protestants though they differ in the same thing one side must deny Gods Testimony and be incapable of Salvation That a Dominican through culpable negligence living and dying in his Error may repent of it though he knows it not or be saved though he do not But if a Protestant do the very same thing in the very same point and Die in his Error his case is desperate The Sum of all that hath been said to this Demand is this 1. That no Erring Protestant denys any truth testified by God under this formality as testified by him nor which they know or believe to be testified by him And therefore it is a horrible Calumny in you to say They call Gods Veracity in question For Gods undoubted and unquestioned Veracity is to them the ground why they hold all they do hold neither do they hold any Opinion so stifly but they will forgoe it rather than this one That all which God says is true 2. God hath not so clearly and plainly declared himself in most of these things which are in controversie between Protestants but that an honest man whose heart is right to God and one that is a true lover of God and of his truth may by reason of the conflict of contrary Reasons on both sides very easily and therefore excusably mistake and embrace Error for Truth and reject Truth for Error 3. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any Error by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many Millions are such Error is as the cause of it sinful and damnable yet not exclusive of all hope of Salvation but pardonable if discovered upon a particular explicite repentance if not discovered upon a general and implicite repentance for all Sins known and unknown in which number all sinful Errors must of necessity be contained 27. Ad 19. § To the Ninth Wherein you are so urgent for a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals I answer almost in your own words that we also constantly urge and require to have a particular Catalogue of your Fundamentals whether they be written Verities or unwritten Traditions or Church Definitions all which you say integrate the material Object of your Faith In a word of all such Points as are defined and sufficiently proposed so that whosoever denys or doubts of any of them is certainly in the state of damnation A Catalogue I say in particular of the Proposals and not only some general definition or description under which you lurk deceitfully of what and what only is sufficiently proposed wherein yet you do not very well agree This great diversity of Opinions among you touching this matter if any man doubt of it let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula in l. Theorem in Exposit Theor quarti and Tho. Waldensis Tom. 3. De
contemporaries and by writings wrote indeed by some but approved by all of them taught their Christian posterity to the Worlds End how all these ends and that which is the End of all these ends Salvation is to be atchieved And these means the Providence of God hath still preserved and so preserved that they are sufficient for all these intents I say sufficient though through the Malice of Men not always effectual for that the same means may be sufficient for the compassing an end and not effectual you must not deny who hold that God gives all men sufficient means of Salvation and yet that all are not saved I said also sufficient to determine all controversies which were necessary to be determined For if some controversies may for many Ages be undetermined and yet in the mean while men be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectual means to determine all Controversies in Religion be necessary to Salvation the end it self to which these means are ordained being as experience shews not necessary Plain sense will teach every man that the necessity of the means must always be measured by and can never exceed the necessity of the end As if eating be necessary only that I may live then certainly if I have no necessity to live I have no necessity to eat If I have no need to be at London I have no need of a Horse to carry me thither If I have no need to Fly I have no need of Wings Answer me then I pray directly and Categorically Is it necessary that all Controversies in Religion should be determined or is it not If it be why is the question of Predetermination of the immaculate conception of the Popes indirect power in temporalties so long undetermined if not what is it but Hypocrisie to pretend such great necessity of such effectual means for the archieving that end which is it self not necessary Christians therefore have and shall have means sufficient though not always effectual to determine not all controversies but all necessary to be determined I proceed on farther with you and grant that this means to decide controversies in Faith and Religion must be indued with an Universal Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any thing which God requires men to believe we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing These grounds therefore I grant very readily and give you free leave to make your best advantage of them And yet to deal truly I do not perceive how from the denial of any of them it would follow that Faith is Opinion or from the granting them that it is not so But for my part whatsoever clamour you have raised against me I think no otherwise of the Nature of Faith I mean Historical Faith than generally both Protestants and Papists do for I conceive it an assent to Divine Revelations upon the Authority of the revealer Which though in many things it differ from Opinion as commonly the Word Opinion is understood yet in some things I doubt not but you will confess that it agrees with it As first that as Opinion is an Assent so is Faith also Secondly that as Opinion so Faith is always built upon less evidence than that of Sence or Science Which assertion you not only grant but mainly contend for in your sixth Ch. Thirdly and lastly that as Opinion so Faith admits degrees and that as there may be a strong and weak Opinion so there may be a strong and weak Faith These things if you will grant as sure if you be in your right mind you will not deny any of them I am well contented that this ill-sounding Word Opinion should be discarded and that among the Intellectual habits you should seek out some other Genus for Faith For I will never contend with any man about Words who grants my meaning 8. But though the Essence of Faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection yet may it be enquired whether any certainty of Faith under the highest degree may be sufficient to please God and attain Salvation Whereunto I answer that though men are unreasonable God requires not any thing but Reason They will not be pleased without a down weight but God is contented if the Scale be turned They pretend that Heavenly things cannot be seen to any purpose but by the mid-day-light But God will be satisfied if we receive any degree of light which makes us leave the Works of Darkness and walk as Children of the Light They exact a certainty of Faith above that of Sence or Science God desires only that we believe the conclusion as much as the premises deserve that the strength of our Faith be equal or proportionable to the credibility of the Motives to it Now though I have and ought to have an absolute certainty of this Thesis All which God reveals for truth is true being a proposition that may be demonstrated or rather so evident to any one that understands it that it needs it not Yet of this Hypothesis That all the Articles of our Faith were revealed by God we cannot ordinarily have any rational and acquired certainty more than moral founded upon these considerations First that the goodness of the precepts of Christianity and the greatness of the promises of it shews it of all other Religions most likely to come from the Fountain of goodness And then that a constant famous and very general Tradition so credible that no Wise Man doubts of any other which hath but the Fortieth part of the credibility of this such and so credible a Tradition tells us that God himself hath set his Hand and Seal to the Truth of this Doctrine by doing great and glorious and frequent miracles in confirmation of it Now our Faith is an assent to this conclusion that the Doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduced from the former Thesis which is Metapyhsically certain and from the former Hypothesis whereof we can have but a Moral certainty we cannot possibly by natural means be more certain of it than of the weaker of the premises as a River will not rise higher than the Fountain from which it flows For the conclusion always follows the worser part if there be any worse and must be Negative Particular Contingent or but Morally certain if any of the Propositions from whence it is derived be so Neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree unless we be thus certain of all the principles whereon it is grounded As a man cannot go or stand strongly if either of his Legs be weak Or as a building cannot be stable if any one of the necessary Pillars thereof be infirm and instable Or as If a meassage be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my confidence of the Truth of the Relation
your self § 16. is this That the Infallible means of determining Controversies is the Visible Church That the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental maketh nothing to the present Question That to say the Creed containeth all Fundamentals is neither pertinent nor true That whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schism and Heresie That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards one self Protestants are in state of Sin while they remain divided from the Roman Chruch To all these Assertions I will content my self for the present to oppose this one That not one of them all is true Only I may not omit to tell you that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himself desires it should be yet the Corollary which you deduce from it would be utterly inconsequent That whosoever denys any point proposed by the Church is injurious to Gods Divine Majesty as if he could deceive or be deceived For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be yet if it appeared not to me to be so I might very well believe God most true and your Church most false As though the Gospel of S. Matthew be the Word of God yet if I neither knew it to be so nor believed it I might believe in God and yet think that Gospel a Fable Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember that our being guilty of this impiety depends not only upon your being but upon our knowing that you are so Neither must you argue thus The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities therefore he that opposes Her calls Gods Truth in Question But thus rather The Church of Rome is so and Protestants know it to be so therefore in opposing Her they impute to God that either he deceives them or is deceived himself For as I may deny something which you upon your knowledg have affirmed and yet never disparage your honesty if I never knew that you affirmed it So I may be undoubtedly certain of Gods Omniscience and Veracity and yet doubt of something which he hath revealed provided I do not know nor believe that he hath revealed it So that though your Church be the appointed witness of Gods Revelations yet until you know that we know she is so you cannot without foul Calumny impute to us That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving or being deceived You will say perhaps That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine That the Church may Err which is directed by God in all Her proposals True if we knew it to be directed by him otherwise not much less if we believe and know the contrary But then if it were consequent from our Opinion have you so little Charity as to say that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions Such consequences I mean as they do not own but disclaim and if there were a necessity of doing either would much rather forsake their Opinion than embrace these Consequences What Opinion is there that draws after it such a Train of portentous Blasphemies as that of the Dominicans by the judgment of the best Writers of your own Order And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargeable with all these Blasphemies If not seeing our case take it at the worst is but the same why should not your judgment of us be the same I appeal to all those Protestants that have gone over to your Side whether when they were most averse from it they did ever deny or doubt of Gods omniscience or veracity whether they did ever believe or were taught that God did deceive them or was deceived himself Nay I provoke to you your self and desire you to deal truly and to tell Us whether you do in your Heart believe that we do indeed not believe the Eternal Veracity of the Eternal Verity And if you judge so strangely of us having no better ground for it than you have or can have we shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitableness towards us this being the extremity of true uncharitableness If not then I hope having no other ground but this which sure is none at all to pronounce us damnable Hereticks you will cease to do so and hereafter as if your ground be true you may do with more truth and Charity Collect thus They only Err damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified But Protestants sure do not oppose what they know God hath testified at least we cannot with Charity say they do Therefore they either do not Err damnably or with Charity we cannot say they do so 13. Ad 17. § Protestants you say according to their own grounds must hold that of Persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief one part only can be saved therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for holding the same The consequence I acknowledg but wonder much what it should be that lays upon Protestants any necessity to do so You tell us it is their holding Scripture the sole Rule of Faith for this you say obligeth them to pronounce them damned that oppose any least point delivered in Scripture This I grant If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture or have no just probable Reason and which may move an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contained For to oppose in the first Case in a man that believes the Scripture to be the Word of God is to give God the Lie To oppose in the second is to be obstinate against Reason and therefore a sin though not so great as the former But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary belief and that for these Reasons First because the contrary belief may be touching a point not at all mentioned in Scripture and such points though indeed they be not matters of Faith yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteemed to be so So that though it were damnable to oppose any point contained in Scripture yet Persons of a contrary belief as Victor and Polycrates S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary belief was not touching any point contained in Scripture Secondly because the contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probability capable of diverse Senses and in such Cases it is no marvel and sure no Sin if several men go several ways Thirdly because the contrary belief may be concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and upright Hearts true lovers of God and of truth such as desire above all things to know Gods Will and to do
it may without any fault at all some go one way and some another and some and those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgments and expect some Elias to solve doubts and reconcile repugnances Now in all such Questions one side or other which soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended Sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily believe that they indeed maintain it and have great shew of reason to induce them to believe so and therefore are not to be damned as men opposing that which they either know to be a truth delivered in Scripture or have no probable Reason to believe the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolved as men who endeavour to find the Truth but fail of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceive impossible is very obvious and easie 14. To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any any one Truth contained in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knew it to be so or have no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15. To the second Whether there be in such denial any distinction between Fundamental and not Fundamental sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a distinction But the Reason is because these points either in themselves or by accident are Fundamental which are evidently contained in Scripture to him that knows them to be so Those not Fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16. To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamental points of Faith as if believing it alone we were at Liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alledged to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more than a sufficient Summary of those points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitely and that only of such which were meerly and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17. To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that of Persons contrary in belief one part only can be saved I answer By no means For they may differ about points not contained in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alledged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Heresie and a self-condemning obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter do not take it ill that you believe your selves may be saved in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrary he may justly condemn you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you do that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. 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 C. M. Of our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestants themselves give Testimony while they possess it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody c. I HIL 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 successful was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publick and authorized interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrine she pleased under the Title of Traditions or Definitions For by this means she might both serve her self of all those causes 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 limitted or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the minds of men that unwritten Doctrines if proposed by her were to be received with equal reverence to those that were written 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 in 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 always prest and in readiness to advance your designs 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 King 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 sincere obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye me Lord Lord and do not that which I command you Cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of Infallibility which makes your Errors incurable Leave Picturing God and Worshiping him by Pictures Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men Debar not the Laity of the Testament of Christ's Blood Let your publick Prayers and Psalms and Hymes be in such Language as is for the Edification of the Assistants Take not from the Clergy that Liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Do not impose upon men that Humility of Worshiping Angels which S. Paul condemns Teach no more proper Sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledge them that Die in Christ to be blessed and to rest from their Labours Acknowledge the Sacrament after Consecration to be Bread and Wine as well as Christs Body and Blood Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to
not go about this noble work presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Council 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 Council 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 infalliblyassisted 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 Ghosts 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 free-will 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. Obj. To the place of S. Austin I would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Church did move me Contr. ep Fund c. 5. Answ 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 Saint 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 S. Austin Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. 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 disbelieve 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 things agrees to them as well as him 98. If you say that S. Austin speaks here of the Authority of the Present Church abstracting 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 Catholick 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 Catholick as well as a Catholick from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the Title of Catholicks 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 Homoousians Choose 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 Homoousians 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 Homoousians Doest 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 101. And whereas you say S. Austin may seem to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing Answ 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 judge 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 Ministry of this Church say just so to you as S. Austin here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose authority I was moved to believe that Christ commandded 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
4.11 he hath given Pastors and Doctors c. lest we should be carried about with every wind of Doctrine To any particular Church of Christians seeing it is a particular Church which is called l 1 Tim. 3.15 The House of God a Pillar and ground of Truth and seeing of any particular Church it is written m Mat. 18.17 He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican We might refer it to any man that prays for Gods Spirit for it is written n Mat. 7.8 Every one that asketh receiveth and again o Jam. 1.5 If any man want Wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not Lastly we might refer it to the Jews for without all doubt of them it is written p Isai 59.21 my Spirit that is in thee c. All these means of agreement whereof not any one but hath as much probability from Scripture d Mat. 18.20 as that which you obtrude upon us offer themselves upon a sudden to me happily many more might be thought on if we had time but these are enough to shew that would we make use of voluntary and devised means to determine differences we had them in great abundance And if you say these would fail us and contradict themselves so as we pretend have yours There have been Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Councils confirmed by Popes against Councils confirmed by Popes Lastly the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages 9. Lastly whereas you find fault That Protestants upbraided with their discords answer that they differ only in points not Fundamental I desire you tell me whether they do so or do not so If they do so I hope you will not find fault with the Answer If you say they do not so but in points Fundamental also then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more than with you And therefore why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more than to your selves their more and greater differences from you 10. But they are convinced sometime even by their own confessions that the Ancient Fathers taught divers points of Popery and then they reply those Fathers may nevertheless be saved because those Errors were not Fundamental And may not you also be convinced by the confessions of your own men that the Fathers taught divers points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome Do not your Purging Indexes clip the Tongues and seal up the Lips of a great many for such confessions And is not the above cited confession of your Doway Divines plain and full to the same purpose And do not you also as freely as we charge the Fathers with Errors and yet say they were saved Now what else do we understand by an unfundamental Error but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved So that still you proceed in condemning others for your own faults and urging arguments against us which return more strongly upon your selves 11. But your will is we should remember that Christ must alwaies have a visible Church Answ Your pleasure shall be obeyed on condition you will not forget that there is a difference between perpetual Visibility and perpetual Purity As for the answer which you make for us true it is we believe the Catholick Church cannot perish yet that she may and did Err in points not Fundamental and that Protestants were obliged to forsake these Errors of the Church as they did though not the Church for her Errors for that they did not but continued still members of the Church For it is not all one though you perpetually confound them to forsake the Errors of the Church and to forsake the Church or to forsake the Church in her Errors and simply to forsake the Church No more than it is for me to renounce my Brothers or my Friends Vices or Errors and to renounce my Brother or my Friend The former then was done by Protestants the latter was not done Nay not only not from the Catholick but not so much as from the Roman did they separate per omnia but only in those practices which they conceived superstitious or impious If you would at this time propose a form of Liturgy which both Sides hold lawful and then they would not joyn with you in this Liturgy you might have some colour then to say they renounce your communion absolutely But as things are now ordered they cannot joyn with you in prayers but they must partake with you in unlawful practices and for this reason they not absolutely but thus far separate from your communion And this I say they were obliged to do under pain of damnation Not as if it were damnable to hold an Error not damnable but because it is damnable outwardly to profess and maintain it and to joyn with others in the practice of it when inwardly they did not hold it Now had they continued in your communion that they must have done vid. have professed to believe and externally practised your Errors whereof they were convinced that they were Errors which though the matters of the Errors had been not necessary but only profitable whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and Hypocrisie I leave it to you to Judge You your self tell us within two pages after this that you are obliged never to speak any one least lie against your knowledge § 2. now what is this but to live in a perpetual lie 12. As for that which in the next place you seem so to wonder at That both Catholicks and Protestants according to the opinion of Protestants may be saved in their several professions because forsooth we both agree in all Fundamental points I Answer this proposition so crudely set down as you have here set it down I know no Protestant will justifie For you seem to make them teach that it is an indifferent thing for the attainment of Salvation whether a man believe the Truth or the Falshood and that they care not in whether of these Religions a man live or die so he die in either of them whereas all that they say is this That those amongst you which want means to find the Truth and so die in Error or use the best means they can with industry and without partiality to find the Truth and yet die in Error these men thus qualified notwithstanding these Errors may be saved Secondly for those that have means to find the Truth and will not use them they conceive though their case be dangerous yet if they die with a general repentance for all their sins known and unknown their Salvation is not desperate The Truths which they hold of Faith in Christ and Repentance being as it were an Antidote against their Errors and their negligence in seeking the Truth Especially seeing by confession of
from the Act and Object in general if the Habit be special from the Act and Object in special Then for the motive to a thing that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moves who can doubt that knows that a motive is an efficient cause and that the efficient is always extrinsecal to the effect For the fourth that Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects It is ambiguous and if the sense of it be that his Revelation is an equal Motive to induce us to believe all objects revealed by him it is true but impertinent If the sense of it be that all objects revealed by God are alike that is alike plainly and undoubtedly revealed by him it is pertinent but most untrue Witness the great diversity of Texts of Scripture whereof some are so plain and evident that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them Some are so obscure and ambiguous that to say this or this is the certain sense of them were high presumption For the 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselves perhaps but not equally to them whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned and shaped for the entertainment of various Opinions and consequently some of them more inclined to believe such a sense of Scripture others to believe another which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens Opinions is to disparage his goodness But to what purpose is it that these things are equally revealed to both as the light is equally revealed to all blind men if they be not fully revealed to either The sense of this Scripture Why are they then baptized for the dead and this He shall be saved yet so as by fire and a thousand others is equally revealed to you and to another interpreter that is certainly to neither He now conceives one sense of them and you another and would it not be an excellent inference if I should conclude now as you do That you forsake the formal motive of Faith which is Gods Revelation and consequently lose all faith and unity therein So likewise the Jesuits and Dominicans the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things equally revealed by Almighty God and seeing they do so I beseech you let me understand why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all faith and unity therein Thus you have failed of your undertaking in your first part of your Title and that is a very ill omen especially in points of so streight mutual dependance that we shall have but slender performance in your second assumpt Which is That the Church is Infallible in all her Definitions whether concerning points Fundamental or not Fundamental 26. Ad § 9.10 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sin either deny any thing to be true which she knows to be Gods truth or propose any thing as his truth which she knows not to be so But that she may not do this by ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sin that you should have proved but have not But say you 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 Ans It does not follow unless you suppose that the Church knows that she is assisted no farther But if being assisted only so far she yet did conceive by error her assistance absolute and unlimited or if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentals she yet conceived by error that she should be guarded from proposing any thing but what was fundamental then the consequence is apparently false But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamental to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith Ans Neither is this destruction worth any thing unless it be understood of such fundamental points as she is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of Faith certainly true she may well be questioned Quo Warranto She builds without a foundation and says thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excused from rashness and high presumption such a presumption as an Embassador should commit who should say in his Masters name that for which he hath no commission Of the same nature I say but of a higher strain as much as the King of Heaven is greater than any earthly King But though she may err in some points not fundamental yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others as for example these That Abraham begat Isaac that S. Paul had a Cloak that Timothy was sick because these though not fundamental i. e. no essential parts of Christianity yet are evidently and undeniably set down in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashness proposed by the Church as certain divine Revelations Neither is your Argument concluding when you say If in such things she may be deceived she must be always uncertain of all such things For my sense may sometimes possibly deceive me yet I am certain enough that I see what I see and feel what I feel Our Judges are not infallible in their judgments yet are they certain enough that 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 Travelleris not always certain of his way but often mistaken and does 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 infallibillty 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. Obj. 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 Ans 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
the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all But here we must err with you in small things for fear of loosing your direction in greater and for fear of departing too far from you not go from you at all even where we see plainly that you have departed from the Truth 57. Beyond all this I say that this which you say in wisdom we are to do is not only unlawful but if we will proceed according to reason impossible I mean to adhere to you in all things having no other ground for it but because you are as we will now suppose Infallible in some things that is in Fundamentals For whether by skill in Architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow foundation I know not but sure I am in reason no conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded And therefore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partial my adherence upon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and Universal and Total I am confident that should I meet with such a man amongst you as I am well assur'd there be many that would grant your Church Infallible only in Fundamentals which what they are he knows not and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things I say that I am confident that it may be demonstrated that such a man adheres to you with a fiducial and certain assent in nothing To make this clear because at the first hearing it may seem strange give me leave good Sir to suppose you the man and to propose to you a few questions and to give for you such answers to them as upon this ground you must of necessity give were you present with me First supposing you hold your Church Infallible in Fundamentals obnoxious to Error in other things and that you know not what points are Fundamental I demand C. Why do you believe the Doctrin of Transubstantiation K. because the Church hath taught it which is Infallible C. What Infallible in all things or only in Fundamentals K. in Fundamentals only C. Then in other points she may err K. she may C. and do you know what Points are Fundamental what not K. No and therefore I believe her in all things least I should disbelieve her in fundamentals C. How know you then whether this be a fundamental point or no K. I know not C. It may be then for ought you know an unfundamental point K. yes it may be so C. And in these you said the Church may err K. yes I did so C. Then possibly it may err in this K. It may do so C. Then what certainty have you that it does not err in it K. None at all but upon this supposition that this is a Fundamental C. And this supposition you are uncertain of K. Yes I told you so before C. And therefore you can have no certainty of that which depends upon this uncertainty saving only a suppositive certainty if it be a Fundamental truth which is in plain English to say you are certain it is true if it be both true and necessary Verily Sir if you have no better Faith than this you are no Catholick K. good words I pray I am so and God willing will be so C. You mean in outward profession and practice but in belief you are not no more than a Protestant is a Catholick For every Protestant yields such a kind of assent to all the proposals of the Church for surely they believe them true if they be Fundamental Truths And therefore you must either believe the Church Infallible in all her proposals be they foundations or be they superstructions or else you must believe all Fundamental which she proposes or else you are no Catholick K. But I have been taught that seeing I believed the Church Infallible in points necessary in wisdom I was to believe her in every thing C. That was a pretty plausible inducement to bring you hither but now you are here you must go farther and believe her Infallible in all things or else you were as good go back again which will be a great disparagement to you and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our part and even with your own the imputation of rashness and levity You see I hope by this time that though a man did believe your Church Infallible in Fundamentals yet he has no reason to do you the courtesie of believing all her proposals nay if he be ignorant what these Fundamentals are he has no certain ground to believe her upon her Authority in any thing And whereas you say it can be no imprudence to err with the Church I say it may be very great imprudence if the question be Whether we should err with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 60. Whereas you add That that visible Church which cannot err in Fundamental propounds all her definitions without distinction to be believed under Anathema's Ans Again you beg the question supposing untruly that there is any that Visible Church I mean any Visible Church of one Denomination which cannot err in points Fundamental Secondly proposing definitions to be believed under Anathema's is no good argument that the Propounders conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrine they condemn is evidently damnable A plain proof hereof is this that particular Councils nay particular men have been very liberal of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible either by others or themselves If any man should now deny Christ to be the Saviour of the world or deny the Resurrection I should make no great scruple of Anathematizing his Doctrine and yet am very far from dreaming of Infallibility 62. The effect of the next Argument is this I cannot without grievous sin disobey the Church unless I know she commands those things which are not in her power to command and how far this power extends none can better inform me than the Church Therefore I am to obey so far as the Church requires my obedience I Answer First That neither hath the Catholick Church but only a corrupt part of it declared her self nor required our obedience in the points contested among us This therefore is falsely and vainly supposed here by you being one of the greatest questions amongst us Then Secondly That God can better inform us what are the limits of the Churches power than the Church her self that is than the Roman Clergy who being men subject to the same passions with other men why they should be thought the best Judges in their own cause I do not well understand But yet we oppose against them no human decisive Judges not any Sect or Person but only God and his Word And therefore it is in vain to say That in following her you shall be sooner excused than in following any Sect or Man applying Scriptures against her Doctrine In as much
would easily perceive it to be of the very same kind and capable of the very same construction And therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain Neither can you assure us that the Bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend Neither if he did suppose this as perhaps he did were this to contradict himself For though there can be no damnable Heresie unless it contradict some necessary Truth yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once believe this Heresie and this Truth because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should believe contradictions For first whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must believe but there have been some who have believed and taught that contradictions might be true against whom Aristotle disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks Therefore it is not impossible that a man may believe contradictions Secondly they which believe there is no certainty in Reason must believe that contradictions may be true For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason This contradicts Truth therefore it is false But there be now divers in the world who believe there is no certainty in reason and whether you be of their mind or no I desire to be informed Therefore there be divers in the world who believe contradictions may be true Thirdly They which do captivate their understandings to the belief of those things which to their understanding seem irreconcileable contradictions may as well believe real contradictions For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant but from their seeming to be so But you do captivate your understandings to the belief of those things which seem to your understandings irreconcileable contradictions therefore it is as possible and easie for you to believe those that indeed are so Fourthly some men may be confuted in their Errors and perswaded out of them but no mans Error can be confuted who together with his Error doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his Error for nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men know any rational discourse but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certain that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions Fifthly It is evident neither can you without extream madness and uncharitableness deny that we believe the Bible those Books I mean which we believe Canonical Otherwise why dispute you with us out of them as out of a common Principle Either therefore you must retract your opinion and acknowledge that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions or else you will run into a greater inconvenience and be forced to confess that no part of our Doctrin contradicts the Bible Sixthly I desire you to vindicate from contradiction these following Assertions That there should be Length and nothing long Breadth and nothing broad Thickness and nothing thick Whiteness and nothing white Roundness and nothing round Weight and nothing heavy Sweetness and nothing sweet Moisture and nothing moist Fluidness and nothing flowing many Actions and no Agent many Passions and no Patient That is that there should be a long broad thick white round heavy sweet moist flowing active passive nothing That Bread should be turned into the substance of Christ and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ neither the matter nor the form nor the Accidents of Bread be made either the matter or the Form or the Accidents of Christ That Bread should be turned into nothing and at the same time with the same action turned into Christ and yet Christ should not be nothing That the same thing at the same time should have its just dimensions and just distance of its parts one from another and at the same time not have it but all its parts together in one and the self same point That the body of Christ which is much greater should be contained wholly and in its full dimensions without any alteration in that which is lesser and that not once only but as many times over as there are several points in the bread and wine That the same thing at the same time should be wholly above it self and wholly below it self within it self and without it self on the right hand and on the left hand and round about it self That the same thing at the same time should move to and from it self and lie still Or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space and yet not move That it should be brought from Heaven to Earth and yet not come out of Heaven nor be at all in any of the middle space between Heaven and Earth That to be one should be to be undivided from it self and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it self That a thing may be and yet be no where That a Finite thing may be in all places at once That a Body may be in a place and have there its dimensions and colour and all other qualities and yet that it is not in the power of God to make it visible and tangible there nor capable of doing or suffering any thing That there should be no certainty in our senses and yet that we should know something certainly and yet know nothing but by our senses That that which is and was long ago should now begin to be That that is now to be made of nothing which is not nothing but something That the same thing should be before and after it self That it should be truly and really in a place and yet without Locality Nay that He which is Omnipotent should not be able to give it Locality in this place where it is as some of you hold or if he can as others say he can that it should be possible that the same man for example You or I may at the same time be awake at London not awake but asleep at Rome There run or walk here not run or walk but stand still sit or lie along There study or write here do neither but dine or sup There speak here be silent That he may in one place freez for cold in another burn with heat That he may be drunk in one place and sober in another Valiant in one place and a Coward in another A thief in one place honest in another That he may be a Papist and go to Mass in Rome A Protestant and go to Church in England That he may die in Rome and live in England or dying in both places may go to Hell from Rome and to Heaven from England That the Body and Soul of Christ should cease to be where it was and yet not go to another place nor be destroyed All these and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable and most of them the acknowledged consequences of your doctâ—in of
cleanse themselves and yet continue parts of the Body And what reason then in the World is there if the whole visible Church were overcome with Tares and Weeds of superstitions and corruptions but that some members of it might reform themselves and yet continue still true members of the Body of the Church and not be made no members but the better by their Reformation 50. We acknowledge that we cannot as matters now stand Separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your External Communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must Communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in external Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in external Communion can be both true parts of the Catholick Church 51. We are not to learn the difference between Schism and Heresie for Heresie we conceive an obstinate defence of any Error against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schism a causless separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of Errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismaticks for refusing to joyn with you in the profession of these Errors and the practice of these corruptions And therefore you must free your selves from Error or us from Schism 52. Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the external Communion of the Visible Church add which external communion was corrupted and we shall confess the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made our selves Out-laws from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of your separation from the external Communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches external Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53. That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schism we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concerns every man who separates from any Churches Communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to look most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors superstitions and impieties will not justifie our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reform themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you refer us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alledging them you have gained little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Judges of this Controversie their sentence is against you much rather than for you 56. But your Argument you conceive will be more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans The ground of this is no way certain nor here sufficiently proved For whereas you say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had latly all power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Lastly whereas you say that supposing a visible pure Church Luther must be a Schismatick who separated from all visible Churches I tell you if you will suppose a Visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoyned himself to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in external Communion which was impossible but by the Union of Faith and Charity Upon these grounds I say that the ground of this Argument is no way made certain yet because it is not manifestly false I am content to let it pass And for ought I see it is very safe for me to do so for you build nothing upon it which I may not fairly grant For what do you conclude from hence but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external Communion of the Catholick Church Well let this also be granted what will come of it What that Luther must be a Schismatick By no means For not every separation but only a causeless separation from the Communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismatical Hereunto may be added that though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther and his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the external Communion of it But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted and still would be so and forsook not but only reformed another Part which Part they themselves were and I suppose you will not go about to persuade us that they forsook themselves or their own Communion And if you urge that they joyned themselves to no other part therefore they separated from the whole I say it follows not in as much as themselves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore could no more separate from the whole than from themselves Thus though there were no part of the People of Rome to whom the Plebeians joyned themselves when they made their Secession into the Aventine Hill yet they divided themselves from the Patricians only and not from the whole People because themselves were a part of this People and they divided not from themselves 57. Ad § 18. Here you prove that which no man denies that corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the Church yet sure it yields sufficient cause to cast them out of the Church that are after the Churches publick admonition obstinate in notorious impieties Neither doth the cutting off such men from the Church lay any necessity upon us either to go out of the World or out of the Church but rather puts these men out of the Church into the World where we may converse with them freely without scandal to the Church Our Blessed Saviour foretold you say that there should be in the Church Tares with choice
Faith was commended by the Preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have access Answ For S. Cyprian all the World knows that he b It is confessed by Baronius Anno. 238. N. 41. By Bellarm l. 4. de R. Pont. c. 7. §. Tertia ratio resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Re-baptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion c Confessed by Baronius An 258. N. 14. 15. By Card. Perron Repl. l. 1. c. 25. Ibid. were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which excommunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinal Perren magisterially and without all colour of proof affirm the contrary and Cyprian in particular so far cast off as for it to be pronounced by Stephen a false Christ Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were commanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace and Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. John forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holds still his former opinion and though out of respect to the Churches peace d Vide Con. Carth. apud sur To. 1. he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise than he held yet he conceived Stephen and his adherents d Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. Aug. ep 48. lib. 1. de Bapt. c. 18. to hold a pernitious Error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversation in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so far was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so in submitting to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that no other Bishop but our Lord Jesus only had power to Judge with Authority of his Judgment and as plainly intimates that Stephen for usurping such a power and making himself a Judge over Bishops was little better than a Tyrant and as heavily almost he censures him and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in Error in that very place where he delivers that famous saying How can he have God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother little doubting it seems but a man might have the Church for his Mother who stood in opposition to the Church of Rome and far from thinking what you fondly obtrude upon him that to be United to the Roman Church and to the Church was all one and that separation from S. Peters Chair was a mark I mean a certain mark either of Schism or Heresie 26. But you have given a false or at least a strained Translation of S. Cyprians forecited Words for Cyprian saith not to whom falshood cannot have access as if he had exempted the Roman Church from a possibility of Error but to whom perfidiousness cannot have access meaning those perfidious Schismaticks whom he there complains of and of these by a Rhetorical insinuation he says that with such good Christians as the Romans were it was not possible they should find favourable entertainment As for his joyning the Principal Church and the Chair of Peter how that will serve to prove separation from the Roman Church to be a mark of Heresie it is hard to understand Though we do not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the Chair of S. Peter in regard he is said to have Preached the Gospel there and the principal Church because the City was the principal and imperial City which prerogative of the City if we believe the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon was the ground and occasion why the Fathers of former times I pray observe conferred upon this Church this prerogative above other Churches 27. Obj. But in another place Epist 52. S. Cyprian makes Communicating with Cornelius the Bishop of Rome and with the Catholick Church to be the same Answ This does not prove that to Communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to Communicate with the Catholick Church is always for that you assume one and the same thing S. Cyprian speaks not of the Church of Rome at all but of the Bishop only who when he doth Communicate with the Catholick Church as Cornelius at that time did then whosoever Communicates with him cannot but Communicate with the Catholick Church and then by accident one may truely say such a one Communicates with you that is with the Catholick Church and that to Communicate with him is to Communicate with the Catholick Church As if Titius and Sempronius be together he that is in company with Titius cannot but be at that time in company with Sempronius As if a General be marching to some place with an Army he that then is with the General must at that time be with the Army And a man may say without absurdity such a time I was with the General that is with the Army and that to be with the General is to be with the Army Or as if a mans hand be joyned to his Body the finger which is joyned to the hand is joyned to the Body and a man may say truly of it this finger is joyned to the hand that is to the Body and to be joyned to the hand is to be joyned to the Body because all these things are by accident true And yet I hope you would not deny but the finger might possibly be joyned to the hand and yet not to the Body the hand being cut off from the Body and a man might another time be with his General and not with his Army he being absent from the Army And therefore by like Reason your collection is Sophistical being in effect but this to communicate with such a Bishop of Rome who did Communicate with the Catholick Church was to Communicate with the Catholick Church therefore absolutely and always it must be true that to Communicate with him is by consequent to Communicate with the Catholick Church and to be divided from the Communion is to be an Heretick 28. Obj. S. Irenaeus saith lib. 3. cont haer c. 3. Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great most Ancient and known Church founded by the two 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 vain Glory Blindness
it not as well as yours and whether some mens persuasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more than a mans persuasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will make him not to have taken it if he has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by a just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some mark upon Hereticks that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferred on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Popes right or an Usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiastical And if by Ecclesiastical only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to lose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to lose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it until good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present Government established be as unlawful to go about to restore it whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schism a man may not withdraw obedience from an Usurped Authority commanding unlawful things Whether the Roman Church might not give Authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her Errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Judge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Trajan gave his Sword to his Prefect with this commission that if he Governed well he should use it for him if ill against Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to Preach against her corruptions in manners And if so why not against her Errors in Doctrine if she had any Whether she gave them not Authority to Preach the whole Gospel of Christ and consequently against her Doctrine if it should contradict any part of the Gospel of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the Church of Rome for any Lay-man or Woman that has ability to persuade others by Word or by Writing from Error and unto truth And why this Liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other Commission or Vocation than that of a Christian to do a work of Charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without any unnecessary disturbance of order to persuade men out of a false unto a true way of Eternal happiness Especially the Apostle having assured us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the Error of his way shall save a Soul from Death and shall hide a multitude of Sins Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not Consecrate a Metropolitan of England as well as the Cardinals do the Pope whether the King or Queen of England or they that have the Government in their Hands in the minority of the Prince may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated against whom there is no Canonical exception Whether the Doctrine that the King is supream head of the Church of England as the Kings of Judah and the first Christian Emperors were of the Jewish and Christian Church be any new found Doctrine Whether it be not true that Bishops being made Bishops have their Authority immediately from Christ though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings Authority as well as you say the Pope being Pope has Authority immediately from Christ and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the Authority of the Cardinals Whether you do well to suppose that Christian Kings have no more Authority in ordering the affairs of the Church than the great Turk or the Pagan Emperors Whether the King may not give Authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdom and yet not be capable of doing it himself as well as a Bishop may give Authority to a Physician to practice Physick in his Diocess which the Bishop cannot do himself Whether if Nero the Emperor would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to Preach the Gospel of Christ and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome whether they would have questioned his Authority to do so Whether there were any Law of God or man that prohibited K. JAMES to give Commission to Bishops nay to lay his injunction upon them to do any thing that is lawful Whether a casual irregularity may not be lawfully dispenced with Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incur any be indispensable And if not who is he or who are they whom the Pope is so subject unto that they may dispense with him Whether that be certain which you take for granted That your Ordination imprints a Character and ours doth not Whether the power of Consecrating and Ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops and be derived unto them not from the King but God and yet the King have Authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person whom he shall commend unto them As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of Architecture and had it immediately by infusion from God himself yet if they were the Kings Subjects he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use or a fortress for his service Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himself yet I hope you will not deny him power to command any of his Subjects that has this power to ordain any fit person Priest whom he shall desire to be ordained Whether it do not follow that whensoever the King commands an House to be Built a Message to be delivered or a Murtherer to be Executed that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect Messenger or Executioner As well as that they are ipso facto Ordained and Consecrated who by the Kings Authority are commended to the Bishops to be Ordained and Consecrated Especially seeing the King
yielded both these were among the Donatists as much as we yield them to be among the Papists As for D. Potters acknowledgment that they maintained an error in the matter and nature of it Heretical This proves them but material Hereticks whom you do not exclude from possibility of Salvation So that all things considered this argument must be much more forcible from the Donatists against the Catholicks than from Papists against Protestants in regard Protestants grant Papists no more hope of salvation than Papists grant Protestants whereas the Donatists excluded absolutely all but their own part from hope of Salvation so far as to account them no Christians that were not of it the Catholicks mean while accounting them Brethren and freeing those among them from the imputation of Heresie who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cùm invenerint sought for truth carefully being ready when they found it to correct their errors 23. Whereas you say That the Argument for the certainty of their Baptism because it was confessed good by Catholicks whereas the Baptism of Catholicks was not confessed by them to be good is not so good as yours touching the certainty of your Salvation grounded on the confession of Protestants because we confess there is no damnable error in the doctrin or practice of the Roman Church I Answer no we confess no such matter and though you say so a hundred times no repetition will make it true We profess plainly that many damnable errors plainly repugnant to the precepts of Christ both Ceremonial and Moral more plainly than this of Rebaptization and therefore more damnable are believed and professed by you And therefore seeing this is the only disparity you can devise and this is vanished it remains that as good an answer as the Catholicks made touching the certainty of their Baptism as good may we make and with much more evidence of Reason touching the security and certainty of our Salvation 24. By the way I desire to be informed seeing you affirm that Rebaptizing those whom Hereticks had baptized was a sacriledge and a profession of a damnable Heresie when it began to be so If from the beginning it were so then was Cyprian a sacrilegious professor of a damnable heresie and yet a Saint and a Martyr If it were not so then did your Church excommunicate Firmilian and others and separate from them without sufficient ground of Excommunication or Separation which is Schismatical You see what difficulties you run into on both sides choose whether you will but certainly both can hardly be avoided 27. What S. Austin answers to the Donatists argument fits us in answer to yours as if it had been made for it for as S. Austin says that Catholicks approve the Doctrin of Donatists but abhor their Heresie of Re-baptization So we say that we approve those fundamental and simple necessary Truths which you retain by which some good souls among you may be saved but abhor your many Superstitions and Heresies And as he says that as gold is good yet ought not to be sought for among a company of thieves and Baptism good but not to be sought for in the Conventicles of Donatists so say we that the Truths you retain are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists who hold with them a mixture of many vanities and many impieties 30. Obj. But Protestants do either exclude Hope by Despair with the Doctrin that our Saviour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to salvation or else by vain presumption grounded upon a fantastical perswasion that they are predestinate which Faith must exclude all fear and trembling and you add though some Protestants may relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrin yet none of them can have true hope while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those who defend such Doctrins Ans * See numb 4. in the fol. edit All this may be as forcibly returned upon Papists as it is urged against Protestants in as much as all Papists either hold the Doctrine of Predetermination and absolute Election or Communicate with those that do hold it Now from this Doctrin what is more prone and obvious than for every natural man without Gods especial preventing grace to make this practical collection either I am elected or not elected if I be no impiety possible can ever damn me If not no possible industry can ever save me Now whether this disjunctive perswasion be not as likely as any doctrin of Protestants to extinguish Christian Hope and filial fear and to lead some men to despair others to presumption all to a wretchless and impious life I desire you ingenuously to inform me and if you deny it assure your self you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own Religion and your own society and taught at length this charitable doctrin that though mens opinions may be charged with the absurd consequences which naturally flow from them yet the men themselves are not I mean if they perceive not the consequence of these absurdities nor do not own and acknowledge but disclaim and detest them I add 1. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the truth of this proposition Christ died for all nor to subscribe to that sense of it which your Dominicans put upon it neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society deny that they as well as the Calvinists take away the distinction of sufficient and effectual grace and indeed hold none to be sufficient but only that which is effectual 2. Whereas you say They cannot make their calling certain by good works who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified and justified by faith alone and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified I answer There is no Protestant but believes that Faith Repentance and universal Obedience are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternal happiness This being granted the rest is but a speculative Controversie a Question about words which would quickly vanish but that men affect not to understand one another As if a company of Physicians were in consultation and should all agree that three Medicins and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Patients health this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health though concerning the proper and specifical effects of these three Medicins there should be amongst them as many differences as men So likewise being generally at accord that these three things Faith Hope and Charity are necessary to salvation so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it and he which hath them all cannot fail of it is it not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternal Salvation And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all
and did no more than Papists are bound to justifie what several Popes have said and done c. 5.112 M. They may be members of the Catholick Church that are not united in external Communion c. 5.9 The Protestant Doctrin of Merit explained c. 4.35 36. The Authors Motives to change his Religions with Answers to them Pref. 42.43 The Faith of Papists resolved at last into the Motives of Credibility c. 2.154 The Mischiefs that followed the Reformation not imputable to it c. 5.92 N. What make points necessary to be believed c. 4.4 11. No more is necessary to be believed by us than by the Apostles c. 4.67 70 71 72. Papists make many things necessary to salvation which God never made so c. 7.7 All necessary points of Faith are contained in the Creed c. 4.73 74. Why some points not so necessary were put into the Creed c. 4.75 76. Protestants may agree in necessary points though they may overvalue some things they hold c. 7.34 To impose a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a just cause of separation c. 5.31 36 40 50 59 60 68 69. O. A blind obedience is not due to Ecclesiastical decisions though our practise must be determined by the sentence of superiours in doubtful cases c. 5.110 A probable opinion may be followed according to the Roman Doctors though it be not the safest way for avoiding sin c. 7 8. Optatus's saying impertinently urged against Protestants c. 5.99 100. Though we receive Ordination and Scripture from a false Church yet we may be a true Church c. 6.54 P. Whether Papists or Protestants most hazard their souls on probabilities c. 4.57 What we believe concerning the Perpetuity of the Visible Church Ans Pref. 18. Whether 1 Tim. 3.15 The Pillar and ground of Truth belong to Timothy or to the Church c. 3.76 If those words belong to the Church whether they may not signifie her duty and yet that she may err in neglecting it c. 3.77 A possibility of being deceived argues not an uncertainty in all we believe c. 3.26 50 c. 5.107 c. 6.47 By joyning in the Prayers of the Roman Church we must joyn in her unlawful practices c. 3.11 Preaching of the Word and administring the Sacrament how they are inseparable notes of the Church and how they make it visible c. 5.19 Private Spirit how we are to understand it c. 2.110 Private Spirit is not appealed to i. e. to dictates pretending to come from Gods spirit when Controversies are referred to Scripture c. 2.110 Whether one is left to his private spirit reason and discourse by denying the Churches infallibility and the harm of it Pref. 12 13. c. 2.110 A mans private judgment may be opposed to the publick when Reason and Scripture warrant him c. 5.109 A probable opinion according to the Roman Doctors may be followed though it is not the safest way for avoiding sin c. 7.8 It 's hard for Papists to resolve what is a sufficient proposal of the Church c. 3.54 Protestants are on the surer side for avoiding sin and Papists on the more dangerous side to commit sin shewed in instances c. 7.9 R. Every man by Reason must judge both of Scripture and the Church c. 2.111 112 113 118 120 122. Reason and judgment of discretion is not to be reproached for the private spirit c. 2.110 If men must not follow their Reason what they are to follow c. 2.114 115. Some kind of Reformation may be so necessary as to justifie separation from a corrupt Church though every pretence of reformation will not c. 5.53 Nothing is more against Religion than using violence to introduce it c. 5.96 The Religion of Protestants which is the belief of the Bible a wiser and safer way than that of the Roman Church shewed at large c. 6. from 56. to 72. Inclus All Protestants require Repentance to remission of sins and remission of sins to Justification c. 7.31 No Revelations known to be so may be rejected as not Fundamental c. 4.11 A Divine revelation may be ignorantly disbelieved by a Church and yet it may continue a Church c. 3.20 Things equally revealed may not be so to several persons c. 3.24 Papists cannot have Reverence for the Scripture whilst they advance so many things contrary to it c. 2.1 No argument of their reverence to it that they have preserved it intire c. 2.2 The Roman Church when Luther separated was not the visible Church though a visible Church and part of the Catholick c. 5.26 27. The present Roman Church has lost all Authority to recommend what we are to believe in Religion c. 2.101 The properties of a perfect Rule c. 2.5.6 7. Whether the Popish Rule of Fundamentals or ours is the safest c. 4.63 S. Right administration of Sacraments uncertain in the Roman Church c. 2. from 63. to 68. inclusive In what sense Salvation may be had in the Roman Church Ans Pref. 5 7. Salvation depends upon great uncertainties in the Roman Church c. 2. from 63. to 73. inclus Schisms whence they chiefly arise and what continues them c. 4.17 Schism may be a Division of the Church as well as from it c. 5.22 He may be no Schismatick that forsakes a Church for Errors not damnable Ans Pref. 2. No Schism to leave a corrupted Church when otherwise we must communicate in her corruptions c. 5.25 Not every separation from the external Communion of the Church but a causeless one is the sin of Schism c. 5.30 They may not be Schismaticks that continue the separation from Rome though Luther that began it had been a Schismatick c. 5.4 c. 6.14 The Scripture cannot be duly reverenced by Papists c. 2. n. 1. The Scripture how proved to be the word of God c. 4.53 The Divine Authority of the Scripture may be certain though it be not self-evidently certain that it is Gods word c. 6.51 Books of Scripture now held for Canonical which the Roman Church formerly rejected c. 2.90 91. Whether some Books of Scripture defined for Canonical were not afterward rejected c. 3.29 The Scripture in things necessary is intelligible to learned and unlearned c. 2.104 105 106. Some Books of Scripture questioned by the Fathers as well as by Protestants c. 2.34 The Scripture has great Authority from internal Arguments c. 2.47 The Truth of Scripture inspiration depends not on the authority of the Roman Church Pref. 14. c. 6.45 If the Scriptures contain all necessary truths Popery is confuted Pref. 30. to 38. inclusive The true meaning of Scripture not uncertain in necessary points c. 2.84 A determinate sense of obscure places of Scripture is not needful c. 2.127 150. The sense of plain places of Scripture may be known by the same means by which the Papists know the sence of those places that prove the Church c. 2.150 151. God may give means to the Church to know the true sense of Scripture yet it is not necessary it should have that sense c. 2.93 It
necessary to the Church to be so then it was impossible the Church should acquire this Essence or this property afterwards and therefore impossible it should have it at the time of Luthers rising Necessarium est quod non aliquando inest aliquando non inest alicui inest alicui non inest sed quod semper omni Arist Post Analyt Again every Sophister knows that of Particulars nothing can be concluded and therefore he that will shew that the Church of Rome and the adherents of it was the Catholick Church at Luthers rising He must argue thus It was always so therefore then it was so Now this Antecedent is overthrown by any Instance to the contrary and so the first Antecedent being proved false the first consequent cannot but be false for what Reason can be imagined that the Church of Rome and the Adherents of it was not the whole Catholick Church at S. Cyprians time and was at Luthers rising If you grant as I think you cannot deny that a Church divided from the Communion of the Roman may be still in truth and in Gods account a part of the Catholick which is the thing we speak of then I hope Mr. Lewgars Argument from Unity of Communion is fallen to the ground and it will be no good Plea to say Some one Church not consisting of divers Communions was the Catholick Church at Luthers rising No one Church can be named to be the Catholick Church but the Roman Therefore the Roman Church was the Catholick at Luthers rising For Mr. Lewgar hath not nor cannot prove the Major of this syllogism certainly true but to the contrary I have proved that it cannot be certainly true by shewing divers instances wherein divers divided Communions have made up the Catholick Church and therefore not the dividing of the Communions but the cause and ground of it is to be regarded whether it be just and sufficient or unjust and insufficient Neither is the Bishop or Church of Rome with the Adherents of it an infallible Judge thereof for it is evident both he and it have erred herein divers times which I have evinced already by divers examples which I will not repeat but add to them one confessed by Mr. Lewgar himself in his discourse upon the Article of the Catholick Church pag. 84. S. Athanasius being excommunicated though by the a How by the whole Church when himself was part of it and communicated still with divers other parts of it whole Church yet might remain a member of Christs body not visible for that is impossible b What not to them who know and believe him to be unjustly Excommunicated that a person cut off from visible Communion though unjustly should be a visible member of the Church but by invisible Communion by reason of the invalidity of the sentence which being unjust is valid enough to visible excision but not farther II. A Discourse against the Infallibility of the Roman Church with an Answer to all those Texts of Scripture that are alledged to prove it THE Condition of Communion with the Church of Rome without the performance whereof no man can be received into it is this That he believe firmly and without doubting whatsoever that Church requires him to believe It is impossible that any man should certainly believe any thing unless that thing be either evident of it self as that twice two are four that every whole is greater than a part of it self or unless he have some certain reason at least some supposed certain reason and infallible guide for his belief thereof The Doctrins which the Church of Rome requireth to be believed are not evident of themselves for then every one would grant them at first hearing without any further proof He therefore that will believe them must have some certain and infallible ground whereupon to build his belief of them There is no other ground for a mans belief of them especially in many points but only an assurance of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Now this point of that Churches Infallibility is not evident of it self for then no man could chuse but in his heart believe it without farther proof Secondly it were in vain to bring any proof of it as vain as to light a Candle to shew men the Sun Thirdly it were impossible to bring any proof of it seeing nothing can be more evident than that which of it self is evident and nothing can be brought in proof of any thing which is not more evident than that matter to be proved But now experience teacheth that millions there are which have heard talk of the Infallibility of the Roman Church and yet do not believe that the defenders of it do not think it either vain or impossible to go about to prove it and from hence it follows plainly that this point is not evident of it self Neither is there any other certain ground for any mans belief of it or if there be I desire it may be produced as who am ready and most willing to submit my judgment to it fully perswaded that none can be produced that will endure a severe and impartial examination If it be said The Roman Church is to be believed infallible because the Scripture says it is so 1. I demand how shall I be assured of the Texts that be alledged that they are indeed Scripture that is the Word of God And the answer to this must be either because the Church tells me so or some other if any other be given then all is not finally resolved into and built upon that Churches Authority and this answer then I hope a Protestant may have leave to make use of when he is put to that perillous Question How know you the Scripture to be the Scripture If the answer be because the Church tells me so my reply is ready that to believe that Church is infallible because the Scriptures say so and that the Scripture is the word of God because the same Church says so is nothing else but to believe the Church is infallible because the Church says so which is infallible 2. I could never yet from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse find it written so much as once in express terms or equivalently that the Church in subordination to the Sea of Rome shall be always infallible 3. If it be said that this is drawn from good consequence from Scripture truly interpreted I demand what certain ground have I to warrant me that this consequence is good and this interpretation true and if answer be made that reason will tell me so I reply 1. That this is to build all upon my own reason and private interpretation 2. I have great reason to fear that reason assures no man that the infallibility of the Church of Rome may be deduced from Scripture by good and firm consequence 4. If it be said that a Consent of Fathers do so interpret the Scripture I answer 1. That
Collyridians thought her God Of this Syllogism I deny the Major proposition and I believe shall stay as long for a proof of it as I have done for an answer to some other discourses which being written in a few days have waited now with a longing expectation for a promised answer many months If you say you would conclude from these Words that they did adore her and therefore thought her God I have answered already that they might do this not because they thought her God but because they thought Creatures high in Gods favour capable of adoration The next place Non ut adoretur Virgo nec ut deum hanc efficeret tells us that Christ took Flesh of the Virgin not that she should be adored nor to make her God And this you think imports that they conceive her God Yet if I should condemning your Practice of offering Tapers to her use the same Words and say Christ took Flesh of the Virgin not that she should be adored or to make her God You would not yet conceive that I charged you with the Heresie of believing her God but only of the impiety of giving to her that worship which was peculiar to God and why then might not Epiphanius having like occasion use the same words to the Collyridians upon the same and no other ground The next place Mariam nemo adoret Deo debetur hcc mysterium is so far from proving your imagination that it strongly confirms my assertion that Epiphanius did not impute to the Collyridians the opinion that the Virgin Mary was God If I should say to a Papist the Blessed Virgin is not to be worshiped with the worship of Hyperdaulia because such worship is due only to the Mother of God would they not say I were mad and argued against my self for that they believed she was the Mother of God By like reason if Epiphanius knew that the Collyridians believed the Virgin Mary to be God he reasoned as wildly against himself in saying Mariam nemo adoret Deo debetur hoc mysterium For it is very true might they have said this service is due to God alone but you know our Belief and Profession that she is God and therefore by your own rule capable of this worship The next place is Pro Deo hanc introducere studuerunt And may not this be justly said to any man who to any thing besides God gives that worship which is proper and peculiar unto God What if to man that should teach The Pope had power to dispense with men for the keeping of Gods Laws I should say pro Deo Papam introducis Must I of necessity mean that that man did verily believe the Pope not a man but a Sovereign Power and Deity S. Paul tells us that Covetousness is Idolatry he tells us of some whose God is their Belly is it therefore consequent that every covetous man doth indeed believe his Gold and every Glutton his Belly to be indeed a Sovereign Power and Deity Away with such fopperies Whosoever loves or fears or trusts in any thing more than God may yet be justly said to make that his God and whosoever should worship any Creature with that external worship which God has appropriated to himself might justly be said to bring in that Creature for God S. Paul tells us of some who in words professed God yet fact is negabant in their deeds deny him so these on the contrary may in their words deny this Creature to be God and in their Hearts not think it so yet seeing their actions to it are as if it were God they may be justly charged that with their deeds they make this Creature God Qui fingit Sacros ex auro marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit What if upon consideration of the strangely enormous worship which Papists give to the Virgin Mary swearing by her name making Vows unto her offering Tapers to her Honour attributing a kind of Communicated omniscience and almost omnipotence to her as I can easily make good they do partly out of the Offices of their Church partly out of private mens Works but set out with Licence and approbation what I say if upon this consideration I should affirm pro Deo ipsam introducere conantur Would it therefore be consequent that I must impute this Blasphemy to them that they believed and taught her to be a Sovereign Power and Deity I trow not And therefore Epiphanius might say the same of the Collyridians considering their Action without any intent of imputing to them any such opinion This Petavius sure saw well enough and therefore as I shall hereafter demonstrate to the Eye to countenance his Marginal Annotation Quidam Mariam Deum esse crediderunt he cunningly abuses and perverts Epiphanius his Text with false Translation Sic pugnat Sic est metuendus Ulysses The next place is revera sanctum erat Mariae corpus non tamen Deus The Body of Mary was truly holy but not a God As much to the purpose as Tityre tu patulae for what if Epiphanius say she is not God and therefore not to be adored does it therefore follow that the Collyridians believed she was a God He that knows Logick or sense cannot but know that he that will confute an Adversaries conclusion must choose such principles to do it to which his Adversary consents and out of that which he grants prove that which he denies or if his first propositions be not agreed to by his Adversary he must prove them in the end by such as are agreed to or else he does nothing And therefore seeing Epiphanius thinks it sufficient for the convincing of the Collyridians of the unlawfulness of the practice to say she was not God it is evident that so far was he from imputing to them the belief that she was God that he seems rather to take the contrary for a principle agreed upon between them which it was sufficient to say and superfluous to prove This answer I thought good to make while I conceived that here Epiphanius had denied the Person of the Virgin Mary to be God but after upon better consideration I found that Petavius had abused me with adding to Epiphanius of his own Illa fuit and that Epiphanius says not here non tamen Deus she was not God of her Person but of her Body and as yet I do not understand that you impute to the Collyridians the belief that her Body was God The next place Mulierem eam appellavit c. says no more but this that our Saviour calls the Blessed Virgin Woman that no man might think her any thing more than a Woman as it were prophetically refuting the Schisms and Heresies which would be in the World lest some out of excess of admiration of her might fall into the Dotage of this Heresie Thus far Epiphanius but then the Question will be what was this Heresie You say the belief that she was
God I say not that she was God but that they might lawfully offer to her And as I deny not but it follows she is a Woman therefore not a God so I think you will grant it follows as justly she is a Woman therefore not to be adored with offerings And therefore seeing the words lie indifferently between us and are not expresly and especially here applied for the refutation of that Heresie which you pretend they were guilty of I see no reason why Epiphanius might not as well intend them for that purpose which I conceive as for that which you conceive The last place alledged tells us that she was begotten and Born as other Men and Women are Which if the Collyridians had thought her God Eternal and absolutely without beginning should not have been barely said but proved as being in effect the very point in question and therefore seeing Epiphanius contents himself with saying so without proof it is evident he never thought they would make difficulty to grant it and consequently that they did not believe her to be God Eternal But then again if the Rule be good which part of your proofs depend upon That whatever Epiphanius denies in this discourse that the Collyridians held for upon that ground from Non Deum hanc efficeret non tamen Deus you conclude they believed her God If I say this Rule be good then you should be constant to it and now that he says Non tamen aliter genita est praeter hominum naturam she was not begotten in a different way from other men you should infer that they believed not that she was God but that she was otherwise Born and Begotten than the ordinary sort of Men. And so whereas he says before Non tamen corpus de coelo tulit her Body was not from Heaven you should infer that they believed her Body came from Heaven And again from those Sanctum erat Mariae corpus non tamen Deus you should collect that they thought not only her person but her Body to be God or if these be wild and weak deductions then you must acknowledge that I have done yours some favour in vouchsafing them a particular answer 5. Demand Whether in the Church of Roman it be not an approved and perpetually practised worship of the Blessed Virgin that Incense which was never anciently offered unto any either by Jews or Gentiles but to the true or to a supposed true God and Tapers and divers other oblations should be offered to her honour Answ A practice of the Church of Rome and approved too by those that practise it belongs not to her except it be a practice of the Church and approved by her What her practice is abroad I know not here at home I see no such practice nor do I know any approbation of it in any of her publick declarations But this I know that there is nothing in it unlawful or savouring of the Collyridian Superstition to offer Wax Tapers or any other thing at the Memories of the Blessed Virgin or any other Canonized Saint either as means to procure their intercession by these outward Signs of the Honour and Devotion which they bear to them as of Old we find by 8. Austin a Ad aquas Tibilotanas Episcopo offerente Projecto reliquias martyris gloriosissimi Stephani ad ejus memoriam veniebat magnae multitudinis concursus accursus Ibi caeca mulier ut ad episcopum portantem pignora Sacra duceretur oravit Flores ques ferebat dedit recepit oculis admovit protenus vidit August de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. abscedens aliquid de Altari S. Stephani florum quod occurrit tulit Idem Ibid. c. they did use to adorn their Tombs with Flowers or as monuments of their thankfulness for some benefits received by their Intercession as Theodoret b Theodoretus de curandis affec Graec. l. 8. tells us of Eyes and Ears and Hands some of Gold and some of Silver hung up in the Chappels of the Saints that had been presented as oblations by those that had recovered health in those Members according to their Vows made to that purpose in time of Sickness Reply I do not deny but a practice may be tolerated in a Church and not approved As the Publick Stews are in Italy and Usury in England But it is one thing to Tolerate with condemnation another to Tolerate without condemnation nay with condemnation of those that should oppose or condemn it And such I doubt not upon examination you may find is this practice general in the Church of Rome offering Tapers to the Saints and for their honour I say not only to God at the Memories of the Saints as you would mince the matter which yet were a groundless superstition God having appointed no such Sacrifice to be offered to him under the Gospel but to the Saints themselves and to their honour prove this lawful for either of those purposes you mention either to procure their intercession or as Monuments of thankfulness for benefits obtained by it and then you shall do something Otherwise you will but trifle as now you have done For instead of telling us what may be done de jure you tell us what of Old has been done de facto As if ab antiquo and a principio were all one or as if the Church as we pretend being subject to corruption part of this corruption might not possibly have come in S. Austins or Theodorets time yet this I say not as if I would decline the Tryal of this cause by S. Austin or Theodoret but because I am sure you will not be Tryed by the Fathers no not the consent of Fathers in all things and therefore there is no reason nor equity in the World that you should serve your selves with their Authority in any thing But now what is it which was done in S. Austins time that may justifie the Practice of the Roman Church was there then any approved offering of Wax Tapers and Incense to the Queen of Heaven or any other Saint nil horum you neither do nor can produce any thing out of S. Austin to this purpose But what then is it Why forsooth they were used to adorn their Tombs Egregiam verò laudem spolia ampla of Old in S. Austins time they were used to adorn their Tombs with Flowers therefore we may offer Tapers to them Truly an excellent Enthymeme but I fear the concealed proposition which should make it a Syllogism hides its head for shame and dares not appear yet we will for once make bold to draw it forth into light that you may look upon it and tell us how you like it This therefore it is Whose soever Tombs we adorn to them and to their honour we may offer Wax Tapers Consider it I pray you and if you approve it then approve also of offering Tapers not only to Canonize Saints but to all Christians that
or any other Creature for the object of their Devotion shews plainly that they gave it her for her Relation to Christ Answ The Collyridians could not say this as appears by what has been said before As it is a most shameless slander upon Gods Church and such as without repentance will lie heavy upon his Soul that uttered it that the Collyridians might as justly and truly have said all this for themselves as Papists for themselves Reply To this I reply four things 1. That to my last and most convincing reason you have answered as much as you could I believe but yet you have answered nothing and I am well content you should do so for where nothing is to be had the King himself must lose his right 2. That if I had thought or spoke better of the Collyridians than they deserved yet I cannot see how this had been to slander the Church of Rome 3. That I did not positively affirm that the Collyridians might do so but desired only it might be inquired into and examined whether for the reasons alledged they might not do so 4. And lastly upon a thorow examination of the matter I do now affirm what before I did not that the Collyridians for ought appears to the contrary might justly and truly have said for the justification of their practice as much nay the very same things that the Papists do for theirs For they might have said we are Christians and believe the Scripture and believe there is but one God We offer not to the Blessed Virgin as believing she is God but the Mother of God our worship of her is not absolute but relative not terminated in her but given to her for her Sons sake And if our practice may be allowed we are content to call our Oblation not a Sacrifice but a present neither is there any reason why it should be called a Sacrifice more than the Offering and Burning a Taper to the honour of the same Virgin All this the Collyridians might have said for themselves and therefore I believe you will have more cause to repent you for daubing over impiety with untempered Morter than I shall have for slandering the Roman Church with a matter of truth 9. Demand Whether therefore one of the two must not of necessity follow that either the Ancient Church Erred in condemning the Opinion and Practice of the Collyridians as Heretical or else that the Church of Rome Errs in approving the same opinion and the same practice in effect which in them was condemned That is whether the Church of Rome must not be Heretical with the Collyridians or else the Collyridians Catholicks with the Church of Rome Answ It appears by the former answers that neither did the Ancient Church Err in condemning the opinion and practice of the Collyridians as Heretical nor doth the Church of Rome approve the same opinion or the same practice Reply The Substance of the former answers is but this That the Papists offer to the Virgin Mary and other Saints Wax Tapers by way of gift or present not of Sacrifice and to her not as to a God but as the Mother of God but that the Collyridians offered to her by way of Sacrifice as to a Sovereign Power and Deity To this I have replied and proved that it no way appears that the Collyridians did believe the Blessed Virgin to be a Sovereign Power and Deity or that she was not subordinate to God Then that their offering might be called a gift as well as the Papists and the Papists a Sacrifice as well as theirs both of them being a Consumption of a Creature in honour of the Blessed Virgin and neither of them more than so and therefore either the Collyridians must stand with the Church of Rome or the Church of Rome fall with the Collyridians It had been perhaps sufficient for me thus to have vindicated my Assertion from contrary objections without taking on my self the burden of proving a Negative yet to free from all doubt the conformity of the Roman Church with the Collyridians in this point I think it will be necessary to shew and that by many very probable Arguments that Epiphanius did not impute to them the pretended Heresie of believing the Virgin Mary God for then that other Evasion that their oblation is a Sacrifice and the Papists is not together with this pretence will of it self fall to the ground Now an opinion may be imputed to a man two ways either because he holds and maintains it expresly and formally and in terms or because it may by a rational deduction be collected from some other opinion which he does hold In this latter sense I deny not but Epiphanius might impute this opinion we speak of to the Collyridians as a consequence upon their practice which practice they esteemed lawful But that they held it and owned it formally and in terms this I say Epiphanius does not impute to them which I think for these seven reasons My first Reason is because he could not justly do so and therefore without evident proof we may not say he did so for this were to be uncharitable to him in making him uncharitable to others Now I say he could not justly charge them with this opinion because he was not informed of any such opinion that they held but only of their practice and this practice was no sufficient proof that they held this opinion That his information reached no further than their Practice appears out of his own Words I have heard saith he Haeres 78. another thing with great astonishment that some being madly affected to the Blessed Virgin endeavour to bring her in in Gods place being mad and besides themselves For they report that certain Women in Arabia have devised this Vanity to have meetings and offer a Cake to the Blessed Virgin The same practice he sets down Haeres 79. But that he was informed of any such opinion that they held he has not a Word or Syllable to any such purpose and yet if he had been informed of any here had been the place to set it down which certainly writing his Book rather of Heretical opinions than practices he would not have omitted to do if there had been occasion his silence therefore is a sufficient Argument that he was not informed of any such opinion that they held Now that their practice was no assurance that they held this opinion it is manifest because they might ground it not upon this opinion that she was God but upon another as false though not altogether so impious That the Worship of Oblations was not proper to God alone And therefore though Epiphanius might think or fear that possibly they might ground their practice upon that other impious opinion and therefore out of abundant caution confute that also as he doth obliquely and in a word and once only in all his long discourse by telling them that our Saviour called her Woman yet he had no
thing provided you do not call it a sacrifice So again Haeres 79. besides his putting cunningly ipsa fuit which before we took notice of he makes no scruple to put in Dogma and Sacrificium wheresoever it may be for his purpose Epiphanius his title to this Heresie is Against the Collyridians who offer to Mary Petavius puts in Sacrifice Again in the same page before D. he puts in his own illo dogmate and whereas Epiphanius says in all this he makes it in all this Opinion Pag. 1061. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translates this womanish Opinion whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though perhaps it may signifie a thought or act of thinking yet I believe it never signifies an Opinion which we hold Ibid. at B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this he renders this Opinion Pag. 1064. at C. Nor that we should offer to her name simply and absolutely he makes it Nor that we should offer sacrifice to her name So many times is he fain to corrupt and translate him partially lest in condemning the Collyridians he might seem to have involved the practice of the Roman Church in the same Condemnation My Seventh and last Reason is this Had Epiphanius known that the Collyridians held the virgin Mary to be a Sovereign power and Deity then he could not have doubted whether this their offering was to her or to God for her whereof yet he seems doubtful and not fully resolved as his own words intimate Haeres 79. ad fin Quam multa c. How many things may be objected against this Heresie for idle Women either worshipping the Blessed Virgin offer unto her a Cake or else they take upon them to offer for her this foresaid ridiculous oblation Now both are foolish and from the Devil These Arguments I suppose do abundantly demonstrate to any man not viel'd with prejudice that Epiphanius imputed not to the Collyridians the Heresie of believing the Virgin Mary God and if they did not think her God there is then no reason imaginable why their oblation of a Cake should not be thought a Present as well as the Papists offering a Taper or that the Papists offering a Taper should not be thought a Sacrifice as well as their offering a Cake and seeing this was the difference pretended between them this being vanished there remains none at all So that my first Conclusion stands yet firm that either the Ancient Church erred in condemning the Collyridians or the present errs in approving and practising the same worship An ADVERTISEMENT The Reader when he meets with the Phrase Catholick Doctrin in the two following Discourses must remember that it does not signifie Articles of Faith determined in any General Councils which might be looked upon as the Faith of the whole Church but the Current and Common Opinion of the Age which obtained in it without any known opposition and contradiction Neither need this be wondred at since they are about matters far removed from the Common Faith of Christians and having no necessary influence upon good life and manners whatsoever necessity by mistake of some Scriptures might be put upon them IV. An Argument drawn from the admitting Infants to the Eucharist as without which they could not be saved against the Churches Infallibility THE Condition without the performance whereof no man can be admitted to the Communion of the Church of Rome is this that he believe firmly and without doubting whatsoever the Church requires him to believe More distinctly and particularly thus He must believe all that to be divine Revelation which that Church teaches to be such as the Doctrin of the Trinity the Hypostatical union of two natures in the person of Christ The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and such like Whatsoever that Church teaches to be necessary he must believe to be necessary As Baptism for Infants Faith in Christ for those that are Capable of Faith Penance for those that have committed mortal sin after Baptism c. Whatsoever that Church declares expedient and profitable he must believe to be expedient and profitable as Monastical Life Prayer to Saints Prayer for the Dead going on Pilgrimages The use of Pardons Veneration of holy Images and Reliques Latin Service where the people understand it not Communicating the Laity in one kind and such like Whatsoever that Church holdeth lawful he must believe lawful As to Marry to make distinction of Meats as if some were clean and others unclean to flie in time of Persecution for them that serve at the Altar to live by the Altar to testifie a truth by Oath when a lawful Magistrate shall require it to possess Riches c. Now is it impossible that any man should certainly believe any thing unless either it be evident of it self or he have some certain reason at least some supposed certain reason and infallible ground for his belief Now the Doctrins which the Church of Rome teacheth it is evident and undeniable that they are not evident of themselves neither evidently true nor evidently credible He therefore that will believe them must of necessity have some certain and infallible ground whereon to build his belief of them There is no other ground for a Mans belief of them especially in many points but only an assurance of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome No man can be assured that that Church is infallible and cannot err whereof he may be assured that she hath erred unless she had some new promise of divine assistance which might for the future secure her from danger of erring but the Church of Rome pretends to none such Nothing is more certain than that that Church hath erred which hath believed and taught irreconcileable Contradictions one whereof must of necessity be an Error That the Receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants and that the receiving thereof is not necessary for them That it is the will of God that the Church should administer the Sacrament to them and that it is not the will of God that the Church should do so are manifest and irreconcileable Contradictions Supposing only that which is most evident that the Eucharist is the same thing of the same vertue and efficacy now as it was in the primitive Church That Infants are the same things they were have as much need are capable of as much benefit by the Eucharist now as then As subject to irreverent carriages then as now And lastly that the present Church is as much bound to provide for the spiritual good of Infants as the Ancient Church was I say these things supposed the propositions before set down are plain and irreconcileable Contradictions whereof the present Roman Church doth hold the Negative and the Ancient Church of Rome did hold the Affirmative and therefore it is evident that either the present Church doth err in holding something not necessary which is so or that the Ancient Church did
external reason why we believe it whereunto the Testimonies of the Jews enemies of Christ add no small moment for the Authority of some part of it That whatsoever stood upon the same ground of Universal Tradition with Scripture might justly challenge belief as well as Scripture but that no Doctrin not written in Scripture could justly pretend to as full Tradition as the Scripture and therefore we had no reason to believe it with that degree of faith wherewith we believe the Scripture That it is unreasonable to think that he that reads the Scripture and uses all means appointed for this purpose with an earnest desire and with no other end but to find the will of God and obey it if he mistake the meaning of some doubtful places and fall unwillingly into some errors unto which no vice or passion betrays him and is willing to hear reason from any man that will undertake to shew him his error I say that it is unreasonable to think that a God of goodness will impute such an error to such a man Against the second it was demonstrated unto me that the place I built on so confidently was no Argument at all for the Infallibility of the Succession of Pastors in the Roman Church but a very strong Argument against it First no Argument for it because it is not certain nor can ever be proved that S. Paul speaks there of any succession Ephes 4.11 12 13. For let that be granted which is desired that in the 13. ver by until we all meet is meant until all the Children of God meet in the Unity of Faith that is unto the Worlds end yet it is not said there that he gave Apostles and Prophets c. which should continue c. until we all meet by connecting the 13. ver to the 11. But he gave then upon his Ascension and miraculously endowed Apostles and Prophets c. for the work of the ministry for the Consummation of the Saints for the Edification of the Body of Christ until we all meet that is if you will unto the Worlds end Neither is there any incongruity but that the Apostles and Prophets c. which lived then may in good sense be said now at this time and ever hereafter to do those things which they are said to do For who can deny but S. Paul the Apostle and Doctor of the Gentiles and S. John the Evangelist and Prophet do at this very time by their writings though not by their persons do the work of the ministry consummate the Saints and Edifie the Body of Christ Secondly it cannot be shewn or proved from hence that there is or was to be any such succession because S. Paul here tells us only that he gave such in the time past not that he promised such in the time to come Thirdly it is evident that God promised no such succession because it is not certain that he hath made good any such promise for who is so impudent as to pretend that there are now and have been in all Ages since Christ some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers Especially such as he here speaks of that is endowed with such gifts as Christ gave upon his Ascension of which he speaks in the 8 ver saying He led Captivity Captive and gave gifts unto men And that those gifts were Men endowed with extraordinary Power and Supernatural gifts it is apparent because these Words and he gave some Apostles some Prophets c. are added by way of explication and illustration of that which was said before and he gave gifts unto Men And if any man except hereunto that though the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists were extraordinary and for the Plantation of the Gospel yet Pastors were ordinary and for continuance I answer it is true some Pastors are ordinary and for continuance but not such as are here spoken of not such as are endowed with the strange and heavenly gifts which Christ gave not only to the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists but to the inferior Pastors and Doctors of his Church at the first Plantation of it And therefore S. Paul in the 1st to the Corinth 12.28 to which place we are referred by the Margent of the Vulgar Translation for the explication of this places this gift of teaching amongst and prefers it before many other miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost Pastors there are still in the Church but not such as Titus and Timothy and Apollos and Barnabas not such as can justly pretend to immediate inspiration and illumination of the Holy Ghost And therefore seeing there neither are nor have been for many Ages in the Church such Apostles and Prophets c. as here are spoken of it is certain he promised none or otherwise we must blasphemously charge him with breach of his promise Secondly I answer that if by dedit he gave be meant promisit he promised for ever then all were promised and all should have continued If by dedit be not meant promisit then he promised none such nor may we expect any such by vertue of or warrant from this Text that is here alledged And thus much for the first Assumpt which was that the place was no Argument for an infallible succession in the Church of Rome Now for the second That it is a strong Argument against it thus I make it good The Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors which our Saviour gave upon his Ascension were given by him that they might Consummate the Saints do the work of the Ministry Edifie the Body of Christ until we all come into the Unity of Faith that we be not like Children wavering and carried up and down with every wind of Doctrine The Apostles and Prophets c. that then were do not now in their own persons and by oral instruction do the work of the Ministry to the intent we may be kept from wavering and being carried up and down with every wind of Doctrine therefore they do this some other way Now there is no other way by which they can do it but by their writings and therefore by their writings they do it therefore by their writings and believing of them we are to be kept from wavering in matters of Faith therefore the Scriptures of the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists are our Guides Therefore not the Church of Rome FINIS AN ANSWER To Some PASSAGES IN Rushworths Dialogues BEGINNING At the Third Dialogue Section 12. p. 181. Ed. Paris 1654. ABOUT TRADITIONS LONDON Printed for James Adamson at the Angel in S. Pauls Church-Yard 1687. AN ANSWER To some passages in Rushworths Dialogues BEGINNING AT The Third Dialogue §. 12. p. 181. Ed. Paris 1654. ABOUT TRADITIONS Uncle DO you think there is such a City as Rome or Constantinople Nephew That I do I would I knew what I ask as well CHILLINGWORTH First I should have answered that in propriety of Speech I could not say that I
knew it but that I did as undoubtedly believe it as those things which I did know For though as I conceive we may be properly said to believe that which we know yet we cannot say truly that we know that which we only believe upon report and hearsay be it never so constant never so general For seeing the generality of men is made up of particulars and every particular man may deceive and be deceived it is not impossible though exceedingly improbable that all men should conspire to do so Yet I deny not that the popular phrase of Speech will very well bear that we may say we know that which in truth we only believe provided the grounds of our belief be morally certain Neither do I take any exception to the Nephews answers made to his Uncles 2 3 4. and 5. Interrogatories But grant willingly as to the first that it is not much material whether I remember or not any particular Author of such a general and constant report Then that the Testimony of one or two Witnesses though never so credible could add nothing to that belief which is already at the height nay perhaps that my own seeing these Cities would make no accession add no degree to the strength and firmness of my Faith concerning this matter only it would change the kind of my assent and make me know that which formerly I did but believe To the fourth that seeming Reasons are not much to be regarded against sense or experience and moral Certainties but withal I should have told my Uncle that I fear his supposition is hardly possible and that the nature of the thing will not admit that there should be any great nay any probable reasons invented to perswade me that there never was such a City as London and therefore if any man should go about to perswade me that there never was such a City as London That there were no such men as called themselves or were called by others Protestants in England in the days of Q. Elizabeth perhaps such a mans Wit might delight me but his reasons sure would never perswade me Hitherto we should have gone hand in hand together but whereas in the next place he says In like manner then you do not doubt but a Catholick living in a Catholick Country may undoubtedly know what was the publick Religion of his Country in his Fathers days and that so assuredly that it were a meer madness for him to doubt thereof I should have craved leave to tell my Uncle that he presumed too far upon his Nephews yielding disposition For that as it is a far more easie thing to know and more authentically testified that there were some men called Protestants by themselves and others than what opinions these Protestants held divers men holding divers things which yet were all called by this name So is it far more easie for a Roman Catholick to know that in his Fathers days there were some men for their outward Communion with and subordination to the Bishop of Rome called Roman Catholicks than to know what was the Religion of those men who went under this name For they might be as different one from another in their belief as some Protestants are from others As for example had I lived before the Lateran Council which condemned Berengarius possibly I might have known that the belief of the Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament was part of the publick Doctrine of my Country But whether the Real absence of the Bread and Wine after Consecration and their Transubstantiation into Christs Body were likewise Catholick Doctrine at that time that I could not have known seeing that all men were at liberty to hold it was so or it was not so Moreover I should have told my Uncle that living now I know it is Catholick Doctrine That the Souls of the Blessed enjoy the Vision of God But if I had lived in the Reign of Pope John the XXII I should not have known that then it was so considering that many good Catholicks before that time had believed and then even the Pope himself did believe the contrary and he is warranted by Bellarmine for doing so because the Church had not then defined it I should have told him further that either Catholicks of the present time do so differ in their belief that what some hold lawful and pious others condemn as unlawful and impious or else that all now consent and consequently make it Catholick Doctrine That it is not unlawful to make the usual Pictures of the Trinity and to set them in Churches to be adored But had I lived in S. Austins time I should then have been taught another Lesson To wit that this Doctrine and practice was impious and the contrary Doctrine Catholick I should have told him that now I was taught that the Doctrine of Indulgences was an Apostolick Tradition but had I lived 600 years since and found that in all antiquity there was no use of them I should either have thought the Primitive Church no faithful Steward in defrauding mens Souls of this Treasure intended by God to them and so necessary for them or rather that the Doctrine of Indulgences now practised in the Church of Rome was not then Catholick I should have told him that the general practice of Roman Catholicks now taught me that it was a pious thing to offer Incense and Tapers to the Saints and to their Pictures But had I lived in the Primitive Church I should with the Church have condemned it in the Collyridians as Heretical I should have represented to him Erasmus his complaint against the Protestants whose departing from the Roman Church occasioned the determining and exacting the belief of many points as necessary wherein before Luther men enjoyed the Liberties of their Judgments and Tongues and Pens Antea saies he licebat varias agitare quaestiones de potestate Pontificis de Condonationibus de restituendo de Purgatorio nunc tutum non est hiscere ne de his quidèm quae pie verèque dicuntur Et credere cogimur quod homo gignit ex se opera meritoria quod benefact is meretur vitam aeternam etiam de condigno Quòd B. Virgo potest imperare Filio cum Patre regnanti ut exaudiat hujus aut illius preces aliaque permulta ad quae piae mentes inhorrescunt And from hence I should have collected as I think very probably that it was not then such a known and certain thing what was the Catholick Faith in many points which now are determined but that divers men who held external Communion with that Church which now holds these as matters of Faith conceived themselves no waies bound to do so but at liberty to hold as they saw reason I should have shewed him by the confession of another Learned Catholick That through the negligence of the Bishops in former Ages and the indiscreet Devotion of the People many opinions and practices were brought into the
believe would prove his intent had not the corruptions of the Roman Church possessed and infected even the publick Service of God among them in which their Communion was required and did not the Church of Rome require the Belief of all her Errors as the condition of her Communion But howsoever be his reasons conclusive or not conclusive certainly this was the profest opinion of him and divers others as by name Cassander and Baldwin who though they thought as ill of the Doctrine of the most prevailing part of the Church of Rome as Protestants do yet thought it their duty not to separate from her Communion And if there were any considerable number of considerable men thus minded as I know not why any man should think there was not then it is made not only a most difficult but even an impossible thing to know what was the Catholick Judgment of our Fathers in the points of controversie seeing they might be joyned in Communion and yet very far divided in opinion They might all live in obedience to the Pope and yet some think him head of the Church by Divine right others as a great part of the French Church at this day by Ecclesiastical constitution others by neither but by Practice and Usurpation wherein yet because he had Prescription of many Ages for him he might not justly be disturbed All might go to Confession and yet some only think it necessary others only profitable All might go to Mass and the other Services of the Church and some only like and approve the Language of it others only tolerate it and wish it altered if it might be without greater inconvenience All might receive the Sacrament and yet some believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ others only a Sacrament of it Some that the Mass was a true and proper Sacrifice others only a Commemorative Sacrifice or the Commemoration of a Sacrifice Some that it was lawful for the Clergy to deny the Laiety the Sacramental Cup others that it was lawful for them to receive in one kind only seeing they could not in both Some might adore Christ as present there according to his Humanity others as present according to his Divine Nature only Some might pray for the Dead as believing them in Purgatory others upon no certain ground but only that they should rather have their Prayers and Charity which wanted them not than that they which did want them should not have them Some might pray to Saints upon a belief that they heard their Prayers and knew their Hearts others might pray to them meaning nothing but to pray by them that God for their sakes would grant their Prayers others thirdly might not pray to them at all as thinking it unnecessary others as fearing it unlawful yet because they were not fully resolved only forbearing it themselves and not condemning it in others Uncle I pray you then remember also what it is that Protestants do commonly taunt and check Catholicks with is it not that they believe Traditions It is a meer Calumny that Protestants condemn all kind of Traditions who subscribe very willingly to that of Vincentius Lerinensis That Christian Religion is res tradita non inventa a matter of Tradition not of mans invention is what the Church received from the Apostles and by consequence what the Apostles delivered to the Church and the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God Chemnitius in his Examen of the Council of Trent hath liberally granted seven sorts of Traditions and Protestants find no fault with him for it Prove therefore any Tradition to be Apostolick which is not written Shew that there is some known Word of God which we are commanded to believe that is not contained in the Books of the Old and New Testament and we shall quickly shew that we believe Gods Word because it is Gods and not because it is written If there were any thing not written which had come down to us with as full and Universal a Tradition as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture That thing should I believe as well as the Scripture but I have long fought for some such thing and yet I am to seek Nay I am confident no one point in Controversie between Papists and Protestants can go in upon half so fair Cards for to gain the esteem of an Apostolick Tradition as those things which are now decried on all hands I mean the opinion of the Chiliasts and the Communicating Infants The latter by the confession of Cardinal Perron Maldonate and Binius was the Custom of the Church for 600 years at least It is expresly and in terms vouched by S. Austin for the Doctrine of the Church and an Apostolick Tradition it was never instituted by General Council but in the use of the Church as long before the First general Council as S. Cyprian before the Council There is no known Author of the beginning of it all which are the Catholick marks of an Apostolick Tradition and yet this you say is not so or if it be why have you abolisht it The former Lineally derives its pedigree from our Saviour to St. John from S. John to Papias from Papias to Just in Martyr Irenaeus Melito Sardensis Tertullian and others of the two first Ages who as they generally agree in the Affirmation of this Doctrine and are not contradicted by any of their Predecessors so some of them at least speak to the point not as Doctors but Witnesses and deliver it for the Doctrine of the Church and Apostolick Tradition and condemn the contrary as Heresie And therefore if there be any unwritten Traditions these certainly must be admitted first or if these which have so fair pretence to it must yet be rejected I hope then we shall have the like liberty to put back Purgatory and Indulgences and Transubstantiation and the Latin Service and the Communion in one kind c. none of which is of Age enough to be Page to either of the forenamed Doctrines especially the opinion of the Millenaries Uncle What think you means this word Tradition No other thing certainly but that we confute all our Adversaries by the Testimony of the former Church saying unto them this was the belief of our Fathers Thus were we taught by them and they by theirs without stop or stay till you come to Christ We confute our Adversaries by saying thus Truly a very easie confutation But saying and proving are two Mens Offices and therefore though you be excellent in the former I fear when it comes to the Tryal you will be found defective in the Latter Uncle And this no other but the Roman Church did or could ever pretend to which being in truth undeniable and they cannot choose but grant the thing Their last refuge is to laugh and say that both Fathers and Councils did Err because they were men as if Protestants themselves were more Is it not so as I tell you No indeed it is not by your