of exercising humility in our selves and obedience to Gods Church and to our Saviour himself who sayd Luke 10.16 He that heares you heares me and Matth. 18.17 If he heare not the Church let him be vnto thee as a Heathen or Publican together with a dependence of one man vpon another as it was sayd to S. Paul even in that great vision Act. 9. V. 7. Goe into the citty And it shal be told thee what thou art to doe and to him who was cured of the leprosy Matth. 8.4 Goe shew thy self to the Priest As also for procuring peace and vnity in Religion which cannot be conserved if all controversyes must be tryed by scripture alone that being in effect to leaue every man to his owne witte will and wayes as we see by constant experience in all those who reject the Authority of a Living Judg. 148. But what you cannot evince by reason you endeavour to proue by an example in these words Suppose Xaverius had bene to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians think you he would haue left out any fundamentall Doctrine of it 149. Answer Are these Arguments taken from evident Texts of scripture as yours against vs ought to be in this poynt which is the only foundation of Protestantisme If you tell vs what you meane in this particular Objection by the Gospell of Christ yourself may easily answer for vs out of what hath beene sayd already We haue heard you saying By the Gospell of Christ I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man Now then to your example I Answer that if S. Xaverivs had intended to write the Gospell as it signifyes the History of Christ he had not bene obliged to write all necessary Points as neither the Evangelists who wrote the Gospell were obliged to do ād it is strāge that we denying it of them you would seek to proue it only by changing the person as if any would attribute more to S. Xaverius than to the Evāgelists But if S. Xauerius had purposed to write not the History of our B. Saviour as the Evangelists did but a Catechisme or summe of Christian doctrine or the Gospell as it signifyes to vse your words all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man which the Evangelists did not intend then what you say or imagine of S. Xaverius cannot be applyed to the Evangelists seeing in that case their ends in writing had bene very different Nevertheless even vpon this supposition that S. Xaverius had purposed to write a Catechisme we must consider some particular circumstances before we can affirme that he was obliged to write all necessary points of Faith for example if that Saint had bene assured that in his absence and for all future tymes there would never be wanting Preachers Teachers Prelats Pastors and Apostolicall men to instruct Christians convert Infidels and supply abundantly by word of mouth and a perpetuall Succession and Tradition whatsoever was not expressed in such a Catechisme as de facto we see God in his Goodness hath furnished the Indyes with so many Pastours Preachers c. that no one Cathecisme is absolutely necessary in that case I say no man can judge that S. Xaverius had bene obliged to leaue in writing precisely every particularnecessary Point but only such as Tyme Place Persons and all other particular circumstances considered should in prudence seeme most for the purpose and such a Catechisme togeather with those other helpes had bene a most sufficient Meanes for that End which S. Xaverius had proposed to himself vpon the sayd supposition of Pastours c. Now this is our case The Evangelists were most certaine that Hell-gates could no◠prevaile against the Church Matth. 16. that there should be a perpetuall Succession of Pastours that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Timot. 3. that he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours c. that now we be not children wavering and carryed about with every winde of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftyness to the circumvention of errour Ephesi 4. Where we see that for avoyding errours Scripture alone is not appointed as the only Meanes yea is not so much as mentioned but Apostles Pastours Doctours c. to the worlds end To which purpose ancient S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 4. speaks very fully in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order ād tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many nations yielded assent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God without letters or inke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth It is therfor cleare that the Evangelists had no obligation to write all necessary points in particular and some may retort your example thus the Evangelists had no reason to doe so therfor neither S. Xaverivs in the like case and circumstances had been obliged therto and not argue as you doe S. Xaverius should haue bene obliged to do so therfor we must say the same of the Apostles I will not stand heer to say that although S. Xaverius had bene obliged to set downe all Points necessary to be believed by every priuate person as such yet I hope you would not haue obliged him to expresse all things necessary for the whole Church as I sayd in the beginning which yet is a most necessary thing 150. But here occurs a difficulty which will shew your example of S. Xaverius or of any other to be not only insufficient or impertinent but also impossible and chimericall and even ridiculous in your grounds of which I believe you did not reflect You teach that there cannot be given a particular Catalogue of fundamentall poynts but that men may be sure not to faile in believing all such Articles if they belieue all that is evidently found in scripture which clearly containes all necessary things in particular and many more If then S. Xaverius could not know precisely what points in particular be fundamentall how will you oblige him or any other not to omitt any one such point Neither I do vnderstand how in your principles any man can set downe all necessary points in such manner as he may be sure to omitt none except by referring them to scripture or procuring that they haue either the whole bible according to the common opinion of other Protestants or at least the Gospell of S. Luke which you hold for certaine that it contaynes all necessary points for of the other three Evangelists you are doubtfull which is a strange kind of composing a Catechisme and yet there can be no other perfect Catechisme made either
our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations Christ then according to you did not depriue the Apostles of freewill though he proposed externally the Object and gaue them sufficient Grace to performe his will For if he had mooved them to Truth by way of necessity they could not haue erred If you grant this what will follow but that as the Church so the Apostles might deviate from that which God declared and commanded and consequently either belieue amiss or not set downe faithfully in writing what they believed Which is also confirmed by what you write P. 86. N. 93. If it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himself to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of scripture And a little after God is not lavish in superfluityes and therfor having given vs meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make vse of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate vs to make vs of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorifyed by our free Obedience Wheras necessity and freedom connot stand togeather And afterward If God should worke in vs by an absolute irresistible necessity the Obedience of Faith c he could no more require it of vs as our duty than he can of the sun to shine of the Sea to ebb and flow and of all other creatures to do those things which by meere necessity they must do and cannot choose And Pag 88. N. 96. you say expressly That God cannot necessitate men to belieue aright without taking away their free will in believing and in professing their belief It seemes by these words you hold the Apostles to haue had freewill in believing preaching and writing and that therfor it was in their power to deviate from Gods will and motion and then according to your grounds as the church so also the Apostles might erre Which deduction is also proved by your words Pag 172. N. 71. The spirit of truth may be with a man or Church for ever and teach him all Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that he may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now who can assertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of freewill in believing if it be not of this nature Now if you do not depriue the Apostles of freewill because otherwise God could no more require of them as their duty to belieue preach and write such truths as were inspired by Him than he can of the sun to shine of the sea to ebb and flow c this discourse of yours takes away their infallibility and proves that they might fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which was taught or revealed to them and the contrary assertion cannot possibly be reconciled with their freewill And Pag 87. N. 95. you say If the Holy Ghosts moving the Church be resistible then the Holy Ghost may moue and the Church may not be moved And why do you not say if the Holy Ghosts moving the Apostles to belieue preach and write Scripture be resistible it must in the same manner follow that the Holy Ghost may move and the Apostles may not be moved and so may belieue preach and write errours 64. But this is not all the bitterness you Vent against the church in such manner as it wounds the Apostles no less than the church You say P. 86. N 93. and P. 87. N. 94. If you Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why do not your Doctours follow her infallible direction why doth she thus put her candâ—e vnder a bushell and keepe her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallâ—bly thus long wrapt vp in napkins why sets sheenot forth Infallible Commentaryes or Fxpositions vpon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The scripture itself tells vs all scripture is profitable And the scripture is not so much the words as the sense 65. In answer to this your weake and irreligious discourse I returne the like Demands whether the Apostles were infallibly directed concerning the true meaning or interpretatioÌ„ of scripture as they were for writing it I suppose you will say they were so directed Why then did they put their candle vnder a bushell and keepe their Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly wrapt vp in napkins Why did they not set forth infallible commentaryes or expositions vpon all the bible Was it because this would not haue bene profitable for Christians that scripture should be interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture itself tells vs all scripture is profitable And scripture is not so much the words as the sence And when you haue made these Demands against the Apostles you may in like manner ascend higher and aske why divers parts of scripture were so written as they not only need expositions but that no mortall man can vnderstand them When you haue given a satisfactory answer to these Demands the same will answer your Questions concerning the church which being directed by the Holy Ghost will not faile to interpret declare and performe all that is necessary in order to the Eternall salvation of soules and in particular will supply by Tradition or other Meanes what is obscure or is not contayned in Scripture But then you aske againe N. 95. Whether this Direction of the Holy Ghost be resistible by the Church or irresistible I still answer by demanding whether the Motion of the Holy Ghost was resistible by the Apostles or irresistible If irresistible why may we not say the same of the church for those particular Actions of Interpreting Scripture and Deciding controversyes in Religion If resistible then either we are not sure that the Apostles did not deviate from the Motion of the holy Ghost as you inferâ— against the infallibility of the church or els we learne by this example of the Apostles that God may moue resistibly and yet infallibly for attainng that End which by meanes of such a Motion he intends This if you be resolved to deny we must conclude that the Apostles were not infallible in their writings and that we can haue no certainty that Scripture doth not containe errours But whatsoever you thinke the truth is that God wants not power to moue men resistibly and yet infallibly by divers wayes knowen to his infinite Wisdome I would gladly know whether you belieue that God can possibly be sure to make any one a Saint or a repentant sinner or can promise perseverance to the end I
do not exclude salvation 37. Thirdly Protestants teach that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall and yet remaine a Church but cannot erre in Fundamentalls without destruction of herselfe Now if sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall be damnable Fundamentall and destructiue of salvation they also destroy the essence of the Church and therfore Protestants must either say that the Church cannot erre in any Point though not Fundamentall as she cannot erre in Fundamentalls or else must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall are not damnable or Fundamentall or destructiue of salvation according to their grounds 38. Fourthly Protestants are wont to say and by this seeke to excuse their Schisme that they left not the Church of Rome but her corruptions and that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe But if every errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed be destructiue of the substance of Faith and hope of salvation the Roman Church which you suppose to be guilty of such errours hath ceased to be a Church and is no corrupted Church but no Church at all nor doth exist with corruptions but by such corruptions hath ceased to exist and so you departed not only from her corruptions but from herselfe or rather she ceasing to haue any being your not communicating with her was totall and not only in part or in her corruptions and if you departed from her as farr as she departed from herselfe seing she departed totally from herselfe you also must be sayd to haue departed totally from her which yet you deny and therfore must affirme that sinfull errours not Fundamentall destroy not the Church nor exclude hope of salvation If therfore Protestants will not destroy their owne assertions v.g. That they left not the Church but her corruptions that they departed no farther from her than she departed from herselfe that they left not the Church but her externall Communion that Protestants agree in substance of Faith because they agree in Fundamentall Points that their Church is the same with the Roman that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall but not in Fundamentalls if I say Protestants will overthrow these and other like assertions they must grant that sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall destroy not the substance of Faith nor exclude salvation and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary ād so are guilty of Schisme which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary as we haue seene out your owne words Pag 272. N. 53. 39. But yet let vs see whether Protestants do not confesse that sinfull errours not fundamentall are compatible with salvation as we haue proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles You say Pag 307. N. 106. That it is lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church require the beliefe and profession of them And Pag 281. N. 67. We say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errours vnfundamentall vnless it exact withall either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errours And N. 68. Neither for sin nor errours ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoyne them Therfore say I we must immedintly inferr that errours not Fundamentall do not destroy Faith Church salvation For if they did ipso facto the Church which holds them should cease to be a Churche and so she must necessarily leaue all Churches ād all Churches must leaue her shee loosing her owne being as a dead man leaves all and is left by all And here let me put you in mynd that while Pag 307. N. 106. aboue cited you seeme to disclose some great secret or subtilty in saying that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith is not vniversally true but with this exception vnless that Church requires the beliefe and profession of them you do but contradict yourselfe For if the Church erre in the substance of Faith or but does not impose the belief of them why are you in your grounds more obliged to forsake her than a Church that erres in not Fundamentalls and does not impose the belief of them Especially if we call to mynd your doctrine that one may erre sinfully against some Article of Faith and yet retaine true belief in order to other Points in which why may you not communicate with such a Church Also Pag 209. N. 38. you say You must giue me leaue to esteeme it a high degree of presumption to enioyne men to beleeue that there are or can be any other Fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ than what himselfe commanded his Apostles to teach all men or any damnable Heresyes but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes Therfore we must inferr that seing errours in Points not Fundamentall are not repugnant to those prime verityes they cannot in your way be esteemed damnable Heresyes and if not damnable Heresyes they cannot be damnable at all since we suppose their malice to consist only in opposition to Divine Revelation which is a damnable sin of Heresy Potter Pag. 39. saith Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolves not the vnity of Faith And P. 40. Vnity in these matters Secondary Points of Religion is very contingent and variable in the Church now greater now lesser never absolute in all particles of truth From whence we must inferr that errours not Fundamentall exclude not salvation nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church or els that men must still be forsaking all Churches because there is never absolute vnity in all particles of truth Whitaker also Controver 2. Quest 5. Cap. 18. saith If an Heretike must be excluded from salvation that is because he overthroweth some foundation For vnlesse he shake or overthrow some foundation he may be saved According to which Doctrine the greatest part of Scripture may be denyed But for my purpose it is sufficient to observe that so learned a Protestant teaches that errours in Points not Fundamentall exclude not from salvation Morton in his imposture Cap 15. saith Neither do Protestants yeild more safty to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoever Heretiks whose beliefe doth not vndermine the fundamentall Doctrine of Faith Therfore he grants some safety even to Heretiks if they oppose not Fundamentall Articles and yet they must be supposed to be in sinfull errour against some revealed truth otherwise they could not be Heretiks Dr. Lawd Pag 355. teaches That to erre in things not absolutly necessary to salvation is no breach vpon the one saving Faith which is necessary And Pag 360. in things not necessary though they be Divine Truths also men
Fundamentalls I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point or parte from her Communion If you thinke it impossible not to sorsake her Communion in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall and yet belieue that you must not forsake her which is a plain Contradiction there remaines only this true and solid remedy against such an inextricable perplexity that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points be they Fundamentall or not FundameÌ„tall which is a certaine Truth and followes from the very Principles of Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls if they vnderstand themselves though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth Yea my inference that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points even not Fundamentall if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls is your owne Assertion P. 148. N. 36. Where you expressly grant that vnless the Church were infallible in all things we could not rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing And if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted 127. You say the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose But I would know what other Church could be such an vnerring Church except the Roman and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach Certainly there was none such and therfore since Protestants profess that the vniversall Church is infallible we must say it was the Roman togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion This Ground being layd and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe let vs now examine in particular your other Objections 128. You aske Pag 164. N. 56. Had it not been a damnable sin to â—rofess errours though the errours in themselves were not dâ—mnable Then N. 57. You goe about to proue that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things haâ—â—ng no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded And therfore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall and totall This you confirme with a Dialogue which adds nothing to the reason which now I haue cited in your owne words saue only that it proves at large that which we chiefly desired to be granted That if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles as Protestants say she is we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points In the end of this Dialogue you say It may be very great imprudence to erre with the Church if the Question be whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 128. In the N. 60. You say Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible And N. 61. For the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre you know no such tenet And N. 62. God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the Limits of the Churches Power then the Church herselfe And N. 63. That some forsaking the Church of Rome haue forsake Fundamentall Truths was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome for els all that haue forsaken that Church should haue done so which we Protestants say they haue not but because they went too far from her It is true say you in the name of Protestants if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to leaue it But we protest and proclaime the contrary And N. 64. You say It was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa But their errour was that they held de factâ— this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so and so vpon a vaine pretence separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required and directly opposite to the Churcheâ— Catholicisme You add morover that Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages neither hath proved but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth And N. 65. You say To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith but he which is an Heretike in one Article may haue true Faith of other Articles These be your objections which being diverse and of different natures the Reader may not wonder if I be somwhat long in answering them Therefore I 129. Answer In this Question whether it be not wisdome and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points we may either speake First of things as they are in themselves or secondly according to the grounds of Protestants or ad hominem or thirdly what we may or ought to inferr vpon some false and impossible supposition as this is that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall differently from an inference proceeding from a suppofition of a truth or fourthly what may or ought to be chosen at least as minus malum when there intervenes a joynt and inevitable pressure of two or more evills This Advertisment premised 130. I answer to your demand whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours though in themselves not damnable that a parte rei and per se loquendo it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith and for that very cause it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all But that I haue proved already that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants it is not damnable to do so if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth and consequently that they ought in all Reason to adhere to the
vnderstanding to an assent in despite of any pious affection of the will and reverence due to Gods Church and Councells and the many and great reasons which make for Her which is vnanswerably confirmed by considering that Protestants disagree amongst themselves and many of them in many things agree with vs which I must often repeate which could not happen if the reasons against vs were demonstratiue or evident and in this occasion your Rule that the property of Charity is to judge the best will haue place at least for as much as concernes those your owne Brethren who agree with vs As also your other saying Pag 41. N. 13. That men honest and vpright hearts true lovers of God and truth may without any fault at all some goe one way some another which shewes that there can be no evidence against the Doctrine of the Church with which even so many Protestants agree but that Catholikes haue at least very probable and prudent reasons not to depart from the Church in any one point and that although we should falsely suppose Her to erre in points not fundamentall the errour could not be culpable nor sinfull but most prudent and laudable And in this our condition is far different and manifestly better than that of Protestants who disagreeing not only both from the Church but amongst themselves also must be certaine that they are in errour which for ought they know may be fundamentall seing they cannot tell what Points in particular are fundamentall wheras we adhering to the Church are sure not to erre against any necessary or fundamentall truth And yourselfe say Pag 376. N. 57. He that believes all necessary Truth if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should faile of salvation 168. And then further vpon this same ground is deduced another great difference with great advantage on our side that Protestants are obliged vnder paine of damnation to make choyse of the more certaine and secure part and must not be content with a meere probability if they can by any industry care study prayer fasting almes-deeds or any other meanes attaine to a greater degree of certainty For if indeed they erre in any one Article of Faith necessary necessitate medij they cannot be saved even though their errour were supposed to be invincible as hertofore we haue shewed out of Protestants Wheras we being assured that adhering to the Church we cannot erre in any point of it selfe necessary to salvation for the rest we are sure to be saved if we proceed prudently and probably because the truth contrary to our supposed errours cannot be necessary necessitate medij as not being fundamentall Yea since indeed Protestants can haue no other true and solid meanes of assurance that they erre not Fundamentally except the same which we embrace of believing the Church in all her definitions they are obliged vnder deadly sin to belieue all that she proposes for feare of erring in some Fundamentall Article What I haue sayd that we proceede prudently though our Doctrines were supposed to be errours may be confirmed by an Adversary Dr. Jer Taylor who in his Liberty of prophesying § 20. N. 2. saieth that our grounds that truth is more ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leaue her in errour that whatsoever is new is not only suspitions but false are suppositions pious and plausible enough And then having reckoned many advantages of our Church he concludes These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to haue been the Religion of their fore-Fathers which had actuall possession and seizure of mens vnderstandings before the opposite professions had a name before Luther appeared And in express tearmes he confesses that these things are instruments of our excuse by making our errours to be invinc1ible which is the thing I would proue But here I must declare that when I say It is sufficient for vs to proceed probably and prudently It is still vpon a false supposition that the Church may erre in some Point not Fundamentall though in reall truth there be no such distinction For we are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue the Church equally in all points and vse all not only probable but possible meanes to find the true Church and belieue her with absolute certainty in all matters belonging to Faith and in particular That she cannot erre in any point Fundamentall or not Fundamentall without the beliefe of which truth Christian Faith cannot be certaine and infallible as hath been shewed at large 169. Thirdly I answer to your Objection That we absolutely deny the Catholique Church to be subject to errour either in Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points or that she can erre either Fundamentally or damnably in what sense soever And therfore wheras you say Pag 280. N. 95. The errours of Protestants are not so great as ours we vtterly deny that our Church can belieue or propose any errour at all And though those Catholique Verityes which we belieue were errours yet they could not be greater than those of Protestants speaking in generall seing in all the chiefest controverted points we haue diverse chiefe learned men on our side who think themselves as good Protestants as those other from whom they disagree Besides in our Question respect must be had to the kind and not to the degree of errours that is nor whether the points be FundameÌ„tall or not FundameÌ„tall nor whether they which be Fundamentall be greater or less in their owne nature nor whether one not Fundamentall be worse than another not Fundamentall because if one errour not Fundamentall yield not sufficient cause to forsake the Communion of the Church another cannot otherwise you will not be able to assigne any Rule when the Church may be forsaken and when she cannor and it is damnable to professe against ones conscience any errour in Faith be it never so small which is the ground for which you say the Communion of the Church may be forsaken And lastly it is more wisdome to hold a greater vnfundamentall errour with the Church which I know by the confession of our Adversaryes cannot erre fundamentally than by holding a less vnfundamentall errour expose my selfe to danger of falling into fundamentall errours as I proved hertofore As it is less evill to commit a veniall sinne that is which abstracting from the case of perplexity would be certainly a veniall sinne than to expose ones selfe to true danger of falling into a mortall offence of God 170. Fourthly I answer that as I haue often noted according to you and Dr. Potter it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to deny any point though otherwise of its nature not Fundamentall being proposed and belieued to be revealed by God and so your distinction between Fundamentall and damnable Points as if the eâ—â—ours of Catholiks and Protestants were damnable
common Doctrine of Protestants and the supposition If you answer that though there were not the selfe same reason or necessity for the Churches infallibility as for the Apostles which is all that that reason proves and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter as if you should say This Truth is not proved by this particular reason therefore there can be no reason for it yet we cannot doubt but that there is some reason and cause whatsoever it be and therfore you must be content that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church in which Promise seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points it becomes not you to divide the same sentence into different meanings as they are applyed to the Apostles and as they haue reference to the Church Beside if one would imitate you in determining concerning divine matters according to humane apprehension and discourse he might in your owne Grounds quickly dispatch all and say that seing the errours of the vniversall Church can be only not Fundamentall there is no necessity of having recourse to any for the discovering and correcting them and so you cannot inferr that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall no more than you say the Church herselfe is Thus Pag 35. N. 7 You say Christians haue and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine not all Controversyes but all necessary to be determined And what Rule will you in your Groundes giue to determine what Points are necessary to be determined except by saying that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall or not necessary to salvation to be believed they are not necessary to be determined as you say in the same place If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined and yet in the meane while men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as Experience shewes not necessary If then may we say the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points be not necessary to salvation which is the end of our Faith the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles cannot be necessary Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation How then can it be necessary in your ground that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall Thus while by your humane discourses you will establish the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles you destroy it as not being necessary for discovering or correcting either Fundamentall errours from which the Church is free or vnfundamentall which are not necessary to be corrected or discovered Morover this very reason of yours proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible supposing the truth which we proved Chap 2. that Scripture alone containes not evidently and particularly all Points necessary to be believed and that even for those which it containes a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary For this truth supposed I apply your Argument thus If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture it may be discovered and corrected by the Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for correcting her errour And heere incidently I put you in minde of the Argument which you prize so much as to glory that you never could finde any Catholik who was able to answer it that if a particular man or Church may fall into errour and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church vniversall erre and yet remaine a true Church The Answer I say is easy almost out of your owne words that there is not the same reason for every particular mans or Churches infallibility or security from error as for that of the Catholik Church For if private persons or Churches fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her error As S. Hierom saieth Lib 1. Comment in Cap 5. Matth Si doctor erraverit à quo alio doctore emendabitur But of this I haue saied enough heretofore Lastly giue me leaue to tell you that in this and other Reasons which we shall examine you do extremely forget yourself and the state of our present Question which is not now whether there be the same reason or necessity for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles and not of the Church by the same Text of Scripture which speakes of both in the same manner But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity betweene the Apostles and the Church in Point of infallibility 34. You say in the same N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation Now the Apostles and Prophets and Canonicall Writers are the Foundation of the Church according to that of S. Paul built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets therfore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them 35. Answer Your conclusion therfore their stability in reason ought c shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason not on revelation and on a reason which is not so much as probable For you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility both to the Apostles and to the Church yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles and then what would you haue sayd to your owne ground In reason more strength is required in the Foundation than in the Edifice seing in that case both the Foundation and Edifice should haue had an immoveable and firme strength and stability Your reason if you will haue it proue any thing against vs must goe vpon this principle that nothing which depends or which is builded vpon another for its certainty can be absolutely certaine which is a ground evidently false The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument is abfolutly certaine and yet depends on Premises The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls and yet in that infallibility is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets The absolute infallibility of the Apostles was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words and even his infallibility as man was builded vpon the infallibility of his God head and yet I hope you will not say that
House of God a Gate of Heaven why may he not say of the Church that it is a House of God a Pillar of Truth What greater repugnance is there betwene a House and a Pillar than betwene a House and a Gate If men may take the liberty to interpret holy Scripture by such light subtilityes what certainty can ever be gathered from any Text What difficulty is there to conceiue that the Church should be the House wherein Gods resides and raignes by infallibly assisting it and yet be a Pillar of Truth to teach others Especially seing God assists the Church to the end she may teach others Passiuè taught Actiuè teaches as yourself avouch heere N. 78. that it is the essence of the Church to be alwayes the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But yourself profess not to relie vpon this interpretation and therefore 88. Secondly you put vs in mynd that the Church which S. Paul heere speaks of was that in which Timothy conversed and that was a particular Church and not the Roman and such we will not haue to be vniversally infallible 89. Answer Although S. Paul spoke to Timothy who conversed in the particular Church of Ephesus whereof he was Bishop yet he puts him in mynd of his duty by a Motiue and Reason more vniversall and certaine as Proofes are wont to be than could be taken from that particular Church alone that is he gaue a Reason which did concerne it as a member of the vniversall Church which being the Pillar and Ground of Truth could not but exact of Him and every Bishop a zeale to imitate with care and vprightness their mother the Church in conserving for their parte that Truth which the Church teaches and from which she cannot swarue To which very purpose Cornelius à Lapide vpon these words Quae est columna firmamentum veritatis saieth Addit hoc Apostolus vt innuat Timotheo magno cum studio ad haereses errores devitandos refellendos purae veritati intelligendae praedicandae in Ecclesia sibi incumbendum esse adeoue se non judaizantium aliorumue Novantium sed Ecclesiae fidem sequi praedicare debere vtpote quae sit basis veritatis And so I may retort your Argument and say S. paul speakes of a Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth but Protestants teach that no particular Church is such a Pillar even for things necessary to salvation as they saie the vniversall Church is Therefore S. Paul speaks not of a particular but the vniversall Church And by this I confute what you answer 90. Thirdly N. 77. That many Attributes in Scripture are not notes of performance but of duty and teach vs not what the thing or Person is of necessity but what it should be Ye are the salt of the Earth said our Saviour to his Disciples Not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was their office to be so For if they must haue bene so of necessity and could not haue bene otherwise in vaine had he put them in seare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour wherewith shall it be salted So the Church may be by duty the Pillar and Ground that is the Teacher of Truth of all truth not only necessary but profitable to salvation and yet she may neglect and violate this duty and be in fact the teacher of some Errour 91. Answer Even now it hath bene saied that Potter and other Protestants commonly teach that the vniversall Church cannot erre in Fundamantall Articles as a particular Church may and yet every particular Church by duty is a teacher of all Necessary Points Therefore the vniversall Church must be more a teacher by duty and performance Your Proofe that to be the salt of the earth which was spoken to the Apostles signifyes only that it was infallibly certaine they should be so tends plainly to Atheisme if the denyall of Scripture and all Christianity must bring to Atheisme as certainly it must For take away infallibility from the Apostles what certainty can you haue that in fact they haue not neglected and violated their duty as you say the Church may You still fall into the same mistake that God cānot effectually moue vs to the performance of a thing without necessitating our will Neither doth it follow that in vaine our Saviour put them in feare of that which followes if the salt hath lost his savour c For when God doth promise a thing he doth not exclude meanes or our endeavour to the application of which he can also moue vs effectually without prejudice to the freedom of our will The Apostles in the Councell which they held at Hierusalem were certaine not to determine any Errour and yet they vsed great diligence examination and dispute Act 15.7 I suppose you will not deny that S. John was infallibly assisted in writting his Gospell and yet S. Hierom in praef in Evangel Matth saieth that he could not be intreated to set on that holy Work but vpon condition that indicto jejunio in commune omnes Deum deprecarentur the Christians should haue a fett fast and all should joyne in prayer to God Do you not belieue that God did so assist the Writers of Canonicall Scripture that they were infallible in their writings and yet that they might exercise an act of obedience and freely though infallibly follow the Direction of the Holy Ghost It is cleare that you must either deny freedom of will to the Writers or infallibility to their writings or grant that free will and infallibility are not incompatible I might add to all this that men may loose themselves not only by error in Faith but also by an ill life whereby Preachers destroy by deeds what they pretended to build in words Which Answer would evacuate the force of your Argument but I haue saied enough of this matter 92. Fourthly N. 78. you answer that we must proue that by Truth in the saied Text is meant all Truth both Fundamentall and profitable and that you grant it to be the Essence of the Church to be a maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth But this evasion hath bene confuted already out of your owne assertion that we cannot belieue the Church in Fundamentall Articles vnless she be infallible in all and this vrges most clearely in your opinyon who profess it impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall And I beseech you cōsider that S. Paul speaks of the primitiue Church of those tymes which you will not deny to haue bene infallible ād therefore if he speak of the vniversall Church as in this Fourth Answer you suppose he doth you must grant that Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points And so this Text cannot be restrayned to Fundamentall Truths 93. Your N. 79.80 Pretends to answer the Argument taken out of S. Paul Ephes 4. He gaue some Apostles and some prophets and
divided in externall communion one of the which true Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practice but the other was stained with both For to finde this diversity of churches cānot stand with reds of Histories which are silent of any such matter It is against Dr. Potters owne grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall It contradicts the words in which he sayd Pag 155. The Church may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in Heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church Of these last words you say Let it be so I see no harme will come of it What indeed Is it no harme that it may be sayd with truth that your Protestants are proved bragging false Lyars in saying Luther reformed the whole Church But to omit this these words declare that Ch. Ma. speakes of two Churches wherof one did triumph over all errour and then adds to find this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with records of Histories c where the particles this diversity are referred to two kinds of Churches wherof one did triumph over all sinne and errour and yourselfe explicating the Doctors words say To triumph over errour is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it This supposed the objection is clearly of no force wherin you say To suppose a visible Church before Luther which did not erre is not to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnless you will haue vs belieue that May be and Must be is all one which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so And you would not make so bad Arguments vnless you will pretend you cannot make better But this whole objection is grounded vpon concealing the words of Ch. Ma. who spoke of a Church triumphing over all errour as we haue seene by his express words and therfor when in the very next consequent period he mentions a Church free from errour it cannot be otherwise vnderstood then of such a freedome as he spoke of immediatly before that is of a Church as indeed the true Church ought to be free from all danger of falling into any least errour against Faith Besides suppose he had spoken of a Church which defacto did not erre in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall from the Apostles time to Luther it had been no ill argument to inferr that she could not erre because morally speaking and without a miracle or particular assistance or infallible direction of the Holy Ghost it had been impossible for so many men in so many Ages of so different dispositions through the whole world to haue agreed in the same beliefe concerning matters not evident of themselves but farr exceeding the light of naturall reason and seeming contrarie to it and therfor if they had not been effectually preserved from errour no doubt but some would haue fallen into it which is so true that Dr. Potter sayth Pag 39. it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces and partiticles of divine truth The rest of this Number hath been particularly answered heretofore and your weakning the strength of Historie and tradition serves only to call in question all Religion in your ground who belieue Scripture for tradition 17. In your N. 57. you say to those words of Ch. Ma. N. 18. Our Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice 〈◊〉 Looke again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the world Answer Ch. Ma. doth not as interpreting our Saviours Parable Matth 31. saie that the field he speaks of is the Church but that he foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choise corne which is very true seing he expresly makes the parable of the kingdom of Heaven which is the Church saying The Kingdom of Heaven is resembled to a man c. and the amplitude of the word world doth not exclude the Church for which and her Pastours he gaue that wholesome Document Sinite vtraque crescere Let both grow vp and I pray where but in the Church can there be the wheat which our Saviour would not haue rooted out And because your owne guiltiness moves you in this occasion to tax Catholiques because they punish obstinate Heretiques you should reflect that the tares are not to be gathered when there is danger least by so doing the wheat may be rooted out and therfore a contrario sensu if there be no such danger yea that by sparing the cockle the good corne will suffer the cockle is rather to be taken away than the corne destroied In your N. 58. may be observed a strange kinde of saying that God is infinitly mercifull and therfor will not damne men for meer errours who desire to finde the truth and cannot Is it mercy not to damne men for that which is no fault And for which to damne one were injustice and therfor not to doe it is not mercy but justice 18. Your N. 59.60 haue bene answered at large in the Chap 7. about Schisme Neither can these propositions be defended from a contradiction The Church of Rome wants nothing necessary to salvation and yet it is necessary to salvation to forsake her For as I haue proved even he who believes she erred yet is supposed to belieue that notwithstanding that error still she wants nothing necessary to salvation and therefore the distinction of persons whereof one believes she errs and the other believes she does not erre cannot saue this contradiction 19. That which you say N. 61. is answered by these few lines Almighty God hath promised to giue his sufficient grace to avoyd all deadly sinne and consequently all damnable errour as you confesse every errour against any revealed Truth to be vnles ignorāce excuse it which cannot happen if as you affirme such an assistance is promised to vs as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very proficable truth and guard vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours because this assistance supposed the Church if she fall into errour must be wanting to herselfe and her ignorance can not be invincible but culpable and damnable both in it selfe and to her and if her errours be damnable she wants some thing necessary to salvation that is the true assent of Faith contrary to that damnable errour and she hath something incompatible with salvation namely that damnable errour and so indeed that truth which you call only profitable becomes necessary and that errour which you suppose to be only hurtfull is destructiue if your Doctrine be ttue that God gives sufficient Grace to avoyd all sortes of errour and to lead to all very profitable truths
perswasion or opinion that our Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subjest of it an humane perswasion You desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that our perswasion is not inregard of the object only and cause of it but in nature and essence of it supernaturall 57. Answer we belieue with certainty that the Churches doctrine is true because such our belief depends vpon infallible and certaine grounds as hath bene shewed heretofore and we are certaine that every Act of Faith necessary for salvation is supernaturall in essence not by sensible experience and naturall reason on which you are still harping but by infallible principles of Faith because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is vniversally and in all occasions necessary for vs to belieue as I proved in the Introduction which demonstrates that the essence of Faith is supernaturall Your saying that if it be our perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion deserves no answer Is not even the Beatificall vision in men as in the subject thereof And yet I hope you will not call it a meere humane Act and much less an humane perswasion besides our Faith being absolutely certaine cannot be called only a perswasion 58. Your N. 75. containes nothing which is not answered by former Grounds and in particular by your owne Doctrine that every culpable error against any revealed truth is damnable yea and repugnant to some fundamentall necessary Article from whence it must follow that of two dissenting in revealed Truths he who culpably erres sinnes damnably and cannot be saved without repentance Your gloss of S. Chrysostome is plainly against his words seing he speakes expresly of small errours which he saieth destroie all Faith as we haue heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. Chrysostome Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth the whole Doctrin who subverteth it in the least article CHAP XVI THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH 1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter with your owne words delivered in the beginning of your answer to the preface of Ch Ma where you say If beginnings be ominous as they say they are C Ma hath cause to looke for great store of vningenuous dealing from you the very first words you speak of him vz. That the first foure Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter are wholly spent in an vnecessary introduction vnto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his wits either denied or questioned and that is That every man in wisdome and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation being a most vnjust and immodest imputation For the first three Paragraphs of Ch Ma are employed in delivering such Doctrines as Divines esteeme necessary to be knowne and for that cause treate of them at large and I belieue if the Reader peruse those paragraphs he will Judge them not vnnecessary and which heere is chiefly considered it is very vntrue that they are spent to proue that every man in wisdom and Charity to himself is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation which Ch Ma never affirmed and is in itself euidently false Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best and not be content with that which is good to liue according to the Evangelicall Counsells and not judg the keeping of the commandements to be sufficiēt for salvation which were to turne all Counsells or things not of obligation in themselves to commands and could produce only scruples perplexities and perhaps might end in despaire What then did Ch Ma teach He having N. 3. declared at large two kinds of things necessary to salvation necessitate tantum praecepti or also necessitate medij delivers these words N. 4. Out of the foresaid difference followeth an other that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sinne that we procede prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdom Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the Doctrine which we imbrace proceeds vpon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected But when we treate not precisely of avoyding sin but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot be saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able and am not to follow every probâble opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probabilitie proue falc I shall not probably but certainly come short of salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the vertue of Charity to wards myself which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assisstance of Gods Grace to make the matter sure Thus saied Ch Ma which may be confirmed out of S. Austine Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3. graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret He speakes of Baptisme which the world knowes he held to be necessary to salvation And what say you now Is this to say vniversally that every one is obliged to take the safest way to his salvation Is it not to say the direct contrary that not in all kinds of things one is bound to take the safest parte as shall be further explicated hereafter 2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch Ma saieth N. 7.8.9.10 11. and he will find you could not answer so briefly as N. 3. you pretend you could doe For I haue proved that by your owne confession we erre not fundamentally and you grant that Protestants erre damnably which we deny of Catholiques therfore we are more safe thā you seing both of vs consent that you erre damnably and we absolutely denie that we doe so 3. I was glad to heare you confess perforce N. 2. that in the Arguments which Ch Ma delivers N. 12. there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions or others to leaue their commumion For this is to grant that according to a probable and consequently a prudent opinion some Protestants your pretended Brethren are Heretiques and that the rest sinne grievously in not forsaking the communion of those other which vpon the matter is to yeald that all
what hath bene saied heretofore and also by Cha Ma Part 2. Chap 4. N. 4. which you were willing to conceale In your N. 27. you say as S. Austine saies that Catholiques approue the Doctrine of Donatists but abhorre their Heresy of Rebaptization c But you should say in stead of Doctrine Baptisme as Cha Ma hath it For how can S. Austine approue the Doctrine of Donatists and yet hold that they taught an Heresy of Rebaptization 20. In your N. 29. you say to Cha Ma I conceiue you were led into errour by mâ—â—â—aking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors for a positiue assertion He saies indeed of your errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yeâ— for vs to profess what we belieue not were without question damnable But to say though your errors be not damnable we may not profess them is not to say your errors are not damnable but only though they be not As if you should say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from it Or though we do erre â—in believing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry or as if a Protestant should say Though you do not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host yet being vncertaine of the Priests intention to consecrate at least you expose yourself to the danger of it I presume you would not think it fairely done if any man should interpret either this last speach as an acknowledgment that you do not commit idolatry or the former as confessions that you doe erre in points not fundamentall that you do erre in believing the reall presence And therefore you ought not so to haue mistaken D. Potters words as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not daÌ„nable when he saies no more but this Though they be so or suppose or put the case they be so yet being errors we that know theÌ„ may not profess the to be divine truths 21. Answer is It possible that a man should speak so correctingly aÌ„d magisterially as you doe in this place aÌ„d yet be so palpably mistakeÌ„ as you are you say Dr. Potter saies of our errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess yet for vs to profess c. vpon which words you ground your whole discourse and yet both you and the Doctor disclaime from these words though of themselves they be not damnable and put them among the errata of the Printer in both your Books to be corrected thus though in the issue they be not damnable so as you obtrude to vs the fault of the Print for the words of Dr. Potter and will needs haue Ch Ma partaker of your gross mistake in a point vpon which you say a great part of his Book is grounded Now then the print being corrected in this manner though in the issue they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess I beseech you doth not though signifie that indeed they are not damnable to them which belieue as they profess And is not this the constant doctrine of Dr. Potter and yourself that Catholiques who in simplicity of hart belieue as they profess may be saved And therefore your owne correction and this very place of the Doctor so corrected returnes vpon yourself and proves that he spoke not as vpon a supposition of a confession but vpon a confession concession and positiue assertion and that you should haue vnderstood it so though it had bene as He and you cite it though of themselves they be not damnable And who is ignorant That the word though joynd with a verb of the present tense implies a thing existent in truth and if you will express only a supposition you must vse an other Tense and say though your errors were not damnable in themselves yet c or though your errors were supposed not to be damnable c and your declaring Though they be so by suppose or put the case they be so is against the common sense of all that vnderstand English Neither will any Catholique say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from her but though the Church did erre in points not fundamentall or suppose the Church did erre in such points yet you may not separate from her For betwene the Present and Preter-imperfect-tense in our case there is as great difference as betwene a positiue Affirmation and a meere suppositioÌ„ which as Phiosophers speak nihil ponit in esse The like I say of your other exaÌ„ple though we do erre in believing Christ really present yet that whosoever did speak in that manner could not be excused from denying the reast presence and the same is evident in your other examples which therefore still returne against yourself If one should say though Christian Religion be superstitious and fals yet many Christian men lead a morall life would any Christian take such a speach in any other sense than that Christian Religion is fals Or if one should say Though Mr. Chilling worth deny the blessed Trinity the Incarnation of the Sonne of God originall sinne c yet he pretends to be a Protestant and to defend their cause against Ch Ma who would not vnderstand that speach as an assertion and not only as a Supposition that you deny the Trinity Or if one should say to an other though thou be a knaue and my enemy yet I will pray for the were this a meere supposition And heere it may seeme some what strange that the Doctor both in the first and second Edition of his Book should haue though of themselves they be not damnable and you also in your first Edition for I haue not the second and therfore cannot examine it should haue the same yea and ground your discourse against Ch Ma vpon it and yet in the correction of the Errata both of you haue in the issue neither can I see any reason hereof except because that strength of truth and coherence with some Principles of Protestants made you say that our errours are not damnable of themselves and yet vpon further advise finding this confession also disadvantagious you though best to turne of themselves into in the issue But the truth is that in these matters of damnable fundamentall not fundamentall errours of the infallibility of the vniversall Church of the nature of Heresie and the like Protestants haue no settled grounds but must say and vnsay as they are prest by different or contrary occasions as hath bene noted els where and therefore it imports litle what you cite out of Potter against vs seing that can only shew that he is forced to contradict himself as also other Protestants are Now how full the Doctor yourself and other chiefest Protestants are in favour of vs and our salvation hath bene proved heretofore at large out of their owne
of this Introduction LIII Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe for which I know and acknowledge the necessity of grace and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason and force of nature with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus true God and true Man the assistance of the holy Ghost and his diuine spirit of Wisdome Vnderstanding Counsell Strength Knowledge Piety and aboue all the spirit of the Feare of our Lord mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion and so prostrate in soule and body I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10 O Lord of mercy giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates send her from thy holy Heauens and from the seate of thy greatness that she may be with me and may labour with me that so my labours of themselues most weake may by Grace tend first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity and next to the eternall good of soules CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH NECESSARY TO SALVATION IS INFALLIBLY TRVE 1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue that we were necessitated to proue the necessity of Gods grace against our moderne Pelagians so euery Christian yea euery one who professes any Faith Religion or worship of a God may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian I should be forced to proue the Certainty and Infallibility of Christian Faith which M. Chillingworth not only denies but deepely censures Pag. 328 N o 6. as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence and takes much paines to proue the contraay that is the fallibility of Christian Faith A strang vndertaking wherby he is sure to loose by winning and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion that his Faith in Christ of Scripture and all the mysteryes contained therin may proue fabulous and false And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church for deciding controuersyes of Faith must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate vnchristian and Antichristian doctrine and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible they cannot auoide this sequele that theire doctrine may be false since without jnfallibility in the Church they cannot be absolutely certaine that Scripture is the word of God O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion by either directly acknowledging or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true while Iewes Turks Pagās and all who professe any religion hold their belief to bee jnfallible and may justly vpbraide vs that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right and haue with approbation of greatest men in a famous Uniuersity published to the world such their sense and belief In the meane tyme in this occasion as in diuerse others I cannot but observe that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine Others affirme Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe that they are just 2. But now let vs come to proue this truth Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true and not subject to any least falshood wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians and of all men and mankind who by the very instinct of nature conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine as proceeding from God and vpon which men may and ought securely to rely without possibility of being deceiued and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie yet even for this very reason I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske or lamentable necessity that we are in a matter of this moment and quality to proue Principles or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine then any Argument that can be brought to prove it as hitherto all good Christians haue believed nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith than that it selfe is most certaine Yet confiding in his Grace whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth against the pride of humane witt and all presumption vpon naturall forces 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt vnanimous concent and inbred sense of men who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another being prepossessed that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God and from thence conclude that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light ād knowledg exempt from feare or possibility of fraude or falshood especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God This consideration is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin de vtilitate credendi Cap. 16. in these words Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons that they make hast to wisdome Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges no care is to be taken of Religion But if the beauty of all things which without doubt we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God We cannot despaire that by the same God there is appointed some Authority on which we relying as vpon an infallible stepp may be eleuated to God Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God which can be none but the Church from which we are most certaine what is the writtē or vnwrittē word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue Christian Faith to be jnfallible as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians for their Christians beliefe and of all men for their
given to his Church the Gift of interpretation and I suppose Protestants will not say that the spirit of God the Grace of God and the Gift of interpretation given by God is necessary only for things not necessary and that we can attaine to the knowledge of poynts necessary by our own naturall forces which yet we might doe if reading alone could suffice vs for vnderstanding the true meaning of all necessary Mysteryes of Faith And it is strange that Dr. Morton should say Apolog. part 2. Lib. 1. Cap. 19. That which is questioned is whether all such thinges as are necessary to salvation are so very plaine that the most vnlearned believers by the reading therof may be instructed to piety and heretiques though not learned may clearly enough be confuted by them aÌ„d he holds the affirmatiue part And so ProtestaÌ„ts must either confess themselves to be Pelagians if they hold Gods speciall grace and spirit not to be necessary for vnderstanding scripture aright or if they acknowledg the necessity of such particular Grace they must yeald that scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowne Which argument may be yet inforced in this manner 54. The gift of interpretation is not given to every private person as we gather from the words of S. Paul 1. Cor 12. To one is giueÌ„ by the spirit the word of wisedome to another the word of knowledg to another interpretation of languages to another prophecy c which declare that the spirit of interpreting is not given to all in so much as Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Fol 63. teacheth that the Gift of Interpretation is not common to all no more then is the gift of healing and miracles aÌ„d therfor we can only be certaine that it is in the Church not in any private person Therfor the Scripture is not so evident that we can be sure of the meaning therof by the interpretation of any but of the Church 55. Which finally Protestants must either acknowledg or els pinfold themselves in an inextricable circle and labyrinth in this manner Scripture is evident only to those who are indued with the spirit of God and seing S. Iohn Ioan 1 Cap 4. V. 1. warnes vs. beleeue not every Spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God it followes that Protestants must haue some meanes to try this spirit before they can beleeue it which meanes with them must be only Scripture and therfor they must know the meaning of the Scripture before they can make vse of that spirit by which they are to know the meaning of the Scripture Therfor the same spirit is necessary to know the meaning of Scripture and Scripture necessary to try the truth of this spirit and so this spirit shal be necessary for attayning the meaning of Scripture which meaning of Scripture must be attayned before we can vse this spirit Therfore this spirit is necessary and not necessary for vnderstanding Scripture which we must vnderstand before we can try this spirit and Scripture necessary and not necesssary for trying this spirit which we must know to be from God before we vnderstand Scripture And in a word the spirit must depend on the vnderstanding of Scripture and the vnderstanding of Scripture must depend on the spirit and the finall conclusion will be that the same thing must depend on it selfe the spirit on spirit Scripture on Scripture and so both of them must exist both before and after themselves Neither is there any meanes to avoyd this Circle except by having recourse to Gods visible Church whose spirit needs no triall of men since God himselfe hath given a publike Approbation of Her spirit by obliging all to obey Her voyce and to receyue even Scripture it self from Her Authority and Testimony 56. Ninthly I now vrge more in particular that which heretofore I touched in generall that they can alledg no evident Text of Scripture declaring any command that we must haue recourse to Scripture alone for knowing the Objects or Articles of Faith and yet if the End which is Faith be necessary the only Meanes that is Scripture to attayne that End must also be necessary nor can they produce any evident Text proving that from Scripture alone we can learne all points necessary to be believed 57. The clearest and most effectuall way to proue the truth of this my Assertion wil be to examine such Texts as Protestants are wont to alledg and to shew how little they make to their purpose They produce these words Deut 4. V. 2. You shall not add to the word that I speake to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you Search the Scriptures Ioan 5.39 these things are written that yee may beleeue Ioan 20.31 And that of the Beraeans dayly searching the scriptures Act 17. V. 11. we haue the Propheticall word more sure 2. Pet. 1.19 All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to argue to correct to instruct in justice that the man of God may be perfect instructed to every good worke 2. Timoth 3.16 58. Now these Texts are so farr from proving evidently what is intended that it is evident that neither these nor any other can be alledged to proue that men are obliged to haue recourse to scripture alone The reason is because whatsoeuer can be alledged out of the old testament cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude the living Guides granted to that Church as Moyses the Prophets and writers of Canocall scripture nor out of the new testament to exclude the Apostles and preachers of the Gospell Therfor no scripture can be so vnderstood as to oblige vs to consult scripture alone Nay out of this ground I further infer that seing at that tyme Christians wanted not living infallible Guides they had no obligation at all to consult scripture and much less scripture alone and if they had no such obligation no Canonical scripture can with truth affirme that they were so obliged and consequently it is an injury to scripture to interpret it in that sense This my deduction is confirmed by a doctrine of Chilling Pag 116. N. 159. that God requires of vs vnder payne of danatioÌ„ only to belieue the verityes therin in scripture contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin they are coÌ„taynâ—d By which assertion he doth not only disoblige meÌ„ from having recourse to scripture but also froÌ„ believing it to be the word of God when the contents therof caÌ„ be learned by other meanes as they might while those visible guides were living Therfor no text caÌ„ be brought to proue that men were or are obliged to haue recourse to Scripture for matters of Faith though they are bound to belieue them to be the infallible word of God as in due tyme I will proue against his pernicious doctrine to the contrary delivered in this same page and number 59. But beside this there is another fundamentall
Churches Governours Pastours and Parents as Judges of Controversyes in Faith and Religion and the only Meanes to propose to vs all Points necessary to be believed Certainly if we were obliged to heare and obey them in so eminent a degree as we are not we ought also to belieue them to be infallible even according to your owne Assertion repeated in divers places of your Book I wonder you and other Protestants will be still thrusting vpon vs this worne-out Objection without taking notice of the Answer which hath bene so often given and which shewes that your Objection tumes against yourself And as for our obligation to seeke the Church none can speake more home than Dr. Field one of the chiefest Protestant Divines of England in his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Lor◠Archbishop teaching expressly that there remaineth nothing for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that Church of the Living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment 85. Fiftly I know not whether you speake more vntruly or perniciously or giue me leaue to speake truth more ridiculously when Pag 105. N. 139. you say to Charity Maintayned You must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentalls and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentalls Dr. Potter sayes That the Church is the former that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentals for otherwise there should be no Church For to say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implies contradiction and is all one as to say The Church while it is the Church may not be the Church So that to say that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls signifyes no more but this There shall be a Church in the world for ever Thus you And thus the sons of men and children of darkness take pleasure to seeme witty by jeasting sacrilegiously in things belonging to God The Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts because if she erre in such Points she is no more a Church Why say you not thus All men are infallibly true because if they erre they cease to be true in that wherin they erre Mr. Chillingworth is immortall and cannot dy because if he dy he is no more Mr. Chillingworth and happy had it bene for him and others seduced by his sophistry si non fuisset natus homo ille Thus also you may say That God when he threatned and decreed that Adam should be mortall and dye if he transgressed his command at the same tyme even after his transgression he was immortall and could not dye because if he died he should no more be Adam To be immortall in common sence signifyes a certainty not to dye and not ridiculously that if he dy he doth exist no more and so not to exist implyes the direct contrary of being immortall and supposes one to be mortall and therfore to say The Church is infallible because if she erre she is no more a Church comes to this that she is fallible which is directly contrary to infallible For as we sayd of immortality so in proportion infallibility must signify an assurance not to erre and the Church to be infallible in Fundamentall Points must signify that she cannot erre in them and so not loose her being by such errour which is plainly opposite to your saying that she may erre and therby cease to be You erre therfore in not distinguishing between Actum primum and secundum or Potentiam and Actum as Philosophers speake To say a Church is infallible or cannot erre or be destroyed signifyes some antecedent either extrinsecall or intrinsecall Principle or Power preserving Her in such manner as that such a Principle cannot actually consist with errour And therfor you speake not like a Philosopher in saying The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentalls passing ab actuad potentiam and proving that men are infallible because de facto they erre not wheras men may chance not to erre and yet not be infallible You haue heard Whitaker saying We beleeue to the comfort of our soules that Christs Church hath continued and never shall faile so long as the world indureth and we account it a prophane Heresy to teach otherwise What comfort I pray can it be to soules that the Church may erre in Fundamentall Points yet so as she remaynes no more a Church which Whitaker accounts a prophane Heresy Every one conceaves infallibility to be a favour and Priviledge You tell vs the plaine contrary That infallibility in the Church for the most principall and necessary Points of Faith doth not signify that she may not erre in them but that if she erre she must inevitably perish or dye by such a damnable errour and become as it were the Divells martyr by dying for so bad a cause Which surely is no favour or Priviledge especially if we call to mynd an other Doctrine of yours that Errours not Fundamentall are compatible with the Being of a Church which is a greater favour than to be destroyed And therfore how can infallibility in Fundamentall Points in your way of explication that if she erre in such Points she ceaseth to be a Church be a Priviledg or Favour seing no body will say that fallibility and errour in Points not Fundamentall which yet destroy not the Church are favours Other men conceaue that these Propositions are convertible Whosoever is infallible cannot erre and whosoever cannot erre is infallible But you contrary to all other mens Logick say the Church is infallible because she may erre damnably and desperatly and therby loose her Being 86. When Protestants teach That the Church cannot perish but is infallible in Fundamentall Points they make a difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall and teach That she may faile and de facto hath fayled in these but cannot faile in those But you in opposition to all others maintayne That the Church may erre both in Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Articles from whence every one would inferr that she is absolutly fallible in both and infallible in neither or if infallible in either in both And yet you haue found a devise that though she erre in both those kinds of Articles she is infallible in one of them only that is in Fundamentall Points And fallible in Points not Fundamentall A rare piece of Philosophy To erre damnably and Fundamentally and yet be infallible Yea which is most admirable to be infallible because she erres most deeply and be fallible because she erres in matters of lesser moment Beside other Protestants put a difference between the vniversall Church is infallible ād cannot erre in
in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare as of themselves alone to convince 2. He teaches That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary but such as belong to the substance of Faith publike Doctrine and things necessary to salvation and we haue heard him say ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet sive in Doctrina sive in cultu That whatsoever the Church holds either in Doctrine or in worship belongs to the fundation of Faith and that all things defined by the Church are as if they were primary principles of Faith and so according to him all things defined by the Church belong to the substance of Faith and are necessary to salvation 98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground and against truth For Pag 161. he saith Stapleton hath a new pretty devise that the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the Conclusion And Pag 169. he saith Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary De Concil Lib 1 Chap § Dicuntur igitur that Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations But Mr. Doctour to speake truth Bellarmin leaves Stapleton just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning Bellarmin teaches That Councells neither haue nor write immediate Revelations And does not Stapleton purposely teach and carefully proue the same And does he not doe it even in the first and Third Notabili which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile out of which you pretend to draw that which you call a new pretty devise How then can you say that Stapleton teaches that the Church is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion seing he teaches expressly the contrary Nay doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite expressly say Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens The doctrine of the Church is not simply Propheticall or depending vpon immediate Revelations Who would haue believed that in matters of so great consequence you could vse so litle sincerity Dr. Stapleton teaches the same and proves very learnedly Princip Doctrin Contr 4. Lib 8. C. 15. Which very Chapter you also cite and yet make no conscience to tell vs that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton But how then doth Stapleton say the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion Answer We haue shewed that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall And besides he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina which you leaue out and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio quarto Argumentis produximus for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments In which Arguments he proved that the Church is infallible and cannot erre because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost as the Prophets were and in this agrees with Prophets though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words with this difference that the Prophets had immediate Revelations which the Church pretends not to haue but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost to imbrace and declare former revelations made to the Apostles vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely and not vpon discourses or inducements 99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes is yet Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Revelation and so infallible in delivering the conclusion What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton Which say not that the Church depends vpon immediate Revelation but the direct contrary as we haue sayd and his Parenthesis and so infallible is also a falsificarion as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle as we haue seene This being supposed that Stapleton teaches the Church to haue no immediate Revelations and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost not vpon humane disceâ—â—se and inducements or Premises the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself He Objects pag 168. A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes and results from them But this is not to the purpose seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton Conclusions only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes not because they are formall Conclusions essentially as such depending on Premises Neither doth it follow that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse if the Church be infallible in the sense I haue declared Thus the Apostles in their Councell Act. 15. did vse diligence and as the Scripture saith there was made a great disputation and they alledged the working of Miracles aÌ„d other Arguments of Credibility and yet no Christian will deny but that the Apostles were infallible So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence and discourse that all things on her parte may be done more sweetly in order to the perswading of others but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy Scriptures in which every reason discourse Text and word are infallible which we need not say of Councells though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite de Concill Lib 2. Chap 12. and yet as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine inferrs against Stapleton who fully agrees with Bellarmine that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100. Many other Arguments might be brought to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide and Ecclesiasticall Traditions from Scriptures Fathers Theologicall Reasons which I omitt referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 2. and 3. and in this whole Worke I haue vpon many occasions proved the same For this point is so transcâ—â—dent and necessary that we must meete with it almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion This I must not omitt that I having answered and confuted all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity
most Fundamentall of all Articles in the Church that Iesus Christ the Son of God and the Son of Mary is the only Saviour of the world Surely one of you must be in such a most important and most Fundamentall errour that you cannot both be saved though you were inculpably ignorant of it as we haue seene out of Potter Pag 243. even concerning this particular Article And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresayd Articles of Repentance and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world which yet you confess to be simply necessary 24. Object 3. In the same Pag 159. N. 52. You say Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it some of them telling hem that all the ingredients were absolutly necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtfull yet all with one accord agreeing in this that the whole receypt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made vse of it he should infallibly find it successfull what wise man would not thinke they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health I ust so these Protestant Doctours with whose discords you make such Tragedyes agreeing in Thesâ— thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to salvation and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conforme his life vnto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and vndoubtedly be saved what matters it for the divection of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutly necessary and what not 25. Answer You Socinians who adore naturall reason and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men are much delighted in proposing similitudes which make a faire shew and may seduce the ignorant but being examined proue nothing against any except yoursel ves First This similitude can proue nothing vnless you begg the Question and suppose one receypt to haue in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased mans health that is Scripture to containe all Points necessary to salvation which you know we deny and say you erre in Thesi If with Scripture you would joyne the Tradition and Definitions of the Church your suppositions were true and your parity good Otherwise your receypt cannot haue all necessary ingredients 26. Secondly Suppose the sick man had great reason to belieue that the ground vpon which the Physitians build their opinion and agreement were not good nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit what sick man if he were also wise could judg their agreement to be sufficient for an vndoubted direction to the recovery of his health Heere then as in other severall occasions I must put you in mynd of your doctrine that we are not bound to belieue as an Object of our Faith Scripture to be the word of God but that we may reject it What then availes it me towards the belief of such or such Points that they are evident in Scripture if I do not belieue Scripture itself 27. Thirdly Suppose the ingredients were very soveraine and sufficient in themselves but that it were not in the sick mans power to procure them were the speculatiue agreement of the Physitians sufficient for his recovery So here It is impossible for most men to know all evideÌ„t texts of scripture which yet according to your grounds must make vp that number of Truths wherin one shall be sure to find all Fundamentall Points and so the agreement of Protestants that all necessary Truths are evidently contayned in Scripture is to little purpose since they cannot distinguish them from Points not necessary and for all men to know all Points evident in Scripture but not necessary is impossible and though it were possible yet being not of obligation for any man even though he be learned to know all such Texts defacto he might without sinne be ignorant of necessary Points which he can be certaine to know only by knowing absolutly all cleare places of Scripture and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutly necessary necessitate medij which is a plaine contradiction that some Points should be necessary to salvation and yet that we are not bound to attaine the knowledg of them or that the End which is the knowledg of such Points should be necessary and the only meanes to attaine it be either impossible or at least not of obligation to any as certainly no man is obliged to know precisely all and every particular evident Text of Scripture which â—et in your way is the only meanes to know all Fundamentall Points as in your example if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health he must be obliged to make vse of that receypt which alone could be effectuall in order to that end 28. Fourthly Suppose I could not take such a receypt without danger of drinking poyson togeather with the wholsome ingredients your similitude which goes vpon the contrary supposition doth clearely proue nothing Thus it passes in our case Men left to themselves without the Direction and Traditions of the Church yea with direct opposition to her Definitions and Authority cannot chuse but by occasion of reading Scripture alone fall into many errours against some Divine Revelation delivered either in Scripture or by Tradition that is in the written or vnwritten word of God as we see by experience of old and new Heretikes and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants wherof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in Gods Word either by detracting from or by adding to the true sense therof Now in divets places you affirme that every errour contrary to any revealed Truth is in its owne nature damnable without Repentance and you add Pag 158. N. 52. that for the most part men are betrayed into errours or kâ—â—t in them by their fault or vice or passion And therfore the true Conclusion will be that men presuming to reade and interpret Scripture by their owne wit without dependance on the Church ought to conceaue that they expose themselves to certaine danger of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation that is to a thing in itself damnable Neither can they hope for any helpe from Sectaryes whom they see infinitly divided among themselves And if they take such men for their Physitians some of them will affirme some ingredients to be necessary or profitable which others will sweare to be ranke poyson and so every Protestant is left to himself and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentalls is necessary for every one All which is strongly confirmed by calling to mynd that even the most learned
Protestants haue no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture Your supposition therfore in the consult of Physitians that in the receypt of which they spoke though perhaps there might be some ingredients superfluoous yet not hurtfull cannot be applyed against vs but retorted vpon yourselfe that as in case the whole receypt did containe some things hurtfull no man could in conscience take it so 〈◊〉 being in danger of falling into damnable errours by occasion of interpreting Scripture without dependance or relation to an infallible Guide cannot without manifest danger of their soules hope to find all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture alone and therfore must resolue to seeke a Living Guide the true Church of God which they shall be sure to find if they seeke with great instance constancy and humility 59. Out of what hath beene sayd in this Chapter these Corollaryes are evidently doduced That there are certaine Fundamentall Articles of Faith which vnless a man belieue actually and explicitly he cannot haue the substance of Faith nor can any Congregation be a true Church nor can there be any hope of salvation as all both Catholikes and Protestants affirme That vnless there be some Meanes to be assured what those Fundamentall Articles are none can be certaine that they haue the substance of Faith or be members of the true Church or oanâ—â—pect salvation That hitherto Protestants notwithstanding their â—â—most endeavour could never declare what those Points are That the meanes which Mr. Chillingworth hath invented for being sure not to misse of them is neither sufficient nor possible That indeed it is not possible for Protestants to assigne any such Catalogue That Catholikes 〈◊〉 a most certaine and infallible way to know such Points and all other Truths as occasion shall require by submitting to a Living Judg of Controversyes And therfore That none can be sure that he hath true Faith is a member of the true Church or is in possibility to be saved vnless he belieue profess and obey such an Infallible Judg the One alwayes existent Visible Church of God From which Truth this other evidently followes That whosoever devide themselves from the Communion of that true Church are guilty of the grievous sinne of Schisme And that Protestants haue done so shall be demonstrated in the next Chapter CHAP VII PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY OF THE SINNE OF SCHISME 1. THE Title of this Chapter having bene made good at large by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 5. against all that Dr. Potter could invent in Defense of Protestants If now I can confute whatsoever you alledg in Defence of the Doctour the Arguments and Reasons of Charity Maintayned must in all right be adjudged to keepe their first possession and this Truth remayne constant That Protestants and all others who separate themselves from the Roman Church must needs be found guilty of the grievous sin of formall Schisme 2. In the beginning Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chapt 5. N. 4. layes this ground That the Catholique Church signifyes One Congregation of Faithfull people and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them Faithfull Believers but also Communion or common vnion to make them One in Charity which excludes Separation and Division or Schisme This is a very evident and certaine Truth and therfore Tertulian de Praescrip Cap. 41. observes it as a property of heretiks that they communicate with all Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus miscent Nihil enim interest illis licèt diversa tractantibus dum ad vnius veritatis expugnationem conspirent Thus we see Protestants will needs call all Brethren who are not Papists Yea many will not haue Papists make a Church distinct from them S. Austine was of an other mynd from Protestants who de Uera Relig Cap 5. condemnes Philosophers because teaching different things of God yet they frequented the same sacrifices and adds So it is believed and taught that it is the principall point of mans salvation that there is not an other Philosophy that is study of wisdome and an other Religion when they whose Doctrine we approue not communicate not in Sacraments with vs. Which Truth S. Austine judges to be of so great valve and necessity and the contrarie so pernicious as he avoucheth Si hoc vnum tantum vitium Christianâ disciplinâ sanatum videremus ineffabili laude praedicandam esse neminem negare oporteret And Lib 19. cont Faust Cap 11 he sayth Men cannot be joyned into any name of Religion true or false vnless they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments Therfore Communion in Sacraments is essentially necessary to vnite the members of One Church and distinguish it from all other In this manner Act 2. 42. it is sayd of those first Christians They were presevering in the Doctrine of the Apostles and Communication of breaking bread and prayer Behold a Communication not only in Faith or Doctrine but also in Sacraments and Prayers Neither do Protestants deny this Truth Molins Lib 1. cont Perron Cap 2. saith The ancient Doctours are wont to vnderstand by the Church which oftentymes they call Catholike the whole Society of Christian Churches Orthodox and sound in Faith vnited togeather in Communion and they oppose this Church to the Societyes of Schismatikes and Heretiks which we will not reject By which words it appeares That the Holy Fathers and even Protestants make vnity in Communion against Schisme no less essentiall to the Church then in Faith against Heresy Field Lib 1. Cap 15. The Communion of the Church consisteth in Prayers and dispensation of Sacraments And Lib 2. Cap 2. Communion in Sacraments is essentiall to the Church 3. The reason of this Truth is very cleare For without Communion in Sacraments Liturgie and publike worship of God the true Church cannot be distinguished essentially from any Schismaticall congregation Because seing Schismatiks as they are distinguished from Heretiks cannot be distinguished by a different Faith wherin they are supposed to agree with Catholiks they can be distinguished only by externall Communion which therfore must be essentiall to the Church as being the thing which alone formally and essentially excludes Schisme S. Austine speakes excellently to this purpose Epist 48. You are with vs in Baptisme in the Creed in the rest of Gods Sacraments in the spirit of vnity in bond of peace finally in the very Catholique Church you are not with vs. Which words declare that the spirit of vnity and bond of peace are necessary and essentiall to constitute men members of One Church All agree that to be one Church there must be vnity in Faith and seing Faith is ordaynd to the salvation of soules 1. Pet 1.9 by the true worship of God vnity in this worship is no less necessary than vnity in Faith The Militant true Church of Christ is a visible congregation and therfore doth essentially require visible signes to distinguish it from all other companyes by Sacraments externall worship of God and a publike Liturgie which if
any other worldly hope I betray my selfe to any errour contrary to any Divine revealed truth that errour may be justly stiled a sin and consequently of it self to such a one damnable And if he dy without Contrition this errour in it selfe damnable will be likewise so vnto him I haue set downe your words at large that Protestants may learne by them how to examine their conscience about what care they vse to find the true Church ād Religion which imports them no less then the eternall salvation or Damnation of their soules And that every one may clearly see that you do not only grant more than once the errours of Protestants to be in themselves damnable but also a reason for it namely because all errours in Faith are contrary to some Divine Revelation which reason is common to Protestants to the Church of England and to all who erre in matters of Faith And then with what sincerity could you affirme that whosoever holds the doctrine of the Church of England and lives according to it vndoubtedly he shall be saved Can one who is in an errour damnable of itselfe be vndoubtedly saved without repentance Haue we not heard you say To him who dyed without contrition the errour in itselfe damnable will be likewise so vnto him Do you not say Pag 138. N. 23. For ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant that all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different Therfore you must grant that as errours against Fundamentall Truths sufficiently propounded are damnable so also errours against not Fundamentall Truths are damnable if both be equally proposed How then are the Errours of all Protestants and of the Church of England in particular not damnable 51. Thus we haue sufficiently confuted your first Memorandum and shewed that the separation of Protestants was causeless both in reality and ad hominem or according to the principles and professions of Protestants themselves In reality because there can never be just reason to separate from the Church of God which therfore must be infallible and free from all corruptions and errours Ad hominem because according to the principles of Protestants errours not Fundamentall being not destructiue of salvation cannot yield sufficient cause of separation nor free any from yielding obedience even in the supposed vnfundamentall errours as they confess ours to be and if somtyme Protestants say the contrary at other tymes they contradict themselves which serves only for their greater condemnation in leaving the communion of all Christian Churches vpon vncertaintyes in which themselves do waver somtyme affirming somtyme denying And vpon this very ground of vncertainty I go forward to proue more and more that their separation was causlesse 52. For Pag 308. N. 108. you do not disallow the saying of Cha Ma Part 1. Pag 207. In cases of vncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast of his obedience nor publikly oppose his decrees And Hooker cited by you in your Pag 310. 311. N. 110. teaches two things to our present purpose The one That an Argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent The other that in case of probability only or vncertainty Lawes established are to be obeyed and men are bound not to obserue those Lawes which they are perswaded to be against the law of God but for the tyme to suspend their perswasions to the contrary and that in otherwise doing they offend against God by troubling the Church This ground being layd I subsume besides what hath now been sayd of the variousness ād vncertainty of Protestants about Points not Fundamentall Protestants cannot possibly haue evidence or certainty against Catholiks therfore they offended against God by dividing theselves from vs and troubling the peace of all Churches The subsumption or Minor I proue diverse wayes abstaining from examination of particular Controversyes and 53. First in this manner An Argument necessary and Demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent saith Hooker If therfore the arguments of Protestants against vs were necessary and demonstratiue learned Catholiks could not chuse but inwardly assent and vnless they were extreme wicked dissemblers against their conscience would also publikly professe And yet we see that all Catholiks in all Ages and places learned holy wise and such as God vsed for instruments in working many great and evident Miracles and in converting nations to the Faith of Christ all these I say did and do and ever will dissent from the Arguments and conclusions of Protestants therfore it is cleare that their reasons against vs are not necessary nor demonstratiue and so according to Hooker the Lawes established were to be obeyed and Protestants were bound to suspend their perswasions to the contrary Truly this is an Argument which must convince any man of a mynd not perverse and resolved to persever in his errour 54. Secondly I prove that they cannot produce against vs any necessary or demonstratiue Argument in regard of the Antiquity of our doctrine confessed even by our Adversaryes as may be seene in Brierley P. 129. seqq Edition Ann. 1608. now how could these doctrines haue passed the search and examine of so many learned men and watchfull Prelats for the space of so many ages if any necessary or demonstratiue argument to which men cannot but assent could haue been produced against them 55. Thirdly Learned Protestants confess that the Fathers hold with vs against them in many and chiefest Points of Doctrine controverted in these dayes as we haue seene hertofore which could not happen if the Arguments of Protestants against the Fathers and vs were necessary and demonstratiue 56. Fourthly In all our chiefest differences diverse most learned Protestants agree with vs against their pretended Brethren as we haue also demonstrated hertofore Now these men being learned could not but see and assent to necessary and demonstratiue Arguments if any could haue been alledged against vs and being Adversaryes would not haue fayld to make vse of them nor would they haue ever left their Brethren and joyned with vs if evidence of truth and reason had not forced them therto or if they could haue espyed any even probability in the grounds and Doctrines of their Brethren wherby it appeares that the tenets of Protestants are so farr from being evident or their Arguments necessary and demonstrative that they are not so much as probable Who I pray will belieue that you could haue any necessary demonstratiue Arguments for your so many changes of Religion and for your ending in Socinianisme which you never durst openly profess and yet men are not wont to be ashamed of truths proved by necessary and demonstratiue Reasons One demonstration or evidence cannot be contrary to another and yet no doubt but you pretended evidence for all your alterations to contrary
of Luther Cardinall Caietan being sent to Germany for that very purpose a safe conduct being assured to them And for Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and Obedience to Prelats they did separate from them as well as from profession of the same Faith one of their Errours being that our worship of God being corrupted they could not communicate with vs in Liturgy publike prayers c. Therfore they first did separate themselves Fugitivi non fugati the contrary wherof they are wont to affirme And not only they ceased to communicate with vs nor were content to hold their peace bearing with patience the corruptions of the tymes as they falsely styled them but also drew men to conventicles of their owne pretended to erect new Churches and set vp aultar against aultar and the like and this against the commands of Bishops and Princes both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall You profess hightly to esteeme Hugo Grotius If in this you beleeue not me beleeve him in voto pro pace Ecclesiastica Pa 5. Intelligebam saith he ex seniorum relatu ex perscriptis Historiis extitisse postea homines qui illā in qua majores nostri fuerant Ecclesiam deserendā omnino dicerent neque tantum ipsi desererent nonnulli etiam priusquam excommunicati essent sed novos caetus facerent quos vocabant ipsi Ecclesias nova ibi facerent presbyteria docerent Sacramenta administrarent idque multis in locis contra edicta Regum Episcoporum dicerentque vt haec defenderent planè quasi de caelo mandatum haberent quale Apostoli habuerant obediendum Deo magis esse quà m hominibus Which refractary proceeding how much he disliked is declared by him Pag 31. Novum caetum vt nunc loqui mos est Ecclefiam colligere mihi etiamsi liceret non liberet video quà m malè id aliis cesserit Multiplicarunt numerum non laetitiam If you ponder the words of Grotius you cannot chuse but see how perfectly they agree to Luther and his followers and clearely confute this your Memorandum And indeed whosoever considers this Point will find it to be no better then non-sense and a contradiction to alledg this cause for justifying your separation since before any Excommunication men leaue the Church by professing a contrary Faith and in vertue of that new Faith forsake Her Communion and yet say that they leaue it because we require as a condition of our Communion that they leaue not that which necessarily and as I may say essentially and antecedently they of themselves do leaue whether we require it or no and therfore our requiring it cannot be the cause of that Effect which is preexistent before that which you say is the cause therof and would be the same whether we required it or no and we may say that Heretiks are the first as it were to excommunicate and divide themselves before the Church can excommunicate them Therfore this allegation of imposing vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity c is plainly impertinent and all must be reduced to the cause it selfe whether our doctrines be sufficiently and clearly convinced to be Errours and then whether such Errours being not Fundamentall can be sufficient to cause a separation And so I retort this ground and say that since you confess our Errours alone not to be a sufficient cause to excuse your separation from vs and for this reason you say Protestants are not obliged to separate themselves from one another you must also acknowledg that indeed they had no sufficient cause to divide themselves from all Churches 63. Secondly Yourselfe contradict this Memorandum For Pag 276. N. 59. You say Though your corruptions in doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging vs to profess your doctrine vncorrupted against knowledg and Conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your Communion Now if our corruptions in themselves induce an obligation to depart from our Communion this obligation is induced before the imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours and why then do you say that imposing vpon men vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation Since there is another cause precedent to that and such a cause as without it this other of imposing vpon men c cannot subsist For if our Errours in themselves do not impose vpon you an obligation to forsake vs it is a signe that they are not damnable in themselves nor necessarily to be avoided and consequently you may and ought to remaine with vs notwithstanding such Errours and if you ought to do so the Church may justly command it vnder payne of Excommunication as a punishment of precedent obstinacy and a medicine to prevent it for tyme to come and so yourselfe overthrow this memorandum wherby you would excuse your division from the Church Yet on the other side if our pretended errours do in themselves induce an obligation to forsake our Church different Sects of Protestants must for the same reason forsake one another because you deny not their Errours to be in themselves damnable and therfore you put a difference between them and vs only because they exact not of others a profession of their errours and we do and so you reduce all to this exacting or not exacting a profession of known errours and not to the errours in themselves and yet we haue heard you say that our Errours in diverse of which chiefe learned Protestants agree with vs against their Brethren in themselves induce an obligation vpon you to forsake vs. What is here but contradicting saying and vnsaying the same thing Which shewes that with you nothing is certaine except that you are certaine of nothing And consequently could haue no necessary and certaine reason to forsake all Churches 64. Thirdly To bring you out of the cloudes and to vnderstand things as they are The separation we meane when there is speech of division by Schisme and Heresy is not that separation which is caused by the Ecclesiasticall censure of Excommunication which deprives men of the publike suffrages of Gods Church of vse of Sacraments and conversation with faithfull people and may consist with the Grace of God and Charity not only when it is vnjust but also when the party censured repents himselfe by perfect contrition of the sin for which the Censure was imposed though he be not actually absolved from it in regard of some cause or invincible impediment which is not in his power to alter or remooue but hartily desires to be absolved and so is vnited to the Church in voto And this Censure of Excommunication is wont to be inflicted not only for Schisme or Heresy but for other offences also against God or our neighbour But Luther and his fellowes voluntarily put themselves vpon another kind of separation to wit from the profession of the same Faith and
and salvation Neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the vniversall Church 2. Since she is vnder paine of eternall damnation to be believed in some things wherin consessedly she is indued with infallibility I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of less moment 3. Since we are obliged not to forsake the Church in Fundamentall Points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those Fundamentall Points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one Point least perhaps that Proue to be Fundamentall and necessary to salvation 4. That Visible Church even that Church which confessedly cannot erre in Points Fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her desinitions concerning matters of Faith to be believed vnder Anathemas or Curses holding it as a Point necessary to salvation that we belieue she cannot erre wherin if she speake true then to deny any one Point in particular which she defineth or to affirme in generall that she may erre puts a man in state of damnation wheras to belieue her in sch Points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger our salvation as likwise to remayne in her communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintayne any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable 5. The true Church being in lawfull and certaine possession of Superiority and Power to command and require obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one vnless I know evidently that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better informe me how far Gods Church can proceed then Gods Church herselfe Or to what Doctour can the children and Schollers with greater reason and security fly for direction than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused than in cleaving to any particular Sect or Person or applying Scriptures against Her Doctrine or interpretation 6. The fearfull examples of innumerable Persons who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours haue fayled even in Fundamentall Points and suffered shipwrack of their salvation ought to deterr all Christians from opposing her in any Doctrine or practise As to omit other both ancient and moderne heresyes we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church are come to affirme that for many Ages shee erred to death and wholy perished which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamentall errour against that Article of our Creed I belieue the Catholike Church as he affirmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the vniversall Church within Africa or some other small tract of soile Least therfore I may fall into some Fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of the Church which cannot erre Fundamentally especially if we add that according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines One errour in Faith whether it be for the matter itselfe great or small destroyes Faith and consequently to accuse the Church of any one errour is to affirme that she lost all Faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaves Christ no Visible Church on earth 125. These are the reasons of Charity Maintayned in the sayd N. 20. which I wish you had set downe as you found them that the Reader might haue judged how much they ought to weigh with every one who hath a serious care to saue his soule Sure I am they are growne stronger by your Objections as will appeare to any indifferent Reader 126. Your chiefest and as I may call it Fundamentall Answer is That I begg the Question in supposing that any Church of one denomination is infallible in Fundamentall Points and that Protestants when they say the Church is infallible in fundamentall Points vnderstand only That there shall be alwayes a Church to the very being wherof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentalls But I haue shewed hertofore that you wrong even your pretended Brethren the Protestants in fastening on them so ridiculous an interpretation of the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points and therfore I must still insist vppon that ground in the sense which Protestants grant and which I haue proved to be true Which truth being supposed yourselfe are forced to favour vs so farr as to say Pag 163. N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one Denomination as the Greeke or the Roman Church which if we had done and set vp some setled certaine Society of Christians distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our guide in Fundamentalls then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point And in the next N. 56. you say First we confesse no such thing thas the Church of Rome was then this Church vnerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose but only a Part of it Secondly that if by adhering to the Church we could haue beene thus far secured this argumēt had some shew of Reason And P 150. N. 39. If the Church were an infallible director in Fundamentall thē must we not only learne Fundamētalls of her but also learne of her what is Fundamentall and take all for Fundamentall which she delivers to be such In the performance wherof if I knew any one Church to he Infallible I would quickly be of that Church Eternally be Gods Infinite Goodness blessed who hath made vs Catholikes members of that infallible Church But in the meane tyme you grant as much as will serue to overthrow all your owne Arguments in granting that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentall Points we haue all reason not to forsake Her And you giue that very Reason which is alledged by Charity Maintayned to wit for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point so that you make good both his Assertion and reason therof and further you are ready to seale your Doctrine with your practise by being quickly of that Church Heere I beseech you remember your owne words Pag 280. N. 95. May not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted And then suppose such a Church should erre in Points not Fundamentall what would you doe The same reason of not erring in Fundamentalls for which you would quickly joyne yourselfe to her would also oblige you nor to forsake her and then you must find some Answer to all those Objections which you make against the Reasons of Charity Maintayned alledged by him to proue that if once I belieue the Church to be infallible in
Church is not only secure but certaine and easy and therfore necessary Thus your mayne Objection is turned against your selfe And then it is further inferred that if it either be no sin or at least a less offense to profess errours than to forsake the Church she may justly exact and injoyne vnder Censures that to which every one is obliged by the Law of God notwithstanding any pretence or supposition of errours For when the Holy Fathers vnanimously agree that it is not possible there can be any just cause to forsake the Church they must suppose that either she cannot fall into any errour which is most true and indeed they suppose it otherwise there could be no difference betweene the vniversall and a particular Church which may fall into errour and so be forsaken or els you must grant that they did not conceiue any eriours could excuse the leaving her Communion And this vnaninâ—ous consent alone were sufficient for Christians to belieue that the profession of errours cannot be so great an evill as separation from the Church is Nevertheless reason it selfe grounded in principles of Faith convinceth the same For in true Divinity it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any one point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants and you say further that it is to giue God the ly and therfore to profess as a point of Faith any thing contrary to the beliefe of the Church is to say she erred fundamentally and fell into infidelity as Potter saith every one doth who denyes a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed and consequently to profess that the Church erred is to say that she perished which Potter saith is in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall and so Whosoever saith the Church erred he himselfe by that very saying professes indeed a damnable heresy which is worse than to profess an errour contrary only to a Truth supposed to be not Fundamentall nor necessary and so by your owne confessions though I grant your confessions contradict yourself we proue our intent 123. Besides it is no less evident that it is essentially and Fundamentally evill to disbelieue a truth knowne to be witnessed by God than to profess externally some point which one believes not to be true yea that first must be the ground for which you say it is damnable to profess against ones conscience an errour repugnant to Divine Revelation For if it be not damnable to deny interiourly such a truth much lesse can it be damnable to profess exteriourly only a deniall of that which one believes to be revealed by God For it is to be considered that we speake not of any internall errour but only of the externall profession of an errour not Fundamentall which alone is not so great a sinne as internall Heresy nor so vast a Mischiefe as the inconvenience of Schisme is which is destructiue of the whole Church essentially including communion in profession of one Faith Liturgy c. and necessarily brings with it a deluge of scandall irreligiosity contempt disobedience and in one word vniversitatem malorum and therfore S. Thomas teaches 2.2 Quest 29. Art 2. ad 3. that amongst sins against our neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or community and as Cha Ma saith Part 1. Pag 156. N. 6. As there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among private men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome or Common wealth so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous than sedition in a Kingdome or Common wealth as the spirituall good of soules surpasses the Civill and politicall weale See here the sayings of the Holy Fathers in Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 157. N. 70. of the grievousness of Schisme All which is confirmed by what we sayd even now that the profession of an errour in our case cannot so much as hurt a private person who constituted in an invincible perplexity doth not sin by embracing the less evill in the opinion of great Divines with whose Doctrine whosoever conformes his Conscience is certaine not to sin whatsoever the thing be in it selfe 134. Morover it is evident both in reason and by experience that Schisme always brings with it that very thing which you pretend to be so very inconvenient and damnable that is a profession of errours at least not Fundamentall by multiplying diversity of Sects and opinions as we see it happens among Protestants some of whoâ— must be in an errour And S. Hierome saith truly vpon those words of the Apostle which some casting of haue suffered ship wrack in their Faith though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason And is it not worse both to belieue and profess culpable errours than to belieue aright and faile only in the outward profession of that beliefe The former makes one a formall compleat Heretike both in conscience and judgment of the Church the latter is indeed no Heretike but only appeares so to be neither is he subject to the punishment of Heretiks The former offends in two respects in the beliefe of an errour and profession of it The latter only in profession which alone as I saied cannot be so sinfull as the errour of Heresy it selfe both because the profession is sinfull only by reason of the errour professed as also because by heresy one doubts or denyes some truth revealed by God which is immediatly against Gods supreme Uerity and veracity and so is against an Object of a Theologicall Uertue as S. Thomas saith 2.2 Quest 39. A â— c. Infidelitas est peccatum contra ipsum Deum secundum quod in se est veritas prima cui fides innititur But to profess a knowne errour is only against the precept of professing ones Faith which are distinct thinges and therfore as I sayd a culpable errour is worse than the only profession of an errour If you thinke that such an externall profession is worse than an internall errour because that is against ones conscience you are much mistaken it being certaine that not every sin of dissimulation against ones conscience is greater than any other sin as is cleare of it selfe to every Divine or Philosopher yea the externall sinfull profession of an errour flowes from the Heresy itself which ordinarily is a worse roote than humane feare hope or the like from which an externall false profession or dissimulation is wont to procede and therfore this is less damnable than that even though it were a finne and were not excused by the supposed invincible perplexity as we have Shewed it may be S. Thomas 2.2 Quest 39. Art 2. in corpore teaches that Infidelity ex suo genere is a greater
sin than Schisme yet adds this exception It may happen that some Schismatike may commit a greater sin than some infidell either by reason of greater contempt or the greater danger which he brings or for some like thing If this Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas say this comparing Schisme with true infidelity much more may we affirme it if we consider true Schisme on the one side and on the other only a false appearance or meere externall profession of errour or heresy As for those limitations of S. Thomas they may seeme to be prophecyes if we apply them to Luther and his fellowes in regard of the contempt which they shewed of all Prelats and the whole Church of the not only danger but reall and vnspeakable mischiefes which their Schisme did bring and of moreand greater inconveniences than could haue been believed or imagined if the world did not see and lament them So as we may well speake to them in the words of Ch Ma P. 1. P. 187. N. 23. What excuse can you faine to yourselves who for Points not necessary to salvation haue been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but vnavoidably accompany so huge a breach in Kingdomes in Commonwealths in private persons in publike Magistrates in Body in soule in goods in life in Church in the state by Schismes by war by famine by plague by bloud shedd by all sorts of imaginable calamityes vpon the whole face of the Earth wherin as in a mapp of Desolation the heaviness of your crime appeares vnder which the world doth pant 135. Some learned Divines speaking of invincible Perplexity giue this Doctrine that if I must either committ a veniall sin in a matter which of it selfe and per se loquendo is only veniall for example an officiously or expose my selfe to danger of a mortall sin I am obliged to chuse the lesser evill which in opinion of great Divines were in that case no sin at all rather than put my selfe in danger of the greater evill a deadly sin O into how certaine danger doth a Schismaticke precipitate himselfe beside the sin of Schisme of committing innumerable deadly sins and of being cause that innumerable other persons fall into the like offences against God and his neighbour And therfore men are obliged rather to vndergoe a less evill than to make themselves obnoxious to infinitly greater mischiefes and rather to profess exteriourly an errour not distructiue of salvation than to forsake the Communion of Gods Church within which God hath confined Remission of sins and Salvation Consider what we haue cited out of your owne words Pag 163. N. 56. If by adhering to the Church we could haue been thus far secured not to erre in Fundamentalls this Argument that in wisdome we must forsake the Church in nothing least we should forsake her in some thing necessary had some shew of reason and what you say N. 55. We never annexed this Priviledge of not erring in Fundamentalls to any one Church of any one denomination Which if we had done and set vp some setled certain society of Christians for our Guide in Fundamentalls then indeed and then only might you with some colour though with no certainty haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point In these words you grant that if any Church of one denomination were knowne to be infallible in all Fundamentall Points we might conclude though not certainly yet probably that you could not in wisdome forsake her in any Point for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point If the inference of Charity Maintayned be probable by your confession vpon that supposition of infallibility in some determinate Church for Fundamentall Points then you must grant that all objections to the contrary may be answered which I pray you doe and tell vs whether in that case it should be damnable to profess any knowne errour If it be damnable then you must forsake the Church in such Points which yet you say in wisdome one could not doe If it should not be damnable you must shew how it was not so and whatsoever you alledge for the defense of professing knowne errours and adhering to the Church even in that case will serue for defense of vs and a confutation of your owne objections against vs. Besides you say Charity Maintayned might haue some colour and reason in the case proposed of some determinate Churches infallibility in Fundamentalls to conclude that we could not in wisdome forsake such a Church in any Point for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point From which confession I inferr first that if in wisdome one ought not forsake in any Point a Church infallible in fundamentalls for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point much more they ought to conforme themselves to her in externall profesion and consequently that it is a greater evill to forsake her communion than to profess externally some vnfundamentall errour and Secondly that for feare of incurring a greater evill that is in our case a Fundamentall errour one may and ought to chuse the less which is the thing I haue endeavoured to proue and which vtterly evacuates the ground for which you pretend to excuse Luther and his followets Morover If you meane that one is not to profess any errour against his Conscience but that also he ought his submitt to judgment in all Points to a Church lieved to be infallible in Fundamentalls then you overthrow your owne ground and words N. 57. that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls because in reason no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded And therfore if I consider what I doe and be perswaded that your Infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence vpon this ground cannot possible be Absolute and vniversall and Totall Thirdly vpon this your owne grant it followes clearly that Luther could not in wisdome forsake all Churches because Protestants grant that all Churches or the whole Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and therfore in wisdome could not be forsaken in any thing at all not that your first Protestants can be excused from Schisme in doing so But againe if they were obliged to submitt their judgment to the Church and had done so as indeed they ought to haue done their professing a Faith contrary to that of the Church as Luther did had been also to profess an errour contrary to their owne conscience and so whatsoever you say you are confuted by your owne grounds which appeares more by these your express words Pag 280. N. 95. What man of judgment will thinke it any disparagement to his judgment to preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes And therfore though Protestants
haue some Errours yet seeing they are not soe great as yours he that conceiâ—es it any disparagement to his judgment to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to haue some corruptions it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgment Do not these words declare your opinion that in case of perplexity when of two Evills one must be chosen it is judgment and consequently no sinne to make choise of the less This is the very thing which I haue alledged out of Divines and which obliges you to answer your owne argumeÌ„t against Charity maintayned This your chiefest objection being answered confuted and retorted let vs examine the rest 136. You say Pag 164. N. 57. It is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church mâ—ll things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things that is in Fondamentalls 137. Answer Although indeed if once we suppose that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall it be an evident consequence that we can never belieue the Church in some things vnless we belieue her in all and so your objection is of no force yet Charity Maintayned never sayd that one may adhere to the Church in all things precisely and formally because she is infallible in some things which in speculation and good Logicke had been like to this Argument Mans vnderstanding is infallible in some things for example in the most vniversall knowne principles as that two contradictoryes cannot be true or that every whole is greater than a part therof and the like Therfore I am to belieue mans vnderstanding to be infallible in all things But he spoke morally and pro subjectâ materia and therfore sayd expressly seing Protestants grant the Church to be infallible in Points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferre that it behooves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her Where you see he speakes of what were to be done in wisedowne and for the safety of ones soule and considers tkings as in this subject they ought to be considered in a morall not in a Logicall or Metaphisicall way That the Church being confessedly infallible in all necessary Points men must consider well how they leaue her in any point least perhaps either that point wherin they forsake her be a Fundamentall point or els least they may fall into some Fundamentall errour after they haue left her as also that seing they rely on her Authority in Fundamentall Articles it is no wisdome to suspect her credit in matters of less moment especially considering the many examples of those who de facto forsaking the Church haue fallen into damnable and Fundamentall Heresyes and in a word seing there may be great danger in leaving the Church and damnation cannot be feared by adhering to her which I am sure neither doth nor can erre in Points necessary to salvation there may be great harme in leaving but no hurt in fellowing Her in all that she proposes as matter of Faith which is your owne grant as we haue seene aboue in these words Pag 168. N. 63. It is true if we sayd there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madness to perswade any man to leaue it Now that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall or necessary Points I will proue herafter out of your owne words out of Potter and other Protestants and therfore it was madnesse to perswade men to leaue Her 138. These and the like morall and prudentiall Arguments Charity Maintayned vrged which truly in a matter concerning Eternity ought to mooue every one and more than meere Metaphysicall speculations And that this discourse of Charity Maintayned was very reasonable yourselfe make good in your words which I haue cited that if there were set vp some setled society of Christians for our guide in Fundamentalls then Charity Maintayned might with some colour and shew of reason haue concluded that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking Her in a necessary Point What Mr. Chillingworth For feare of forsaking Her in a necessary Point What colour of reason can there be in this your feare Seing we haue heard you tell vs P. 164. N. 57. It is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things having no other ground for it but because she is infallible in some things And what will become of your vaine Dialogue in this same section wherby with great pompe of words you endeavour to prove that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all thingr hauing no other ground c Is it not cleare that you contradict yourselfe and are engaged to answer all the Arguments which you object against Charity Maintayned for saying that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentalls it is no wisdome to leaue her in any Point Can one judge that there is reason for that which the same man is confident which is your owne word Pag 165. N. 57. may be demonstrated to be false And by this appeares that your whole discourse N. 63. is against this your owne grant Neither do we say that vniversally one must stick to one side for feare of going too far towards the other but that when there is no harme in embracing one part and evident danger in forsaking it in such a case we cannot forsake one part and goe to the other that is we cannot forsake the Church in Points not necessary for salvation because we may chance to leaue her in some Fundamentall Point which even yourselfe grant to be a rationall deduction if once it be supposed that any particular Church is infallible in Fundamentall Points as Protestants commonly grant the vniversall Church to be infallible in such Articles and therfore as I sayd aboue Luther and his fellowes could not in wisdome forsake the vniversall Church in any one Point Morover remember what you write Pag 277. N. 61. in these words Neither is there any reason why a Church should please herselfe too much for retaining fundamentall truthes while she remaines regardless of others For who is there that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not according to the vsuall fecundity of errour bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and Piety If this be true of the vniversal Church which is infallible for Fundamentalls much more may we say of any private person who hath no such priviledg of infallibility forsaking the Church in some Point of Faith Who is there can put him in sufficient caution that these Errours about profitable matters may not according to the vsuall fecundity of Errour bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very fundations of Religion and Piety And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to
that is that it is impossible that they can agree in all points Calvin Instit Lib 4. Cap 1. N. 12. speakes plainly Quoniam nemo est qui non c. Because none is free from some cloua of ignorance we must either leaue no Church at all or we must Pardon errours in those things of which men may be ignorant without breach both of the summe or substance of Religion and loss of salvation Marke how this Patriark of Protestants acknowledges that noe Church can be free from errours not Fundamentall Dr. Lawed Sect 38. Pag 360. In things not necessary though they be Divine truths also I confess it were hartily to be wished that men might be all of one minde and one judgment But this can not be hoped for till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailtyes which here hang thinke and closes about her Whitaker Cont 2. Q. 5. C. 8. It is not needefull that all should thinke the same if such vanity be required there would be noe Church at all Potter Pag 39. It is a great vnity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the preces and particles of Divine Truth And Pag 69. He expressly confesses that all the weeds are not perfectly taken away in the reformed Church Chilling P. 279. N. 64. the visible Church is free indeed from all errours absolutely destructiue and vnpardonable but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable Morton Appologie Lib 1.58 only Papists challenge priviledg of not erring And blessed be God who hath placed vs in a Church which vpon evident and necessary Reason challenges that priviledg without which there can be not infallibility in Christian Faith noe vnitie in the Church of which therfore we haue just cause to say with S. Austine Ep 48. wherewith Charity Maintayned ends the second part of his booke Others of the Donatists say we did indeed belieue that it imported nothing in what company we did hold the Faith of Christ But thanks be to our Lord who hath gathered vs from division and hath shewed to vs that it agreeth to one God that he be worshiped in vnity For what a Church is that which is divided even in points of Divine Faith If such errours be sufficient to divide from a Church as Protestants pretend to have parted from vs vpon that ground and without which they must confess themselves to be Schismatikes and that noe Church is free from such errours what followes but that all Churches and all men must be divided from one another and noe one Church be left in the whole world And how can they be excused from Schisme in leaving all Churches for errours which no Church can avoide And who would be a Protestant seing themselves confess that they neither are nor can be free from damnable errours that is errours against Divine Revelation which wil actually bring damnation vpon them that keep themselves in them by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault as you say Pag 279. 64. So as for the Generall effect of damnation they differ not from fundamentall errours which also are pardonable by repentance Beside Pag 220. N. 52. you say by fundamentall we meane all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation By which words you must vnderstand all truths necessary because they are revealed by God and commanded and not only things indispensably necessary of themselves because you say one may safely expect salvation if he belieue all things Fundamentall which safety he cannot expect who erres in points revealed though not Fundamentall of themselves seing you teach that all such errours are damnable and in plain termes Pag 133. N. 12. you say their state is dangerous which can not stand with safety therfore by Fundamentall points with the belief of which one may safely expect salvation you must vnderstand all points not only Fundamentall of themselves but such also as are necessary only because revealed And Pag 290. N. 88. you expresly giue those errours of which we speake the name of fundamentall even as one membrum dividens of Fundamentall as the Divisum in these wordes Fundamentall errours may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable Or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and desiructiue of salvation Well now these errours which you acknowledge in the Protestant Church being against Gods Revelation and command must be in their owne nature damnable as you doe not denie but they are so and therfore we say that Luther and his fellows could no more forsake the Roman Church for such errours than they must forsake one an other till they leaue no Church at all and all come to be Independents both in respect of others and even of a mansselfe who must still be forsaking his owne errours against Faith as being damnable in themselves I neede not here repeat what I haue of necessitie often mentioned That scarcely we hold any Article against some Protestants in which we haue not other learned Protestants on our side against their fellows and I hope you will not say that the selfe same errours are even in their owne nature damnable in vs and not in Protestants which were a pretty non-sense and an vnjust partiality therfore I conclude that this Objection is no less against Protestants then vs yea it is vnansweareable by Protestants who confes that really their Church is subject to and actually is stained with such errours which we absolutely denie in respect of the Roman Church and such as agree with her 155. And here you must ponder your wordes Pag 280. N. 95. For Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 184. haveing alledged Potters wordes Pag 69. that the weedes are not perfectly taken away among Protestants saith What man of judgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one To this you reply And yet you yourselfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to haue some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted 156. To this your reply I may answer out of what I sayd aboue How I pray is it all one to make a Supposition acknowledged by him who makes it to be a thing both vntrue and impossible and to speake of a thing so certainly and immoveably true that the contrary is impossible The former case treates of a voluntary supposition which the supposer knowes he may recall or reverse at his pleasure and bring things to the true state in which they really exist and so as I may say all will be mended
knowledge of Scripture Do not these words speake of the first Principle among Christians who alone receiue Scripture and not of Principles in Metaphysicke Mathematicke c which were nothing to the purpose Or who ever dreamed that Scripture could be the most knowne in all sciences seing it is not knowne by any naturall science but depends on Divine Revelation Yea doth not Ch Ma expressly say That if Potter meane Scripture to be one of those Principles which being the first and most knowne in all sciences cannot be Demonstrated by other Principles He supposes that which is in question Which words declare That Scripture is none of those Principles which are most knowne either in all naturall sciences or in Christianity 16. Out of what hath beene sayd very often it is easy to answer and retort all that you haue in all your sections till the N. 62. For to vs who belieue the Church of God to be infallible diversity of Tranlations or corruptions can bring no harme seeing we are sure that the Church can neverapproue any false Translation or corruption nor ground vpon them any Point of Faith But for you who deny the infallibility of the Church and rely vpon Scripture alone false Translations or corruptions may import no less than the losse of your soules by being led into some damnable errour or left in ignorance of some Point necessary to salvation For to rely vpon Scripture alone and yet not to know with certainty what Scripture in particular is Canonicall and incorrupted is to take away all certainty from it and from the Faith of Protestants grounded on it alone The Church did exist before any Scripture was written and must last although we should imagine that all Scripture were lost as some say it happened to the Old Testament at least it lay hid Only I must note for answer to your N. 58. and 59. that Catholikes object to Protestants not only difference of Translations of which you speake N. 59. but that one of them most deeply condemnes the Translation of the other as Ch Ma Pag 52. N. 16. sets downe at large As for the vulgate Translation approved by the sacred Councell of Trent we are sure that it can containe no errour against Faith and for diverse Readings we are certaine that the Church can never approue any one that is false or settle any doctrine vppon it as I sayd even now But to treate at large of this Translation would require a Uolume and is not for this tyme for my or even your purpose In your N. 61 you pretend to make good or excuse Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom 3.28 We account a man to be justifyed by Faith translates justifyed by Faith Alone and in stead of proving you only ask What such great difference is there between Faith without the works of the Law and Faith alone without the works of the Law Or why does not without Alone signifie all one with Alone Without Answer there is as great difference between those two Propositions as betwene Truth and Falshood That a man is justifyed by Faith without the works of the Law is a truth believed both by Catholiques and Protestants for both of vs belieue that Faith concurres to justification But that other Proposition A man is justifyed by Faith alone without the works of the Law signifyes that we are not justifyed by the works of the Law but by Faith alone that is by nothing but by Faith which is false and excludes justification by Hope Charity and works of Christian piety and accordingly Luther being admonished of this shamefull falsification answered poenitet me quod non addiderim illas duas voces omnibus omnium vz. sine omnibus operibus omnium legum Besides it is strang you will defend this falsification of Alone seing Pag 406. N. 32. you wish that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but wheÌ„ the 13. Chap of the 1. Epist to the Corinth Concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read togeather with theÌ„ But then good Sr. what danger of misprision must it needs be when people shall think S. Paul spoke of Faith Alone as Luther makes him speak To this may be added what you haue Pag 218. N. 49. of the danger of justification by Faith alone Neither I nor others with whom I haue confered can make any sense of your other workes Or why does not Without c. The translation of Zuinglius This signifyes my Body in stead of This is my Body is rejected by Protestants themselves where of see Brereley Tract 2. Cap 3. Sect. 9. Subd 3. 17. In your N 62. till the 80 inclusiue you vainly triumph as if you did invincibly proue that according to our Groundes mens salvation depends vpon vncertaintyes All which I haue answered at large hertofore 18. Concerning your N. 83 I desire the Reader to consider what Charity Maintayned recites out of Dr Couell about our vulgate Tanslation of Scripture and he will find that your Answer to that particular is but a vaine speculation and that he supposes the Translation which is called the Bishops Bible and is approved in England to be the best as coming neerest to the vulgate which had been no proofe at all vnless he had also supposed the Vulgate to be the best all things considered and so made it a Rule to Judge of the goodness and quality of that English Translation 19. To your N. 86. I answer that if Dr Field when he saith in his Treatise of the Church in his Epistle Dedicatory to the L. Archbishop Seeing the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue tyme and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them what remayneth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world is that blessed Company of holy Ones that how should of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbraâ—e her Communion follow her directions and rest in her judgment If I say Dr. Field did not thinke of any company of Christians invested with such Authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their decrees as you say he did not I can only say that when he spoke of searching out that Blessed Company of holy Ones c he spoke of a Chimera or of a thing impossible and yet he saith that there remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence only this that they search out which among all the societyes in the world is that Blessed Company of holy Ones c which had bene nothing els but to bring men to desperation by prescribing one only meanes for salvation and that an
impossible one And that he and other Protestants do but cosin the world and speake contradictions or non-sense when they talke of a perpetuall visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall Points and whose Communion we are to embrace and yet tell vs that such a visible Church cannot be designed in particular where and which she is For this is all one as to make her invisible and vncognoscible and of no vse at all and therfore they being forced by manifest Scripture to assert and belieue a perpetuall visible Church we must without asking them leaue necessarily inferr that this Church by their owne necessary confession must be designable and cognoscible in particular You say By all societyes of the world it is not impossible nor very improbable he might meane all that are or haue beene in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church But this is no better then ridiculous For he saith What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all societyes in the world is that Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion c You see he speakes of that society of men which is the Church and which is the Pillar of Truth and would haue men search it out wheras the Primitiue Church neither is but hath beene nor was it for but directly against the Doctours purpose to advise men to search out the Primitiue Church and her Doctrine which had required tyme and leasure and strength of vnderstanding which he saith few men haue and therfore he must vnderstand a Church to be found in these tymes whose Directions they should follow and rest in her judgment To say as you doe that we embrace her Communion if we belieue the Scripture endeavour to find the true sense of it and liue according to it is very fond as if the Doctour spoke of Scripture when he named the Church and in saying we are to embrace the Communion of the Church he meant we should embrace the Communion of Scripture which had beene a strang kind of phrase and in advising vs to seeke out that society of men and that Company of Holy Ones he vnderstood not men but the writings of men Do not your selfe say that the subject he wrote of was the Church and that if he strayned too high in commendation of it what is that to vs Therfore it is cleare he spoke not of the Scripture in commendation wherof you will not say he strayned too high but of the Church and of the Church of our tymes and so saith the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne c But why do I loose tyme in confuting such toyes as these It being sufficient to say in a word that Protestants in this capitall Article of the invisibility and infallibility of the Church are forced to vtter some mayne Truthes in favour of Catholikes though with contradiction to themselves 20. In your N. 87. You do but trifle Charity Maintayned N. 18. said That the true interpretation of Scripture ought to be receâ—ved from the Church is proved c To this you answer That the true interpretation of the Scripture ought to be reveaved from the Church you need not proue for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves ready to receaue all Truthes much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but any society of men nay from any man whatsoever But who sees not that this is but a cavill and that Charity Maintayned to the Question which was in hand from whence the interpretation of Scripture was to be received answered it is to be received from the Church And I pray if one should say the knowledge or truth of Philosophy is to be received from Philosophers would you say this need not be proved nor even affirmed to them who profess themselves ready to receiue all Truths not only from Philosophers but from any man whatsoever 21. You labour N. 90.91.92 to proue that Protestants receiue not the Scripture vpon the Authority of our Church but in vaine For what true Church of Christ was there when Luther appeared except the Roman and such as agreed with her even in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs and for which they pretend to haue forsaken our Communion Doth not Luther in his Booke against Anabaptists confess that you haue the Scripture from vs And Doue in his persw sion to English Recusants c Pag 13. sayth Wee hold the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nyce of Ephesus of Constantinople and the same Byble which we receyved from them And Whitaker Lib de Eccles c Pag 369. confesseth that Papists hâ—ue Scripture and Baptisme c and that they came from them to Protestants That you receiue some Bookes and reject others which the vniversall Church before Luther received argues only that you are formall Heretikes that is voluntary choosers and that not believing the infallibility of the Church you haue no certainty of any Booke or parcell or period of Scripture And wheras you say N. 90. that we hold now those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly we rejected from the Canon and instance in the Booke of Machabees and the Epistle to the Hebrewes and add that the first of these we held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregoryes tyme or els he was no member of our Church for it is apparent He held otherwise and that the second we rejected from the Canon in S. Hieromes tyme as it is evâ—dent out of many places in his workes I answer that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Bookes to be Canonicall which formerly she rejected from the Canon and if there were any doubt concerning these Bookes of Scripture they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church but by some particular persons which doubt the Church did cleare in due tyme as I haue declared heretofore and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Machabees as also Charity Maintayned Part 2. Pag 195. which you ought not to haue dissembled did answer the same Objection made by Potter Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrewes I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. N. 42. seqq writes excellently of this matter and demonstrates that the Latine Church never rejected that Epistle as he proves out of Authors who wrote both before and after S. Hierome and that S. Hierome relyed vpon Eusebius and therfore your absolute Assertion that this Epistle was rejected in tyme of S. Hierome is no lesse vntrue than bold Neither ought you to haue concealed the answer of Char Maintayn Part 2. Chap 7. Pag 197. where he saith thus Wonder not if S. Hierome speake not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament since vpon experience examination and knowledge of the sense of the Church he might alter his opinion as once he sayd ad Paulinum of the
could not haue believed Her in any one and so there had beene no meanes to attaine a Divine infallible Faith and that after the Canon of Scripture was persited the Church remaines infallible in Fundamentall Articles but may erre in Points not Fundamentall both which things are granted by Protestants I hope you will not deny but that the conclusion deduced from these Premises must be That she lost part and kept part of that infallibility with which she was endued before Scripture was written and that you haue an obligation to shew by some evident Text of Scripture that the Church by the writing therof was deprived of infallibility in Points not Fundamentall and conserved with infallibility in Fundamentall Articles beside what I sayd even now that according to your instance of a way the Church should haue bene deprived of infallibility when by writing of some Scriptures some points were made cleare in writing which before were believed only for the Authority of a Guide that is the Church And now consider whether Charity Maintayned may not say to you as you with your wanted humility speake to him jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis 45. Your N 141. hath beene answered in my confutation of your N. 124. concerning the infallibility of the high Priest and Jewish Church in your N. 142. you say to Charity Maintayned For particular rites and ceremonyes and orders for government our Saviour only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul let all things be done decently and in order But what order is fittest i. e. what tyme what Place what Manner c is fittest that he hathleft to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you meane that he hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in Generall that we are to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to beliue The Church being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content yourselfe or thinke we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe 46. Answer My hope was at the first general view of this section to haue answered it in very few words But vpon particular examination I find it to involve so many points of moment that to vnfold them will require some little more tyme and paynes First you cite Ch Ma. imperfectly His words Part 1. P. 69. N. 23. are He Dr. Potter affirmes that the Jewish Sinagogue retained infallibility in herselfe notwithstanding the writing of the old Testament and will he so vnworthily and â—â—justly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament Expecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonyes Rites Punishments Judgments Sacraments Sacrifices c were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jewes than in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or Declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therfore stands in need of infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue To these words you say I pray walke not thus in generality but tell vs what particulars And then you distinguish Rites and Ceremonyes and Orders for Governement from matters of Faith which indeed is no distinction if the matter be duly considered For although diverse Rites and Ceremonyes may chance to be of themselves indifferent and neither forbidden or commanded to be practised or omitted yet to be assured that indeed they are indifferent and not sinfull or superstitious and so infectiue of the whole Church we need some infallible authority And particularly this is true for the Hierarchy or Governement of the Church as I sayd hertofore which is a Fundamentall point if any can be Fundamentall to the constituting a Church For this cause Charity Maintayned expressly said that our aviour left to his Church the determination or declaration of particulars but you thought fit to leaue out the word declaration wheras we cannot certainly rely vpon the determination of any person or community without a power and infallibility to make a Declaration that the thing determined or ordained is lawfull and so a Determination or Ordination must suppose or imply in fact a declaration Do not you pretend to leaue vs for our superstitious Rites and Ceremonyes because you could not in conscience conforme yourselves to them And heere I may put the Reader in minde of the words which I cited aboue out of Moulin Epist 3 to Dr. Andrewes Non potui dicere primatum Episcoporum esse juris divini quin Ecclesijs nostris notam haereseos inurerem Enimvero obsirmare animum adversus ea quae sunt juris divini Deo jubentipertinaciter refragari planè est haeresis sive id Fidem attingat five disciplinam Thus your demand what particulars Charity Maitâ—yned vnderstood is answered namely that he vnderstood all particulars which occasion might require to be ordained determined and declared by the Church but in the meane tyme where or when did Ch Ma say or dreame that which you say is apparently false that our Saviour hath only concerning matters of Faith prescribed in generall that â—â—â—re to heare the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue Your conscience cannot but beare witness against your owne words that Charity Maintayned hath expressed a thousand tymes our doctrine that we are bound to belieue whatsoever is sufficieÌ„tly proposed as revealed by God professing every where that this is the Ground for which he avouches that of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must be in a damnable state and that for this cause we are bound to belieue every particular truth contained in Scripture or defined by the Church which are millions And therfore not the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned but your imputation is apparently false Yet to say the truth that Doctrine which you say is apparently false aÌ„d no less falsely imputed to vs might be very true if it should stand or fall by the strength only of the argument which you object against it though perhaps it did seeme to you a great subtility 47. The Church say you being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say he hath left to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue To which I may answer as you say to Charity Maintayned I wonder you would impugne that as apparently false which must be apparently true if the ground of all your doctrine be true That every mans Reason prescribes to himselfe and determines what he is to belieue and so your kind of Church being nothing but an aggregation of believers in that manner it followes that it is left to all Believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue The like may be sayd of the Councell of Apostles which
be infallible only in Fundamentall Points if she erre not in such Points she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands seing he exacts no more than that which may bring her to salvation and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary men are bound to doe more than is necessary and so more shall be necessary than is necessary because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe 30. You say to Ch. Ma The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing betweene Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility But in this you speake either against your owne conscience or against manifest truth For if you say the meaning of Cha. ma. to be that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters your Conscience cannot but tell you that He could haue no such meaning as if because I am actually certaine what I am doing at this instant I must therfore be infallible and know certainly what every one is doing in the Indyes But if you meane that it is an errour in Ch Ma to say that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing he must be infallible both in that ād all other for which he hath the same or like grounds to make him certaine then you erre against manifest truth it being evident that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground to belieue a thing it is impossible that I should erre in any other for which I also evidētly see that I haue the same certaine ground This is our case If I be actually certaine by evidence of Scripture of the truth of one thing I am certaine that I cannot erre in any other Point for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture as he who actually assents to a demonstration knowne to be such can neither erre in it nor in any other knowne to haue the like certainty This being supposed your examples proue against yourselfe as I shewed in an other like occasion 31. I haue already particularly and at large answered your N. 27.28.29 In your N. 30 33.34 you impugne Ch Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe as you found them in Him and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader whom therfore I must intreate to peruse the Author himselfe Ch. Ma. N. 13. saith That to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church to Points Fundamentall as namely that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth c. is to destroy all Faith For by this manner of interpreting and limiting words whatsoever is delivered in Scripture concerning the infallibility of the Apostles or of Scripture it selfe may be restrained to infallibility in Fundamentall Points And in this Ch. Ma. hath reason For seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith but Scripture whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture cannot be to you certaine or a Point of Faith Let vs then take these words Matth. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevaile c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church and those other Jo 16. V. 13.14.16 The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which promise Potter saith Pag 153. was made directly and primarily to the Apostles who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church and is verifyed in the Church vniversall The first words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her Potter Pag. 153. limites they shall not prevaile so far as to sever it from the foundation that is that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points Now I beseech you produce some evident Text of Scripture declaring that those words are not to be vnderstood as they sound that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith even in Points not Fundamentall which errours are gates that leade to hell seing they are as you often confesse damnable in themselves and so lead to hell and damnation but with this limitation that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall Produce I say some such evident Text of Scripture and not topicall discourses of your owne In the meane tyme while you are busy about that impossible taske of producing some such Text 32. I will ponder the second place The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever which Potter saith is vnderstood of the Apostles and of the vniversall Church but so as being referred to the Apostles it signifyes all truths Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points which is a harder explanation than that of the former words out of S. Matthew The gates of hell c. because you are engaged to alledge some evident Text of Scripture to proue that the very selfsame as I may saie indivisible Text which is acknowledged to speake both of the Apostles and of the Church must be forced and as it were racked to speake one thing of the Apostles and another of the Church All truth for the Apostles not all but only Fundamentall truth for the Church Bring I say some such evident Text of Scripture But it seemes you did easily perceiue that no such place could be pretended and therfore in stead of Scripture or the Word of God you offer only your owne conceits discourses and seeming congruences which are far beneath that certainty which is required for an act of divine Faith There is not say you N. 30. the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour 33. Answer I haue often sayd that in matters knowne by revelation only and depending on the free will or decree of Almighty God we are not to proue by humane reason what he hath decreed Protestants grant that both the Apostles and the Church are infallible for Fundamentall Points If then one should make vse of your reason and say There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points as for the Apostles For if the Church fall into such errours it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour What would you answer Would you grant that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points as there is for the Apostles That were to deny the
Churches Foundaâ—ions Now such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly is certaine revealed truths And to proue that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church you alledge N. 30 S. Paul saying Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Fphes 2.20 43. I reply First The Church must be led into such an all as is necessary to judge of controversyes which yourself Pag 35. N. 7. confess to require an vniversall infallibility Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them And if once you grant her infallible for Points not evideÌ„t in Scripture you cannot deny her an Infallibility derived not from evidence of Scripture but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost And as you say the Apostles were vniversally infallible because the Church was builded on them so every Christian is builded vpon the Church and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible Thirdly We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles or Scripture but vpon the Apostles who were the Foundation of the Church before they wrote any thing by their preaching and verbum traditum Tradition So that indeed this Text Ephes 2.20 makes for vs and proves that we are builded on the vnwritten word and might haue beene so though no Scripture had bene written Fourthly you still mistake the Question and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles may not be limited to Fundamentall Points as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility made to the Church in holy Scripture and limit the word Foundation to the writings of the Apostles which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation S. Paul 1. Tim 3. avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible How then can you proue by the word Foundation which cansignify no more than the pillar and Ground of Truth that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point but the Church may Yea even to make this place Ephes 2.20 cleare and convincing in favour of the Apostles the authority of the Church is necessary and the letter alone will not suffice if you will regard the doctrine or authority of some learned prime Protestant And therfore Fiftly you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide vpon this place saieth That Beza and not he alone interprets vpon the Foundation of the Apostles to signify Christ who is the Foundation of the Apostles Prophets and the whole Church and he Beza saieth that it is Antichristian to put an other foundation For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted the saied Text Ephes 2.20 will not proue that the Apostles but only that our Saviour the Foundation of the Apostles and of the Church was infallible nor will the stability of a Foundation expressed in this place of Scripture belong to the Apostles And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false being the Opinion of so great a Rabby as also because it is very agreable to the manner which Potestants hold in impugning Catholik Doctrine when for example they argue The Scripture saieth We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ Therfore Saynts cannot be our Advocates though in an infinitly lower degree than our Saviour is Especially if we reflect that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue or exclusiue particle No man can put an other Foundation wheras in those words we haue an Advocate there is only an affirmation that Christ is our Advocate but no negation that any other is Other examples might be given in this kind if this were a place for it We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour and the Church from them so that as I saied she depends on them not they on Her and you wrong vs while N. 30. in your first Sillogisme you speak in such manner as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall in all respects to that of the Apostles the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue and proue I omit to obserue that you take occasion to descant vpon these words as well which are not found in Charity Maintayned though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them Your N. 31. and 32. haue beene already confuted at large and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter and you 44 You say N. 34. he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church but not in so absolute a manner Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained 45. Answer first our Question is not what Dr. Potter saied but what he did or could proue and in particular I say it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church are limited to fundamentall points in respect of her and not as they are referred to the Apostles Secondly wheras you say what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained I reply absolute may be taken in diverse senses according to the matter argument or subject to which it is applied and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited yet not alwayes Do not you N. 33. oppose to absolute a conditionall moderate secondary sense which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to vnderstand that you are too resolute in asking what is opposed to but limited seing more things than one may be opposed to it What Logician will not tell you that in Logick not Limited but Relatiue is opposed to absolute And we may also say that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute that is independent and the infallibility of the Church dependent as the Effect depends on the Cause and so is not absolute in that sense but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles as to its Cause which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church 46. You say also N. 34. that though it were supposed that God had obliged himself by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them Especially when he himself both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he did assist them farther 47. Answer I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you vtter these words Only I am sure that they containe both a manifest falshood and contradiction to
yourself who say heere N. 33. If we once suppose they the Apostles may haue erred in some things of this nature in things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in and what they haue not Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which heere you expressly suppose it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing Which supposed that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true how can you say that God both by his word and by his works hath assured vs that he aid assist them farther Seing vpon that supposition the Scripture may be false and recount works never wrought and so it is consequent that we can haue no assurance by his written word of any farther assistance that God gaue them if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility only in things necessary to salvation which is the contradictory to your assertion and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words and doctrine Nay you could not be sure that the Apostles had infallibility even for Fundamentall Points if once it be supposed that they and consequently their writings were subject to errour in any thing So farr from truth is your saying we could haue assurance of farther assistance Your N. 35.36 containe no difficulty which hath not bene answered heretofore 48. I wish you had in your N. 37. set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned whereby he proves N. 15. that according to the grounds of Protestants it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only as they limit to such Points the infallibility of the Church and accordingly interpret Scriptures speaking thereof The summe of his Discourse is this Put together these Doctrines That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such Points that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for salvation that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall For seing all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall which Protestants cannot know except by Scripture which alone in their grounds containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe and therefore knowing by Scripture what Points in particular be Fundamentall as N. 40. you say expressly men may learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points by this Argument All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility this is a Fundamentall Point therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh is only your owne The Scripture is true in something the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these are so For say you every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But you should correct your Syllogisme thus All that is necessary the Scripture delivers with infallibility but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall is necessary therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility Besides you say If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things Now both you and Potter affirme that there is an vniversall Tradition that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points and consequently that in vertue of such a Tradition men may belieue all Fundamentall Points without dependance or knowledg of Scripture as also for vniversall Tradition you belieue Scripture itself Heare your owne words Pag 198. N. 15. The certainty I haue of the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the Principles of Faith I ground it not vpon scripture Therefore according to your owne grounds Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things And you did not well to conceale this Argument taken from the Creed which was expressly vrged by Ch Ma in that very N. 15. which you answer By what I haue saied it appeares that in the grounds of Protestants the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation the vniversall truth of Scripture as you say but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall as I haue declared So we must conclude that the Argument of Ch Ma stands good that if you limit the infallibility of the Church you may vpon the same ground limit the infallibility of the Apostles and their writings namely the Holy Scripture 49. Your N. 39. goes vpon a meere equivocation or a voluntary mistake you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied N. 16. that no Protestant can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundamētall because they belieue that in such points she may erre which sequele is very true and cleare For how can I belieue with assurance an Authority believed to be fallible If she alledg some evident Reason Scripture c I belieue her no more than I would belieue any child Turk or Jewe and so I attribute nothing to her authority nor can be saied to belieue her Thus you say N. 36. We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes Your instances are against yourself For if the divell proue that there is a God or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion I neither belieue the divell who I knowe was a Lier from the beginning nor the Geometritian whom I knowe to be fallible but I assent for the Reason which they giue by whomesoever it had bene given and therfore you speak a contradictory in saying N. 38. Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves either by Scripturs or vniversall Tradition This I say implies a contradiction to belieue one because he proves seing the formall object or Motiue of Beliefe is the Authority of the speaker and not the Reason which he gives which may produce assents of diverse kinds according to the diversity of Reasons as Demonstration Scripture c which may cause an infallible assent not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church if it were fallible 50. In your N. 39. First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her I may be rather deluded than instructed by her and then you
say The Reason and connexion of this consequence I feare neither I nor you doe well vnderstand But you feare where there is no cause of feare For is it not a cleare consequence that if the Church be infallible only in Fundamentall points and I haue recourse to her about any matter not knowing it to be Fundamentall I cannot be sure but that she may erre therin We haue hard yourselfe saying of meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded and to vse your owne words who would not laugh at him who should argue thus the Church is infallible in some things the Church saith this is true Therfore it is true Or thus the Church is infallible only in fundamentall Points The Church saieth this particular is true which I know not whether or not it be Fundamentall therfore the Church is infallible in this The conclusion should be Therfore I cannot know that the Church is infallible in this You say N. 37. that the Scripture must be vniversally true and not only in fundamentalls because otherwise it could not be a sufficient warrant to belieue this thing that these only points are Fundamentall which shewes your opinion to be that it would litle availe vs to know that Scripture is infallible in fundamentalls only vnless we could know what Points in particular are fundamentall and therfore you impugne yourself while you find fault with Ch Ma for saying that if the Church be infallible only in fundamentalls we cannot belieue her with certainty vnless we know that such and such things are Fundamentall The residue of this Number 39. you spend in distinguishing between being infallible in fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in fundamentalls of which I haue alreadie spoken at larg 51. In your N. 40. you cite these words as out of Char. Maintayn They that knowe what Points are Fundamentall otherwise then by the Churches Authority learne not of the Church Char. Maint speakes more distinctly and sayeth If before they address themselves to the Church they must know what points are Fundamentall they learne not of her but wil be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously vpon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himself counselled and commanded to seeke to heare to obey the Church Which he proves there at large out of S. Austine and S. Chryiostome And is not all this very cleare For how can I be saied to learne of the Church that which I must know before she can teach me that is what Points be Fundamentall Yes say you they may learne of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so and consequently learne even of the Church even of your Church that all is not Fundamentall nay all is not true which she teaches vs to be 52. Answer First can we indeed learne from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so How then do you say it is impossible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points seing there is meanes to know that such Points are Fundamentall others are not so Secondly You grant what Charity Maintayned saied That I cannot learne of the Church that which I must know before she teaches me while you tell vs that men learne of the Church one thing that Scripture is the Word of God and an other from Scripture namely what Points be Fundamentall and so we are so far from learning of the Church that fuch points are Fundamentall that we are as fit to teach her as she to teach vs which Points in particular be Fundamentall which we learne from Scripture not from her just as you teach that not from the Church but from Scripture we learne all particular Points of Faith with certainty though we receiue the Scripture from the Church Thirdly If it be a Fundamentall truth that Scripture is the Word of God I must know it to be such before I can be assured that the Church cannot erre therin and so I cannot learne it of the Church and much less can I learne it of the Church with certainty if it be not a Fundamentall Point in which you hold the Church may erre and Pag 116. N. 159. you say it is not a Fundamentall point Fourthly Whereas you say That one may learne from the Church that Scripture is the Word of God and from the Scripture that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so I answer if we belieue Scripture to be the word of God vpon the sole Authority of the Church it is impossible that I can proue out of Scripture that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so For by this meanes Scripture would be destructiue of it self if we belieue it for an Authority which it self saieth may affirme a falshood and so we cannot belieue it even in this particular that Scripture is the word of God Yourself say heere N. 36. An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belicue all that I haue to belieue one and therfore must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Therfore you either do vnreasonably in believing the Scripture vpon the sole warrant of the Church or vnreasonably in not believing her in all her proposalls and Luther was and all Protestants are vnreasonable in saying that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so You say N. 40. Neither do I see what hinders but a man may learne of a Church how to confute the errours of that Church which taught him As well as of my Master in Physick or Mathematicks I may learne those rules ād Principles by which I may confute my Masters erroneous Conclusions But if the ground which I haue laied and corfirmed out of your owne words be considered this your instance will proue against yourself For if I belieue those Rules or Principles because I belieue my Master cannot erre and not for the evidence of them in themselves I do vnreasonably in not believing whatsoever he proposes Otherwise I may feare he erred even in those Rules if once I sinde him to erre in any other thing Now we receiue with certainty Scripture for the sole Authority of the Church and therfore we do vnreasonably if we belieue her not in all her proposalls 53. Your N. 41.42 haue bene answered hertofore In your N. 43. you speake to Ch Ma. in this manner In the next place you tell vs out of S. Austine That that which has bene alwayes kept is most rightly esteemed to come from the Apostles Very right and what then Therefore the Church cannot erre indefining
Chapter Moreover how do these things agree with your saying heere N. 78. If we grant that the Apostle calls the Catholique Church the pillar and ground of Truth and that not only because it should but because it alwayes shall and will be so yet after all this you haue done nothing vnless you can shew that by Truth heere is certainly ment not only all necessary to salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. How I say doth this agree with your saying now cited out of your Pag 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it Infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed seing you say also that although it were granted that S. Paule affirmed that the Church shall and will be the Pillar of all necessary truth yet it doth not follow that she is so in all Truth And now how many clustars as I may say of Contradictions may be gathered from your owne words related by me in this small compass 76. First The Church is an infallible Teacher in Fundamentalls and yet is not an infallible guide or if you grant her to be an infallible Guide then Secondly you say to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed and yet you say the Church is an infallible Teacher or guide in all Fundamentalls and deny her to be infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed Thirdly How can you make a distinction between the Churches being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls seing you teach that she is both infallible in Fundamentalls and a Teacher of them Fourthly How doe you say That to be a Teacher of all necessary truth is the Essence of the Church and that any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable And yet in this Chapter N. 39. to proue that there is a wide difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls you say A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himself be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a Church that were invisible so that none could know how to repaire to it for direction could not be an infallible Guide and yet he might be in himself infallible For these examples if they be to any purpose declare that to be a Guide or Teacher is accidentall and not the Essence of the Church and for that purpose you bring them and yet I never imagined that the Essence of any thing is separable from it as you say it is impossible a thing can be a man and not be reasonable Fiftly If it be essentiall to the Church to be an infallible Teacher or Guide in Funmentalls which you say she cannot be without an vniversall infallibility in all Points seing every errour destroyes that vniversall infallibility which is essentiall to such a Teacher as the Church how can you say that every errour doth not destroy the Church but that she may erre and yet the gates of hell not prevaile against her To what purpose then do you talk of eyes and hands which are not essentiall or necessary parts of a man or of biles and botches which are accidentall to his body and not necessaryly destructiue thereof as you must suppose wheras infallibility is essentiall to the Church of Christ and is destroyed by errour which cannot possibly consist with infallibility that is with certainty never to erre Into how may inextricable difficulties and contradictions do you cast yourself vpon a resolution not to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods Church the only meanes to cleare all these perplexityes And how inconsequently and perniciously and you compare botches and biles to errour against Faith which you confess to be damnable sinnes and without repentance absolutely inconsistent with salvation 77. But to returne to the maine point If the Church were not vniversally infallible Christian Faith could not be infallible as I proved hertofore and so the gates of Hell should prevaile against Christianity which by that meanes should come to want a thing absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij to witt divine infallible Faith Your Parity betweene a particular man or congregation and the vniversall Church hath bene answered hertofore and is confuted by what we haue saied heere that infallibility is essentiall to the vniversall Church and nothing can exist without that which is essentiall to it but no such Priviledge of infallibility is necessary or is promised to particular men or Churches Finally seing that according to Potter and other Protestants the Promise of our Saviour that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church must be vnderstood of the whole Church as well Primitiue as of consequent Ages by what evident Text of Scripture can you proue that the same words must haue different significations in order to the Primitiue Church which was infallible in all Points of Faith and the vniversall Church of following Ages As in a like occasion I saied hertofore Yourself N. 72. speak to Charity Maintayned thus vnless you will say which is most ridiculous that when our Saviour saied He will teach you c and he will shew you c He meant one you in the former clause and an other you in the latter If it be most ridiculous that one word should be referred to different Persons I may say ad hominem why ought it not to seeme most ridiculous that in the same sentence the same words the gates of Hell shall not privaile must signify two differēt kinds of not prevailing one against fundamētall ād an other against vnfundamentall errours in order to one and the same word Church 78. In your N. 71. you pretend to answer the Text which Ch Ma saieth may be alledged for the infallibility of the Church out S. Jo 14. V. 16.17 I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the spirit of truth And Jo 16.13 but when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth You answer first that one may fall into error if this all truth be not simply all but all of some kind Secondly that one may fall into some error even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that be may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether be will or no. Now who can assertaine me that the Spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of free will in believing Thirdly you say N. 72. that these promises were made to the Apostles only 79. Answer These places were alledged by Dr.
Charity Maintayned and the Doctor cite are absolute And Matth 28. V. 20. behold which particle holy Scripture is wont to vse when it speaks of some great or strang thing I am with you all daies even to the consummation of the world Which wordsare both absolutely without any condition and cannot be restrayned to the lives of the Apostles and therfore dato non concesso that the Promise had bene made to the Apostles vpon condition of Loving God it does not follow that the same condition must be required in every one of their successours but for the merit of the Apostles it may be communicated to others in whom the Apostles liue and so what is granted to them is a reward bestowed vpon the Apostles as heroicall acts of particular men are rewarded both in themselves and in their posterity for their sake though their successors be destitute of that worth and desert without which condition theyr first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity or Prerogatiue which afterward is derived to their posterity absolutely and without any such condition as was required in the beginning Morover though it were granted that keeping the commandements were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility yet you will never be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that it is necessary in respect of every particular person it being sufficient that it be veryfied of the Church Catholique of which even Dr. Potter Pag 10. saieth that it is not improbable only but meerely impossible the Catholique Church should be without Charity Our blessed Saviour before he encharged the care of his Church vpon S. Peter exacted of him a triple profession of loue and will you therfore haue none to be lawfull Pastors except such as loue God aboue all things and are in state of Grace and free from deadly sinne Haue you a mynd to fetch from Hell the condemned and seditious heresy of Wicliffe That If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders consecrate or Baptize As authority and Jurisdiction are not of that nature of things which require Charity and the State of Grace so neither is infallibility no more than working of Miracles Gift of tongues and the like which by Divines are called Gratiae gratis datae and therfore you cannot imagine with any reason that the Holy Ghost cannot be given for some Effects to any who is not in state of Grace and I hope you will at least pretend to be more certaine that Scripture is of infallible Authority than that every Canonicall Writer did loue God and keep the commandements when they wrote Scripture yea of some Bookes of Scripture some call in Question who were the writers of them I will not heere stay to put you in minde that it is common among Protestants to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandements must they therfore deny the infallibility of the Apostles They are so farre from doing so that they hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls notwithstanding the impossibility in their opinion of keeping the commandements 85. Now I hope it appeares that your two Syllogismes goe vpon a false ground that the promise made to the Apostles is conditionall and so proue nothing As also that you breath too much gall and vanity in saying that Charity Maintayned and generally all our Writers of Controversy by whom this Text is vrged with a bold Sacriledge and horrible impiety somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty perpetually cut of the head and foot the beginning and end of it For I suppose you will not hold Dr. Potter for a Writer of Controversy against Protestants and yet he cites this Text and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts cutting of not only the head ād foot but also the breast and middle thereof therby shewing his judgment that the other words which you cite out of the precedent 15. and the following 17. verse make nothing to that purpose for which that Text is produced that is the infallibility of the Apostles and Church and that you by citing those different verses without distinction not only joyne head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together which is no less monstrous than to cutt them of but doe indeed vtterly destroy and depriue it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles from whom this very Text must receiue all the certainty it can haue Do not I maintayne the most perfect kind of Charity in defending my adversary the Doctor in this occasion of being forsaken and even impugned by whom alone he hoped to be relieved And indeed Dr. Potter only and not Charity Maintayned stands in need of defence seing he alledged those texts which the Doctor cites only to shew in deeds that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret itself whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to proue the infallibility of the Church in all Fundamentall Points which is the common tenet of Protestants and yet you overthrow it by making our Saviours Promise not absolute but depēding vpon a volūtary vncertaine condition 86. In your N. 76. you endeavour divers wayes to elude the Argument which is wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church taken out of S. Paul 1. Tim 3.15 where the Church is saied to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth 87. First you say Charity Maintayned is somewhat too bold with S. Paul For it is neither impossible nor improbable these words the Pillar and ground of truth may haue reference not to the Church but to Timothy But this exposition is not only against Calvin and other Protestants who expresly refer those words to the Church but also it cannot well agree with the Greek And even the Protestant English Translation reades it as we doe for as much as belongs to our present purpose Howesoever it appeares by this very example how hard and impossible it is to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone which every one will find meanes to interpret for his best advantage though it be not donne without violence to the Text. Neither is it heterogeneous as you argue that S. Paul having called the Church a House should call it presently a Pillar For you should consider that he calls it a House and Pillar in different respects A House of God the Pillar not of God but of Truth You will not deny that the Primitiue Apostolicall Church was vniversally infallible and so was both the House of God and Pillar of Truth and therefore it is nothing absonous or heterogeneous that the metaphor of a House and of a Pillar be applyed to the same thing Cornelius à Lapide heere saieth Alludit Apostolus ad Bethel de qua viso ibi Domino dixit Jacob Genes 28. verè non est hic aliud nisi Domus Dei porta Caeli If therefore in that place of Genesis to which the Apostle alludes the same is saied to be a House and a Gate in diverse respects a
And thē further it followes that you must recall your Doctrine and say that if the Church may fall into errour not damnable to her it must be in case it be invincible and yet it cannot be invincible if she haue sufficient Assistance to lead her into all not only necessary but profitable truth and therfore you must deny that she hath such an assistance and we must conclude that by not erring in any fundamentall point she performes her duty to God and so can not be forsakē without Schisme For you doe not deny the proposition of Ch Ma N. 20. that the externall Communion of the Church cannot be forsaken as long as she performes the duty which she oweth to God Besides how doe you not contradict yourselfe in saying Who is ther that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not bring forth others of higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine by secret consequences the very Foundations of Religion and piety For if the errours be such as you describe they come to be concerning things not only profitable but necessary as vndermining the very foundations of Religion and therfor to say she erres culpably in them is to say that she erres damnably and fundamentally and you must say she erres culpably if she haue assistance sufficient to avoid them By this discourse and other points handled heretofore is answered your N. 62.63 as also your N. 64.65.66.67.68.69.70.71.72.73 only it is to be observed that N. 64. you paralell the security of private men from errour in fundamentalls to that of the vniversall Church And N. 68. you will not see the reason of a consequence deduced by Ch. Ma. which had been very cleare if you had set downe his words which are these N. 22. P. 185. Since it is not lawfull to leaue the communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoyded in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and errour and I add what the Doctour sayth Pag 39. that it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men in this life should absolutely consent in all the pieces of Divine truth you must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sinne so neither by reason of errours not fundamētall because both sinne and errour are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven and that it is a great vanity to hope or expect the contrary in this life And is not this a cleare consequence The Church cannot be forsaken for sinnes because they cannot be avoided in this life therfor seing errours at least in not fundamentalls cannot be avoyded in this life the Church cannot be forsaken for them 20. To your N. 72. it is sufficient to say that although we must not doe evill to avoide evill yet when a position is such as evill cannot but follow of it ex natura rei it is a clear argument that such a Position includes falshood and errour Now as Ch. Ma. proves N. 24. your grounds doe of their owne nature giue scope to perpetuall Schismes and divisions And then the consequence is cleare that they are false and erroneous His words which you by abbreviating make ineffectuall are they who separate themselves will answet as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errours though they be not Fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errours which two grounds being once layd it will not be hard to inferr the consequence that she may be forsaken 21. All that N. 74.75.76.77 you vtter with too much heate is answered by putting you in minde that Ch. Ma. never affirmes that Protestants say the cause of their separation and their motiue to it was absolutely and independently of any separation precisely because they did not cut her of from hope of salvation as you impose vpon him for which foolish reason even Catholiks might be sayd to be Schismatiks from their owne Church because they are sure she is not cut of from hope of salvation but that supposing their separation from vs vpon other causes for example pretended corruptions they pretend to be excused from Schisme and say they did well to forsake her because they doe not hold that she is cut of from hope of salvation Which to be true he C Ma shewes out of Potters words And yourselfe P. 284 N 75. say to C Ma can you not perceaue a difference betweene justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation And whosoever reads Ch Ma N. 27. will finde that which I say to be true For he expresly sayth that both they who doe and doe not cut of the Church of Rome from hope of salvation agree in the effect of separation Only this effect of separation being supposed without which ther could be no imaginable Schisme they doe alleadge for their excuse that they did it in a different manner because the one part of which we speake conceaved that though they did separate yet they should be excused from Schisme because they did not cut of from hope of salvation the Roman Church ād so this was the motiue or reason for which they judged they might separate from her without the sinne of Schisme and consequently they would not haue done it if they had not had this reason or motiue and consideration wherby to excuse themselves Thus your examples of one saying to his Brother I doe well to leaue you because you are my Brother or of a subject saying to his Soveraigne Lord I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you to be my lawfull Soveraigne are meere perversions of Ch. Ma. his words who sayth truly against Potter that if one should part from his Brother vpon some cause and excuse such his departure from fault because he still acknowledges him to be his Brother or if a subject should disobey his Soveraigne vpon some motiue and then should thinke to justify his fact by saying he still acknowledges him to be his lawfull Soveraigne C Ma I say affirmes that such an excuse may justly seeme very strange and rather fit to aggravate then to extenuate or excuse the departure of the one from his Brother and disobedience of the other to his Souveraigne And yet this is our case For both the violent and moderate Protestants agree in the same effect of separation from the Roman Church and disobedience to her Pastours with this only difference that the one sorte sayth that she is cut of from the hope of Salvation and the other sayes she is not and pretend to be excused from Schisme because they say so though they separate themselves from her no lesse then the other doe 22. To your N. 78.79 I answer that when the Fathers and Divines teach that
schisme is a division fro that church with which one agrees in matters of faith they doe not distinguish betweene points fundamētall ād not fūdamēntall in order to the negatiue precept of not disbelieving any point sufficiētly proposed as revealed by God ād so in fact all points being fūdamētall in this sense as both you and Potter are forced to confesse more then once though in other occasions you contradict it as even in this place you make such a distinction and vpon it ground your objection whosoever agree truly in all Fundamentall points in this sense agree in all points of truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed for such If Protestants will faine to themselves another kinde of points not fundamentall in order to the Negatiue precept of Faith Charity Maintayned is not obliged to side with them but may and ought to say that if Protestants pretend to agree with vs in fundamentall Points they must a parte rei agree with vs in all Points sufficiently proposed as divine Truths and that agreement supposed while they depart from our Communion they becocome most formall Schismatiks as Schisme is distinguished from heresy Thus your Sillogisme which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch Ma is answered For when you say He that obeyes God in all things is innocent Titus obeys God in somethings Therefore he is innocent Your Minor should be Titus obeys God in all things as they who agree in fundamentall points of Faith must agree in all things that is they must not disagree in any revealed truth for to agree in that sense is fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian as Potter confesses By this also your N. 79. is answered Neither doe your N. 80. and 81. containe any difficulty which is not answered by a meere denyall I wish the Reader for his owne good to reade what you omitt in the N. 29. of C Ma where he shewes that Luther was farr enough from intending any reformation with some other points which you omitt or involue in darkness and which being read in him answer all your Objections 23. Your N. 82. gives as great a deadly blow to Protestant Religion as no adversary could haue givē a greater C Ma sayd that Luther ād his Associates did wholy disagree in the particulars of their reformatiō which was a signe that the thing vpon which theyr thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Relig ō but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome This you not only grant but proue that it could not be otherwise saying to Ch Ma. Certainly it is no great marveile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation Nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise And why You giue the reason in these remarkable words the Declination from which originall purity of religiō some conceaving to haue begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke and after their departure to haue shewed itselfe more openly others againe believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles and then declined And consequently some ayming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times others thinking they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fift ages some taking their direction in this worke of Reformation only from Scripture others from the writings of Fathers and the decrees of Councells of the first fiue Ages certainly it is no great mervaile that ther was as you say disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise Yet let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better And they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow I know not whether the vncertainty or misery of Protestant religion could haue been described in more lively colours then you haue set it out For if they be vncertaine from whence to beginne their Reformation and for that cause you confesse it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars therof it followes that now they haue no certainty what Reformation is true or whether a Reformation ād not rather a Deformation or falshood And indeed the different heades even as you propose them are so confused that it is not easy to vnderstand what they meane and then how hard must it be to take them for a distinct rule how to proceed in the Reformation of the whole world If the principles be doubtfull the conclusion can not be certain You make your Progenitours to resemble perfectly the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers who not agreeing in their Principles proue vaine and ridiculous in their predictions You are like to a certaine man who not long a goe in a citty which I could name apprehending himselfe in his climactericall yeare could not be induced to eate as despayring to passe that Criticall time till he was told by a witty Physition that he must count his age from the time of his conception not of his nativity as he had done according to which rate finding as he thought his fatall yeare to be past was presently cured Truly whosoever advisedly and seriously considers this Number of yours can not but forsake Protestantisme if he meane not to forsake his owne soule You endeavoured to perswademen that by the ordinary meanes which are left vs a Church collapsed may be restored to purity which certainly you make impossible to be done by the Doctrine you deliver here Seing confessedly ther is no certainty vpon what Grounds or by what settled directions such a Reformation should proceed nor from whence it should beginne It is also strange to heare you say They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow What doe you now tell vs that there be traditiue interpretations of Scripture A thing disclaymed by you through your whole booke denying all other Traditions except that wherby we accept Scripture as the word of God but not the interpretation of it it being as you saie evident of itselfe and ther being no infallible Judge to declare it or any points of Faith which are not contained in it Moreover by what commission or coherence to yourself say you Pag 375. N. 56. That the Bible I say the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Seing you tell vs here that some of them tooke their direction in this work of Reformation only from Scripture others from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of the Councells for the first fiue Ages and that they did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written
make endless divisions amongst themselves n. 15. p. 468. seq And they take more liberty to disagree in matters of Faith then Catholiques in Philosophicall questions c. 13. n. 41. p. 819. 820. Because having left the true Church their only Guide is their fancy Ib their Church being not so much as a foundation is for a house n. 43 p. 820. seq This causes them to destroy all Churches and say that none can be free from damnable errours against Divine Revelation and must needs make every man an Independent and be dayly changing his Tenets c. 7. n. 154. p. 574. seq For Protestants Faith hath no infallible generall grounds as that of Catholiques hath into which it is resolved c. 4. n 20. p. 364. Hence their many contradictions and disagreeings amongst themselves of which divers I note in particular occasions By their owne fault they haue brought vpon themselves an obligation to search all Scripture aÌ„d caÌ„ free themselves from it only by submitting to the Roman Church c. 2. n 62. p. 165. to which they prudently can only adhere c. 4. n. 21. p. 364. 365. By their Doctrine of all sinnes past present and to come pardoned in Baptisme and of their certaine predestinating Faith they take away all feare of sinning c. 2. n. 84. p 186. seq Shewed by divers considerations that they can giue no releefe to an afâ—icted Soule but only chalk out a way to desperation c. 13. n. 43. p. 823. seq If they vse the meanes they haue to finde true Faith and yet disagree the meanes must ueeds be insufficient if they doe not vse them they cannot be sure that they are in the truth c. 15. n. 40. p. 920 921. Prudence necessary for true Faith c. 1. n. 88. p. 100. and 101. VVhat and why c. 15. n. 7. p. 889. It requires not ability to giue reasons Jb and c. 1. n. 89. p 102 VVhat we seeme prudeÌ„tly to beleeue if indeed it be not so although we cannot discover our imprudence is not beleeved with an act of Divine Faith yet may facilitate for it Jb not all pruent acts are supernaturall but all supernaturall are prudent n. 92. p. 102 the 2. for it is put twice Q Quartadecimans heresie c. 9. n. 5. p. 626. R Reason not established by infallible Faith is continually subject to changes c. 1. n. 105. 106. p. 112. c. Vnable to wade through maine difficultyes in Scripture or to convince it selfe of the misteryes of our Faith which are so much aboue it c. 3. n. 75 76. p. 337 338. It requires an infallible living Guide Ib Its dutie concerning Faith c. 11. n 32. p. 671. seq It is quite destroyed by Chill c. 1 3. n. 21. p. 803. 804. Religion is convinced by the instinct of nature to be a worship of God certainly true c. 1. n. 100. p. 107. Of Repentance toto c 8. None true without grace I. n. 27.28 p. 21. 22. True repentance absolutly necessary for salvation c. 8. n. 3. p. 598. It instantly obtaines pardon n. 16. p. 612. seq And perfect repentance destroyes in the habits acquired by finfull acts the morall denomiration of sinfull but not the Physicall or reall being of it n. 11 p. 605.606 VVith which reall being both true repentance and grace may and doe commonly stand n. 12 p 607. seq Divers opinions of heretiques concerning repentance n. 2 p. 597. Chill generall repentance contradicts his owne grounds n. 5 p. 601. Drives to disperation Ib and n. 6 p. 602. It cannot stand with the Tenets of Protestants that only Faith justifyes and that the commandements cannot be kept Ib n. 7. It implyes that no sinner can be converted nor baptized in his blood by martirdome n. 8 It is shewed to be impossible by the nature of the habits which he requires to be rooted out and is alwayes full of perplexity n. 9. 10. p. 603 604 605. Reprodu ion or factum facere implyes not evident contradiction but factum infectum facere doth c. 11 n. 12 p. 657. Resolution of Catholique Faith without a circle toto c. 5. But Protestants and their pretended Bretheren runn in a circle Ib and particularly n. 13 14 15 p. 437 438. Rites or ceremonyes of themselves indifferent may be without sinne observed but if they be held as necessary the observance may be deadly c. 14 n. 2 p. 847. That it be certainly knowne that they are vsefull aÌ„d not hurtfull the infallible declaration of the church is required c. 11 n. 46 p. 678. 679. The Roman Church assisted aboue all other by the holy Ghost not to err c. 7 n. 58 p. 492. 493. By her is vnderstood not only that of the Diocesse of Rome but all that agree with her in which sense she is called the Catholique or vniversall Church n. 84 p. 515. seq In this sense she was the only visible on earth when Luther apostared who therefore was properly a Schismatique Ib She is acknowledged by Protestants to haue been pure for the first 500 yeares n. 18. p 492. 493. Impossible she should immediatly after that ty me fall into the corruptioÌ„s preteÌ„ded by theÌ„ aÌ„d none take notice of it Ib aÌ„d p 494 they also coÌ„fesse that she waÌ„ts nothing for salvation n. 147. 148. p. 564. seq ac alibi Proved to any judicious man that we are secure for salvation n. 158 p. 578. seq S Sacraments destroyed by Heretiques both for matter and forme c. 2 n. 40. p. 147. 148. Salvation depends not of chance c. 4 n. 45. 46. p. 378. 379. It requires obedience to the true Church c. 16 n. 12 p 939. And preparation of mind to beleeue all revealed points sufficiently proposed c. 12. n. 16 p. 717. seq The salvation of our owne soule is to be preferred before the good of the whole world c. 16. n. 11 p. 937. 938. Of Schisme all the 7. c. Schisme as distinct from heresie supposes agreement in Faith n. 75 p. 506. 507. It is a sinne against Charity which vnites the members of the Church n. 98 p. 526. 527. It is destructiue of the whole Church n. 133. falsly put 123. p. 554. It differs much from excommunication n. 64. p. 499. and n. â—04 p. 529. 530. and is not caused by it but is before it n 62 p. 407 seq No cause of Schisme can be given by the Church n. 5 p. 460. 461. and n. 23 p. 472. 473. falsly put 472 passim Pretence of reformation cannot excuse it n. 11 p. 465. To say that they from whom it separates are not cutt off from hope of salvation doth not excuse but rather makes the Schisme more greavous n. 10 p. 463. 464. Potters coÌ„tradictionÌ„ affirming that the RomaÌ„cehurch hath all that 's necessary for salvation and yet that her externall communion may be left without Schisme n. 8 p. 463. By his owne Tenets they are proved Schismatiques who separate from the communion of the Church of Rome
n. 7 p. 462 seq Schisme vnlawfully begunn cannot be lawfully continued by others n. 96 p. 524. 525. Schisme may accidentally be more preiudiciall then Heresy n. 134 p. 555. It is ill defined by I hil n. 19 p. 470 and n. 23 p. 472. He falsly calls it a separation of some part of the Church n. 173 p. 589 seq Of Chill errours against Scripture toto c. 3. In his grounds it is of lesse assurance then prophane authours n. 44 p. 313. It is a materiall object of our Faith n. 2. p. 279 se even independently of its contents n. 20 p. 292. 293 seq with his contradictions Prorestants must beleeue it before they can beleeue the contents n. 21 p. 293. If they were not obliged to beleeue it they should not be obliged to beleeue the contents n. 4 p. 281. 282. Scripture affirmed by some Protestants to to be knowne by it selfe to be the word of God denyed by others c. 2. n. 88. p. 190. 191. It is hard to be vnderstood n. 27 p. 135 and n. 71 p. 174. where it is shewed by 2. Pet. 3.15.16 The reason why it is so touched n 71 p. 174. and declared in sequentibus Protestants would make men beleeue that it is cleare yet doe they assigne many rules necessary for the vnderstanding of it which few can possibly obserue n. 43 p 151. Nor are they sufficient as is demonstrated by the vnanswerable arguments of Dr. Hierome Taylour n 44 p. 152 seq and appeares by the irreconciliable disagreements amongst themselves n 91 P. 193 seq By their thinking that the ancient Fathers erred in holding Doctrine contrary to theirs by the agreeing of many chief Protestants with vs against their Brethren n 90. 91. p 192. 193. According to Chill every man though vnlearned must know every Text of Scripture yet he supposes that even the learned are not obliged to it n 26 p. 134. Out of his Tenets Scripture proved insufficient to be any Rule of Faith n 94 p 198 199 and c. 3 per totum In what sense it may be affirmed by Catholiques that Scripture containes evidently all things necessary c. 2 n 7. 8. 9. p. 124. 125. Scripture needs not be plaine to every privates mans capacity the Church being alwayes extant to interpret and direct c. 4 n. 9 p. 355. 356. The necessity of this Interpreter proved in the chief misteryes of Christianity c. 2. n. 30. 31 p. 136 seq The difference betwixt Scripture and the definitions of the Church c. 4 n. 99 P. 424. Scripture cannot be compared for matter of Faith to the corporall eye but the vnderstanding together with some supernaturall comprincipium of the act may c 11 n. 10 11 p 654 seq Sinne and indeliberation are inconsistent c 1 n 71 p 85. 86. It can neither be committed without knowledge nor repented whilst it is actually committing c 8 n 20 p 617 seq One sinne not repēted drawes on others 1. n 35. 36 p 24. 25. God gives fewer helps to people in mortall sinne then in the stare of grace n 38 p 25. 26. A mortall sinne is worse then the torments of hell n 47 p 34 Sinne in a thing not necessary necessitate medij is avoyded by following a probable opinion c. 16 n 16 p 941 About the edition of Sixtus 5. his Bible c. 3 n 56 p 325 The Socinianisme of Chill the way to Atheisme c 1 n 100 p 107 D. Stapleron vindicated from Potters falsification c 4 n 95 p 418 seq His Doctrine about the Churches infallibility Jb and n 99 p 424 T Temptations may be overcome by the grace of God but not without it I. n. 26 p. 20. 21. Texts of Scripture answeared Many concerning the chief points of Christianity alleaged by Chill to proue the evidēce of Scripture in things necessary shewed even by the errours of old and new Heretiques to require a living infallible judge c 2 n 32 p 140 seq Deut 4.2 Yee shall not add to the word c. answered c 2 n 61 p 161. 162 Act 17.11 of the Bereās deaily searching the Scriptures answeared n 64 p 168 Apoc 24 v. 18. 19. If any man shall ad to these things c. n. 65 p 169. 170 seq S. Iohn 5.39 search the Scriptures n 62 p 162 seq S. Iohn 20.31 These are written that yee may beleeue n. 63 p. 166. seq and n. 168 p. 245 seq S. Luke 1. v. 1. 2. 3. Act 1. v. 1. 2. explicated n. 99 p. 203 seq S. Paule Rom 14 5. prophanely applyed by Chill c. 11 n. 31 p. 670. S. Paule 1. Tim 3.15 about the infallibility of the vniversall Church c. 12 n. 89 p. 777. S. Paul 2. Tim 3. v. 14. 15. 16. 17. All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c c. 2 n. 66 p. 170 seq and n. 175 176 p. 250 seq How a Tipe or figure differs from a patterne c. 11 n. 48 p. 682 The Title of Chill Booke Protestant Religion a safe way to salvation proved not to agree to it and shewed what he should haue putt Pr. n. 12 p 6 seq Against Tradition no dispute c ◠n 209 p 274 seq Tradition without Scripture but not Scripture wthout Tradition sufficient to begett Faith c 11 n 49 p 682. Tradition proved out of holy Fathers c 2 n 165 p 240 seq and n 202 p 270 seq Whitaker very angry with S. Chrysostome about Tradition n 202 p 271 Tradition wholy destroyed by Chill although he would seeme to rely vpon it c 3 n 80 p 341 seq and n 85. 86 p 345 seq Yet it is confessed by many Heteriques to be the only ground for many chief points of Christianity c 2 n 42 p 149 150. 151. Traditions vnwritten amongst the Iewes n 61 p 161 Transubstantiation is of lesse difficulty to naturall reason then the mistery of the B. Trinity c 11 n 12 p 657 V Pope Uictor was in the right c. 15. n 32. falsly put 33. p. 913. The Vnderstanding cannot dissenr from a truth represented with evidence yet the will may doe contrary to it c. 11. n. 65. 66. p. 694. seq Vniversall taken by Potter in a Logicall sense and ignorantly opposed to Catholique c. 7. n. 148. p. 565. W The difference betwixt a VVay evidently knowne by sense from that which is knowne by Scripture c. 4. n. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. p. 415. seq The VVill is not alwayes able to follow the vnderstanding without grace c. 1 n. 113 p. 118 Good works acknowledged by Chill to be required in Scripture for salvation c. 2 n. 36. 37 p. 144. 145 Holy VVriters doe no lesse deliver Counsells then commands by Divine inspiration c. 3. n. 38. p. 306. seq VVhy no one VVriting taken alone in its owne nature is sufficient to keepe from errour c. 2. n. 178. 179. 180. p. 252. 253. 254. and n. 181 p. 256 seq this shewed a fortiori of writings containing divine and sublime misteryes ' n. 184 p. 258 seq If writings by a singular miracle be alwayes and by all vneerstood a like it is not for the nature of the writings but by the Power of God supernaturally supplying what should be done by a liuing infallible interpreter or judge n. 186. 187. p. 261. 262. 263. X Xenaias a fugitiue slaue vnbaptized faining Christianity crept into a Bishoprique ād was the first that made wart against Images c. 7. n. 122. p. 543. ERRATA Many of which arè left out but such as is hoped will not trouble the vnderstanding Reader No wonder if a stranger to our language did often mistake Where either Page or § is put false it is corrected in the Index when any such place is cited Page Line Error Correction pr 8 3 this for for this pr 9 15 proue to so to do all proue to do so to all 13 19 othe other 39 21 Christians Christian 61 24 degree degrees 106 14 not be not to be 130 7 collectinei collectiuè 173 5 of sared sayed of 187 38 every a very 192 11 on no 220 31 o of 222 11 of if 225 2 appeare your appeare by your 226 9 cae case 240 7 and necessity ād hold the necessity 267 10 Augustrana Augustana 267 34 A rist Christ 277 4 y by 282 1 het the 314 12 rihes no higher rises no higher 315 21 the exercising to ā act to the exercising ā act 365 34 Goind God in 377 38 wared waved 394 7 that that then that 438 34 avoide avoide not 458 9 ormall formall 468 0 About Fundamentall points c. 6. Protestants guilty of schisme c. 7 459 18 iust brande iustly branded 531 1 you yet 533 20 member number 539 13 Greg. Millius in Ar gumēta Georg. Millius in Au gustana 556 24 officiously officious ly 557 38 his submit to to submit his 588 7 errors error 590 25 deest i.e. 590 28 deest 3. 602 38 afterfor their after sorrow 616 22 to obiect wherof his the object herof is 617 21 preceede proceede sinns 638 12 it he 619 4 pertinent penitent 627 15 is it 632 2 Chillingwort I. Chillingworth 639 4 proosd proposed 641 11 but wavering ād fear full assent a but a wavering ād fe arfull assēt 707 19 could would 716 17 hold cold 748 4 of Sections or or Sections of 766 1 if he will not so if he will not so 781 16 it is was it was 801 24 Seurrall severall 807 38 vrge it against vrge against 811 35 as thewed as I shewed 823 8 it will he will 823 9 he cannot it cannot 826 23 to soone so soone 828 38 is not it all one it not is all one 838 19 prencipuum praecipium 856 1.2 recs records 868 16 if Peter of Peter 876 1 ayme time 877 3-4 may another may not another 885 32 not dele 890 1 an any 920 36 and men and yet 935 5 It if If it
sinne of Protestants who do not only erre but also communicate with others who erre from which Communion we haue heard him confess that Charity Maintayned hath some probability to disswade men In the eyes of vulgar people this mixture of different Sects vnder one name of Protestancy may seeme a kind of good thing as bearing a shew of Charity yet indeed to wise men such communicants must appeare to be as litle zealous constant and firme in their owne Religion as they affect to be esteemed charitable to others And to every such Protestant doe fully agree those excellent words of glorious S. Austine de Civit Dei Lib 21. Cap 17. He doth erre so much the more absurdly and against the word of God more perversly by how much he seemeth to himself to Judge more charitably 12. Neither in this Discourse doe we relie vpon his wordsonly but on his Tenets and Grounds and such Truths as both hee often delivers and must be granted by all Christians namely that it is damnable to deny any least Truth sufficiently propounded to a man as revealed by God and therefore seing Protestants disagree about such Truths some of them must of necessity erre damnably And so he ought to alter the Title of his Book into the direct contradictorie and saie The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation For bonum ex integra causa malum ex quocunque defectu and as we cannot affirme that Action to be vertuous which failes in any one morall circumstance so Protestants being confessedly guilty of damnable errours he must giue this Title to his Booke Protestancy not a safe way to salvation but vnrepented a certaine way to damnation 13. Or if he be resolved not to chang his Title vpon this Ground That albeit Protestants erre damnably yet they may be saved because they erre not in Fundamentall Articles absolutely and indispensably necessary to constitute one a member of the Church and in that regard may be either excused by Ignorance or pardoned by Repentance Then 14. I proue my second Proposition That for the verie same reason he must say and might haue put for the Title of his Book The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe waie to salvation seing he expresly and purposely teaches through his whole Book that we erre not in fundamentall points and that we may be saved by ignorance or Repentance That our Errors be not Fundamentall he declares in plaine termes For Ch Ma in his preface to the Reader N. 13. having saied Since he will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it doe not follow that she hath not erred fundamentally because everie such errour destroyes the nature and being of the Church and so our Saviour should haue had no visible Church on earth To which demand Mr. Chillingworth answers in these words Pag 16. N. 20. I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because she was a part of the Whole which we grant And if she were a true part of the Church then she retained those Truths which were simply necessary to salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it For this is precisely necessary to constiture any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sence therefore of the word Fundamentall I hope she erred not Fundamentally but in your sense of the word I feare she did That is she held something to be Divine Revelation which was not something not to be which was Behold how he frees vs from all Fundamentall errors though he feares we are guilty of errours which he calls damnable that is repugnant to some Divine Revelation whereas he professes as a thing evident that some Protestants must erre fundamentally in that sense because they hold Contradictories of which both partes cannot be true And so even this for consideration he must say The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safer way to salvation than Protestancy seing he can not proue that we erre by Reason of any contradiction among ourselves in matters of Faith as it is manifest that one Protestant is contrarie to an other especially if we reflect that not onlie one particular or single person contradicts an other but whole Sects are at variance and contrariety as Lutherans Calvinists Anabaptists new Arians Socinians c The first point then it is cleare he confesses I meane that our supposed errours are not Fundamentall which is so true that whereas in severall occasions he writes or rather declaimes against vs for denying the cup to laymen and officiating in an vnknown toung as being in his opinion points directly contrarie to evident Revelation yet Pag 137. N. 21. he hopes that the deniall of them shall not be laid to our charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the foundations not overthrowing the foundation itself 15. But for the second doth he hold that we may be excused by ignorance or saved by Repentance as he saieth Protestants may Heare what he speakes to Catholiques Pag 34. N. 5. I can very hardly perswade myself so much as in my most secret consideration to devest you of these so needfull qualifications of ignorancce and Repentance But whensoever your errors come into my minde my only comfort is amidest these agoriâ—s that the Doctrine and practise too of Repantance is yet remaining in your Church And this hee teaches through all his Book together with Dr. Potter and they vniversally affirme that those Catholiques may be saved who in simplicity of hart believe what they profess as they may be sure English Catholiques doe who might be begged for fooles or sent to Bedlam if they did not belieue that Faith and Religion be be true for the truth whereof they haue indured so long and grievous persecution Besides it being evident that many learned Protestants in the chiefest points controverted betwene them and vs agree with vs against their pretended Brethren as is specified and proved hereafter and is manifest by evidence of fact the Religion of Protestants cannot be safe or free from damnable Opinions vnless our Religion be also such For I hope they will not say that the selfe same Assertions taken in the same sense are true in the mouth of Protestants and false in ours We must therefore conclude that if he will make good his title The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation he must say the same of vs Catholiques whoâ— he acknowledges not to erre in fundamentall points and to be capable of inculpable Ignorance or Repentance for which selfsame respects he pretends The
glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus Galat. 5.22.23 The fruit of the spirit is Faith Ephes 1.16.17.18 I cease not to giue thankes for you making a memory of you in my prayers That God of our Lord Iesus Christ the Father of glory giue you the spirit of wisdom and of reuelation in the knowledg of him the eyes of your hart illuminated that you may know what the hope is of his vocation and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints Ephes 2.8 For by Grace you are saued with Faith and that not of yourselves for it is the gist of God Ephes 6.23 Peace to the Brethren and charity with faith from God the father and our Lord Iesus Christ Philipp 1.29 To you it is giuen for Christ not only that you belieue in him but also that you suffer for him Colos 1.2 Giuing thanks to God the Father who hath made vs worthy vnto the part of the lot of the Saints in the light 2. Pet. 1.21 The holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost XX More Texts of Scripture might be alledged but it is needles since euē all Sectaryes except Pelagius and such as follow him belieue Grace to be necessary for faith and in particular D. Potter to whom Chilling is in this mayne poynt directly opposit as is euident by these his expresse words Pag. 135. Faith is sayd to be diuine and supernaturall in regard of the author or efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith which is the speciall grace of God preparing enabling and assisting the soule to belieue For faith is the gist of God alone 1. Cor. 12.34 2. In regard of the object or things belieued which are aboue Philipp 1.29 the reach and comprehēsion of meere nature and reason Philip. 1.29 Thus D. Potter and adds that of these two respects there is no controuersie he meanes betweene Catholiques and Protestāts For by the euēt it is cleare that there is a controuersy betweene him and the Socinians and in particular with Chilling worth his champion But necessity hath no law Charity Maintayned could not with any shew be answered in the grounds of Protestants who therfor chose rather to destroy their owne grounds and the doctrine of all good Christians then to confesse the truth of our Catholik faith though conuicted by euident reasons Besides Pag. 140. D. Potter sayth Humane authority consent and proofe may produce an humane or acquired faith but the assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine in which words he distinguisheth acquired faith from diuine and consequently holds that this is not acquired but infused Pag. 141. That Scripture is of diuine authority the belieuer sees by many internall arguments found in the letter it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of the Church without and of grace within Mark how besides the externall proposition of the object by the Church he requires internall grace Pag. 142. There is in the Scripture it selfe light sufficient which the eye of reason cleared by grace and assisted by the many motiues which the Church vseth for enforcing of her instructions may discouer to be diuine descended from the father and fountain of light Pag. 143. he teaches that by the ministery of the church in preaching and expounding the Holy Ghost begets a diuine faith in vs. And in the same place he tearmeth the act of faith supernaturall as also we haue heard him tearme it so pag. 135. and it is a plaine contradiction that it should be supernaturall or aboue nature and yet be produced by the forces of nature which were to make it aboue and not aboue nature XXI By the way it is to be noted that D. Potter deliuers a very vntrue doctrine in saying in this pag. 135. that the efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith is the speciall grace of God For the speciall actuall grace of God is not the efficient cause of the habit of our faith which is infused by God alone as our naturall acts of vnderstanding or willing do not produce the Powers of our vnderstanding or will and supernaturall Habits of Faith Hope c. are giuen vs not to facilitate but to enable vs to exercise Acts of Faith Hope c For which cause they are compared to supernaturall Acts as the naturall faculties or Powers of our soule are compared to their naturall Acts which they produce and are not produced by them I omit his vnproper speach that the speciall grace of God is the author of an act of faith SECTION III. The necessity of Grace to Hope as vve ought for saluation XXII IF Grace be necessary for euery worke of Christian Pietie and in particular for faith as we haue proued it will be needles to stand long vpon prouing that it is necessary for hoping which is a work of Pietie proceeding from a Theologicall Vertue to which Faith is referrd and of which mortall men considering the sublimity of eternall Happynes and guiltynes of their owne meanes frailty and sinnes stand in need for raising vp their soules towards so supernaturall an Object and preseruing them from dejection pusilanimity and despaire yet we will not omit to alledge some particular Texts of Scripture in proofe of this Truth Rom 5.2 By whom Christ we haue access through Faith into this Grace wherin we stand and glorie in the hope of the glorie of the sonnes of God Where it is cleare that the Apostle placeth hope amongst the gifts of the children of God which we receaue by Christ Chap. 15. V. 4.5 That by the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we may haue hope and the God of patience giue you to be of one mynd Which words declare that God is the author of those gifts 1. Cor. 13.13 And now there remayne Faith Hope Charity Where it appeares that these three Vertues are specially numbred togeather as belonging to the same rank and order Psalm 18.49 Be myndefull of thy word to thy seruant wherin thou hast giuen me hope Thessa◠5.8 But we that are of the day are sober hauing on the brest plate of faith and charity and a helmet the hope of saluation Where wee see the apostle ioynes Hope with Faith and Charity and V. 9.10 declares that it is given for Christ and is ordaynd and conduces to a supernaturall end saying for God hath not appointed vs vnto wrath but vnto the purchasing of saluation by our Lord Iesus Christ who died for vs. 1. Pet. 3.4.5 Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who according to his great mercie hath regenerated vs vnto a liuely hope by the resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead vnto an inheritance incorruptible and incontaminate and that cannot fade conserued in the heauens in you who in the vertue of God are kept by faith vnto saluation SECTION IV. Grace necessary for Charity XXIII IF Grace be necessary for faith and hope much more is it necessary for
Charitie vvhich by the Apostle is preferrd before those other two vertues 1. Cor. 13.13 Now there remayne Faith Hope Charity these three but the greater of these is Charity Besides Charity being the fulfilling of the law if we cannot keepe the commandements without grace as we will proue in the next Section it followes that without grace we cannot Loue as we ought for attaining saluation But yet let vs alledge some places of Scripture wherin this truth is set downe 1. Ioan 4.7 Charity is of God and euery one that loueth is borne of God aÌ„d knoweth God Ioan. 14.23.24 If any loue me he will keepe my word and my Father will loue him and vve vvill come to him and will make aboad with him He that loueth me not keepeth not my words Who dare ascribe to a loue acquired by humane forces these priuiledges of keeping Gods word in so supernaturall a way as that the B. Trinitie will come and remaine vvith him Rom. 5.5 The charity of God is powred forth in our harts by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. Rom. 13.8 He that loueth his neighbour hath fulfilled the lavv V. 10. Loue therfor is the fulness of the lavv Galat. 5.22 The fruite of the spirit is charitie Ephes 6.23.24 Peace to the brethreÌ„ and charitie vvith faith from God the father and our Lord Iesus Christ Grace with all that loue our Lord Iesus Christ in incorruption XXIV Euen Chilling Pag. 20. saith what can hinder but that the consideration of Gods most infinite Goodness to them Protestants and their owne almost infinite wickedness against him Gods spirit cooperating with them may raise them to a true and syncere and a cordiall loue of God In vvhich vvords he may seeme to require the particular grace of the holy Ghost for exercising an Act of loue or charitie I say he may seeme because it is no nevves for him to dissemble or disguise his true meaning vnder some shew of words vsed by good Christians though it cost him a contradiction vvith himselfe and his ovvne Grounds Hovvsoeuer it be at least his manner of speach shevves hovv christians must not deny this truth SECTION V. The Necessity of Grace for keeping the Commandements and ouercoming temptations XXV THis point giues me againe iust occasion to obserue how they who deny a liuing jnfallible iudge of controuersies cannot auoyd running into pernitious extremes Some hold that Christians are not bound in conscience to keepe the Commandements a Vide Bellarm de justificatione l. 4. Cap. 1. in somuch as Luther is not afraid nor ashamed to say b In Commentario ad Cap 2 ad Galatas When it is taught that indeed faith in Christ iustifies but yet so as we ought to keepe the commandements because it is writteÌ„ if thou wilt enter into life keepe the coÌ„mandemeÌ„ts there Christ is instantly denyed aÌ„d faith abolished And elswhere c In Sermone de nouo Testamento siâ—e de Mâ—ssa Let vs take heed of sinnes but much more of lawes and good works Let vs attend only to the promise of God and faith I wonder how a man can take heed of sinne and ioyntly take heed of good workes Shall he be still doing and yet doe neither good nor badd Some teach that it is impossible to keepe the commandements euen with the assistance of diuine grace Others that they may be kept by the force of nature and that the assistance of Gods grace is not necessary except only to keepe them with greater ease or facility XXVI The true Catholike doctrine is that we may keepe the commandements and ouercome temptations by the grace of God not by our owne naturall forces which is manifestly declared in Holy Scripture EZechiel 36.26 I will giue you a new hart and put a new spirit in middest of you and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh aÌ„d will giue you a fleshie hart And I will put my spirit in the middest of you and I will make that you walk in my precepts and keepe my iudgments and doe them 1. Ioan. 5.3 This is the charity of God that we keepe his commandements Ioan. 14.23.24 If any loue me he will keepe my word and my father will loue him and we will come to him and will make abode with him He that loueth me not keepeth not my words Behold louing or not louing keeping or not keeping the commandements goe togeather But we haue proued that Grace is necessary to loue God it is therfor necessary to keepe his commandements Rom. 8.3 For that which was impossible to the law in that it was weakned by the flesh God sending his son in the flesh of sinne euen of sinne damnes sinne in the flesh That the iustification of the Law might be fulfilled in vs. 1. Cor. 7.7 The Apostle teaches that not only the continency of virgins and widdowes but maried people also is the gift of God saying Euery one hath a proper guift of God one so and another so Sap. 8.21 And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent vnless God gaue it this very thing also was wisdom to know whose this gift was I went to our Lord and besought him Rom. 2.13 Not the hearers of the Law are iust with God but the doers of the Law shall be iustifyed And yet the same Apostle sayth Galat 2 21. If iustice by the Law then Christ dyed in vaine And we may say in the same manner If iustice by nature and not by Grace Christ died in vaine S. Iames 3.8 The tong no man can tame Rom. 5.20.21 The Law entered in that sinne might abound and where sinne abounded grace did more abound that as sinne raigned to death so also grace may raigne by iustice to life euerlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord. Which words declare that grace is so necessary for fulfilling the Law that without it the Law was occasion of death by reason of humane frailty and corruption Rom. 4.15 The Law worketh wrath Rom. 7. V. 23.24.25 I see another Law in my members repugning to the law of my mynd and captiuing me in the law of sinne that is in my members Vnhappy man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. 1. Cor. 15.56 57. The power of sinne is the law But thankes be to God that hath giuen vs victory by our Lord Iesus Christ 1. Cor. 10.13 God is faithfull who will not suffer you to be tempted aboue that which you are able but will make also with teÌ„ptation issue that you may be able to sustaine Psalm 17.30 In thee I shall be deliuered from teÌ„ptation Psa 26.9 Be thou my helper forsake me not Psalm 29.7.8 I sayd in my aboundance I will not be moued for euer Thou hast turned away thy face from me and I became troubled Psalm 117.13 Being thrust I was ouerturned to fall and our Lord receyued me 1. Pet. 5. V. 8.9 Be sober
seuerall Professions in poynt of Religion And as men ought not to be remooued from belieuing that there is a God though to our weake vndestandings there be presented Arguments touching his Nature Freedom of will Prouidence Preuision and the like of farr greater difficulty to be answered than can be objected against the jnfallibility of Faith so ought we not to deny the jnfallible Truth of Christian Faith notwithstanding those poore objections which this man and his Associates with equall impiety and boldness make against it And therfore both in the beliefe of a God and certainty of Faith Religion and worship of him we are to follow the certaine instinct of Nature and conduct of Piety not the vncertainty of our weake vnderstanding or liberty of will 5. For this cause as I sayd not only all Catholiques with a most Unanimous consent belieue profess and proclaime this truth in somuch as S. BouaueÌ„ture in 3. Dist 24. Art â— Q. 1. auoucheth Faith to be as jnfallible as the Prescience of God and Hâ—â—ensis 3. P. Q. 68. memb 7. affirmeth that Faith can be no more subject to falshood than the Prime Uerity but Protestants also and in particular D. Potter who Pag. 143. speakes clearly thus The chiefe principle or ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is diuine Reuelation made in the Scripture Nothing less than this nothing but this can erect or qualify an act of supernaturall Faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or at the most an acquired humane belief And Pag. 140. Humane authority consent and proofe may produce an humane or acquired Faith and infallibly in some sort assure the mynd of the truth of that which is so witnessed but the assent of diuine Faith is absolutely diuine which requires an object and motiue so infallibly true as that it neither hath nor can possibly admit of any mixture of errour or falshood Behold how he affirmes that Christian Faith doth more than only in some sort assure vs of the truth as Chillingworth will say it doth by an assent highly probable but that it must be absolutely diuine which he contradistinguishes from humane Faith making this not that absolutely certaine And indeed to litle purpose should Potter and all other Diuines require an Objest and Motiue jnfallibly true if likewise our assent to it be not jnfallible What auayles it that Diuine Authority be certaine and jnfallible in it selfe if in the meane tyme it remayme vncertaine whether such a Divine and jnfallible Authority interpose it selfe or witness any thing 6. But nothing can be imagined more effectuall and express against Chillingworth who Pag. 325. N. 3. saith That there is required of vs a knowledg of the Articles of our Faith and adherence to them as certaine as that of sense or science is a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence Nothing I saie can be more cleare against this pernitious doctrine of Chillingworth than these words of Potter Pag. 199. Though the assent of Faith be more certaine if it be possible than that of sense or science or demonstration because it rests on diuine Authority which cannot possibly deceiue yet it is also an assent ineuident and obscure both in regard of the object which are thinges that do not appeare Hebr. 11.1 And in respect of the subject the eye of Faith in this state of mortality being dimme and apprehending heauenly things as through a glass darkly 1. Cor. 13.12 What could haue beene spoken more directly of the certainty and yet ineuidency of Faith against Chillingworth who both denyes that Faith is absolutely certaine and that certainty caÌ„ be without euidency as may be seene Pag. 330. N. 7. D Lawd Pag. 227. saith As for morall certainty that 's not stroÌ„g enough in points of Faith and Pag. 360. he directly affirmes that an jnfallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to saluation which is the very same with our Title of this Chapter And Pag. 142. he saith That falshood may be the subject of the Catholike Faith were no lesse then blasphemy to affirme and yet Mr. Chillingworths Booke where in this blasphemy is purposely taught is expresly approud as agreable to the Doctrine of the Church of England by euery one of the three Approbators who can best giue account by whose Authority they were induced to so pernicious and foule a fact 7. But why do I alledg particular Persons This of the fallibility of faith is opposd by all Protestants and particularly they who teach that we know the Scripture to be the word of God by the spirit or instinct of the Holy Ghost hold Faith to be infallibly true Thus Caluin Lib. 1. jnstit C. 7. Sect. 4. saith Petenda est haec persuasio ab arcano spiritus testimonio This belief that Scripture is the word of God is taken from a secret testimony of the spirit And afterwards Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferrd before all reason 8. And here is to be obserued that Chillingworth disagreeing from Protestants in this maine generall transcendentall point differs from them for euery particular in an essentiall attribute or perfection of Faith seing an assent only probable is essentially distinguished from an assent absolutely and infallibly certaine and so he opposes them in a higher degree then if he did contradict them in one or more chiefest particular Articles of faith or rather he cuts of at one blowe all the true belief of Christians by making it not certaine wherby men become no Christians as not belieuing in Christ with diuine certaine faith His tenet Pag. 367. N 49. that he who disbelieues one Article may yet belieue an other with true diuine faith is in no wise to be approoud but this his doctrine that Faith is fallible is farr worse as disbelieuing all and positiuely denying that certainty which is essentiall to diuine Faith and distinguisheth it from Opinyon or humane beliefe 9. This fundamentall truth that faith is absolutely certaine is very clearly deliuered in Holy Scripture S. Paule saith Hebr. 11.1 Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing or as the Protestants English translation hath The substance and in the margine the ground or confidence of things hoped for the euidence of things not seene All which signifyes a firme certaine and as I may say substantiall faith stronger than any assent only probable Thus holy S. Bernard Ep. 190. disputing against Abailardus who taught that Faith was but Opinion saith Audis substantiam non licet tibi in fide putare vel disputare pro libitu c Doest thou heare the name of substance it is not lawfull for thee in Faith to thinke or dispute at thy pleasure nor wander hither and thither through the emptynes
Albeit vve see not this vvith our eyes nor vvith our hart as long as vve are clensed by Faith yet doe vve belieue it by faith most rightly and most strongly Surely this signifyes more than to belieue only with probability Richardus de S. Victore 1. de Trinit Cap. 2. As many of vs as are truly faithfull hold nothing vvith more certainty than that vvhich vve belieue by faith 11. What vve haue proued by Authority vve now will conuince by Theologicall Reasons and Arguments First vve haue demonstrated out of holy Scripture that Faith is an especiall Gift of God and that the Act or Assent therof proceeds from a particular Grace Motion Preuention and Supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost Therfore it cannot be but true othervvise vve might distrust the Truth of Scriptures and the predictions of the Prophets though we did belieue those to haue bene written and these to haue bene spokē by the direction and instinct of God himselfe And vvhat more satisfying assurance can there be giuen to any Christian yea to any reasonable creature than this God leades me this vvay therfore it cannot be but right neither can I erre in follovving it and euery vvay contrary to this must be wrong and erroneous Chilling Pag. 258. N. 16. confesseth that a thing vntrue cannot be foreseene by the Prophets Which he could not affirme if God could moue men to belieue a falshood And Pag. 36. N. 8. he says We cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of the conclusion than of the weaker of the Premises which supposes that by supernaturall meanes we may be more certaine And N. 9. he doubts not but that the spirit of God may and will aduance his seruants and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of euidence Since therfore euery Act of Faith proceeds from the particular motion and spirit of God we must say that his supposition concerning some is actuated in all who belieue by a true Act of Christian Faith that is we must say that euen according to Chillingworth all true Christians belieue with absolute certainty and vvith an assent higher than that which we yield to probable premises 12. And out of this most certaine and Christian truth that Faith is the gift of God and requires his particular assistance aboue the force of nature it follows also by euidence of Reason that it must be an Assent aboue all Probabilityes or Arguments of Credibility For abstracting from some accidentall impediment or temptation our Vnderstanding is able of it selfe to draw a probable Conclusion from euident probable premises And therfore seing wee can neuer by naturall forces exercise an Act of true Christian Faith it followes clearly that it must be an Assent more than probable and raysed aboue all arguments of credibility Chilling saith Pag. 116. N. 159. We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate But as I noted aboue no man in his witts wil say that we cannot by naturall forces of humane reason belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight Therfore no man ought to say that with the same forces of humane Reason we cannot belieue that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate if Faith be only such a probable Assent 13. Beside if Faith do not excèede the force of nature seing Faith is the first beginning of Obediēce Merit and Saluation the beginning of all these should be attributed to nature and not to Grace yea if one can belieue by the force of nature so also he may Hope and Loue and attaine Beatitude by the same And how shall Beatitude it selfe be Supernaturall if the meanes to attaine it be naturall Thus the maine ground of Chilling That Faith is a Conclusion or Assent drawen from probable Premises and proportioned to them being ouerthrovvue all his Reasons relying on this ground vanish into nothing But yet let vs more and more proue this truth and turne the vveapons of our Aduersaryes agaynst themselues by demonstrating that Christian Faith must raise vs aboue the Arguments of Credibility vvhich I doe in this manner 14. If Faith exceede not the assent vvhich we giue to the probable motiues of Credibility there could be no captiuating of our vnderstanding nor Obedience or Freedom of will in belieuing the Articles of Faith But we are to captiuate our vnderstanding and exercise free obedience of our will in belieuing the Articles of Faith Therfor Faith must raise vs aboue the Arguments of Credibility The maior is cleare For where there is euidence and necessity to assent there is no place for captiuating or submitting our vnderstanding or free and voluntary obedience of our will which Chilling confesses Pag. 329. N. 7. wher speaking of obedience in Faith he saith which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the vtderstanding does all and the will nothing Neither can it auaile him to say as he sayth in the same place that the Faith of Protestants implies an act of obedience because it is not pretended to haue the absolute euidēce of sence or demōstration For this is nothing to the purpose as long as he belieues the Articles of Faith with no higher thā a probable assēt proportionable to probable Arguments and rises not to a certainty of sense demonstration or any other aboue these probable Motiues because his fallible and only probable faith hath the certanty and euidence of demonstration for such a degree of probability it being no more certaine and euident that a Conclusion drawen from necessary Premises is necessary than that a Conclusion rightly deduced from probable Premises is probable which is all he requires for an assent of faith as he expressly affirmes Pag. 36. N. 8. saying God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue and N. 9. God requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the motiues enforcing to it mark enforcing and Pag. 112. N 154. Neither God doth nor man may require of vs as our duty obserue what obedience and duty he requires to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion than the Premises deserue And finally this is his maine ground to proue that Christian Faith is not infallible but only probable that is such only as he holds the Premises and Arguments of Credibility to be wherby it is euident that in his way there is left no place for captiuating our vnderstanding by a voluntary free submission and obedience to Christ and his doctrine 15. Which yet to be necessary as I assumed in my Minor proposition cannot be denyed by any who belieues Holy Scripture as appeares 2. Cor. 10.5 B ringing into captiuity all vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Christ Rom. 1.5 By whom Iesus Christ we receyued grace and Apostleship for obedience to the Faith in all nations for the name of
the vnderstanding dres all and the will nothing And yet that it is Necessitated is a cleare truth since you professe to believe with no more certainty than is evidently deduced from evident Premises and the vnderstanding is no less necessitated to give assent to a probable conclusion draweÌ„ evideÌ„tly from knowen probable Premises than it is forced to an assent of a certaine Conclusion deduced from demonstratiue Premises Pag 331. N. 8. having sett downe some Principles which you judg to be evident and certaine you conclude thus From all these Premises this Conclusion evidently follows that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion And in the same Pag. 331. N. 9. There is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity I say so credible that though they cannot make vs evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit and ought so be accepted as things revealed by God therfor there is convincing evidence for the truth of Christian Articles as farr as you believe them And Pag 36. N. 9. you affirme that God requires of all that their Faith should be proportionable to the motiues and Reasons enforcing to it If the Reasons enforce to the Conclusion how is it not necessitated Therfor your Faith is both free according to your owne words and necessitated according to truth in your grounds which is also convinced by your saying that certainty cannot be without evidence And therfor the Faith of your choise elevated people which you say is certaine must be evident and consequently not free But our Faith raysing vs above the evident Arguments of Credibility remaines free and is in no sense necessitated 86. II. For your epithetons of being certaine and vncertaine we profess and believe nothing more certainly than that our Faith is certaine and not capable either of falshood or vncertainty But your Booke is Chiefly imployed to prove your Faith not to be certaine and we are well content it be so Yet if you remember what you say of your choysest persons and best Believers that they have a certainty beyond evidence and yet expressly teach that certainty cannot be greater than the evidence of the Object as I shewed above it followes clearly that you give them a certainty which your self hold impossible fot any to have and so you give them certainty and not certainty that is a meere contradiction or nothing 87. III. For the denominations of Evident Obscure They agree not to our Faith which we believe to be Obscure not evident as I have explicated elswhere But for your Faith according to your grounds it must be both evident and obscure Evident because you believe with no greater assent than you receyve by evident Arguments and accordingly you say Pag 329. N. 7. Nothing is more repugnant than that a man should be required to give most certaine credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare most certainly credible And if it appeare to him to be so then it is not obscure that it is so According to which we must say that nothing is more vnreasonable than that a man should be required to give probable credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare probably credible and if it appeare to him to be so then it is not obscure that it is so Therfore in your grounds you must believe nothing to be true but according to the evidence which you have therof And therfor Pag. 330. N. 7. you say in express termes That I should believe the truth of any thing the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me this I say for any man to be bound to is vnjust and vnreasonable because to do it is impossible Therfor your Faith is evident in respect of the truth which you believe according to the measure of your belief therof If you did believe with certainty a truth for which you haue only probable arguments such a truth I grant were not evident in proportion to your assent but since you believe the truth of Christian Religion only with a probable assent and that you have evidence of those Reasons which cause your assent to such a truth it is cleare that your Faith is evident to you as farr as your belief goes And yet you must hold it to be obscure otherwise it could not be capable of obedience as you pretend it to be because you say there can be no obedience where the vnderstanding doe all and the will nothing 88 Fourthly You say our Faith is prudent and foolish That our Faith is prudent and yours imprudent Charity Maintayned hath proved Chap. 6. and yet since you will say that yours is prudent it will remayne imprudent indeed and prudent in your words And indeed none but an enemy to Christianity can affirme our Faith and Religion to be imprudent if he consider well what a deadly wound he gives to Christian Religion by saying so For take from vs the Marks of a true Religion which are conspicuous in our Church only you deprivâ— Christianity of Motives or Arguments of Credibility sufficient to move or oblige men to embrace it where I pray except in our Church can be found Antiquity perpetuall Existence and Visibility Vniversality of Tyme and Place Succession of Pastours Vnity and effectuall meanes to conserve it Sanctity Miracles Efficacy in the conversion of Gentils which the Ancient Fathers vrge as a strong argument to prove the truth of Christian Religion against the Iewes Amplitude and Glory of Christs Kingdome fortold by the Prophets The very name Catholike with other Notes of the true Church which evidently agree to Our Church and are manifestly wanting to Protestants vnless they begg or vsurpe them from vs as the carefull Reader must confesse if he do but severally reflect on them While therfor you blaspheme the Faith of our Church to be foolish you do in fact lay the same imputation on Christian Religion Seing then you cannot without prejudice to Christian Religion affirme our Faith to be imprudent and foolish you must in good consequence be content that your owne beare that denomination Besides Pag. 331. N. 10. you say Charity maintayned was mistaken in making prudence not only a commendation of a believer and a justification of his Faith but also essentiall to it and part of the definition of it and did as if one being to say what a man is should define him a reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy For as all Astronomers are men but all men are not Astrâ—nomers and therfor Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men where nothing should have place but what agrees to all men So though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may beleeve aright which are not wise By which words you give vs to
in figure only or only by Faith and Apprehension and to be really and substantially receaved was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him as after his Incarnation by his reall existence No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence vnless first he be supposed to be really present and not only in figure or bare Faith which must presuppose not make that presence which it believes and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is whether Christs Body be substantially present not how he is present of the substance not of the manner only To say his whole person is every where makes not to the purpose seing the question is not of his Divine Person but concerning his sacred Humanity Howsoever if this Reason be good it will serue for transubstantiation at least as well as for Consubstantiation or vbiquity of which the Protestant Hospinian in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602. sayth Hoc portentum c. This monster for it ought not be called a doctrine or assertion or opinion or even a single Heresy is repugnant to scripture contrary to the Fathers it overthrowes the whole Creed it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes and lastly which is strange it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity Is it not intollerable partiality to excuse Vbiquity or Consubstantiation and yet condemne Transubstantiation but by these examples we see what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will And I must still conclude that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants it appeares that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare 94. 18 You haue least reason of all other to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone who deliver such Doctrines concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self that it could not be āy Rule at all although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer as much as belongs to my present purpose intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter First then you teach Pag. 62. N. 32. that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And Pag. 116. N. 159. having spoken of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing you add these words Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had bene before receyved and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation only to belieue the verityes therin contayned and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned This Doctrine of yours being supposed togeather with that other principle of Protestants that after the Canon of Scripture was perfited the only meanes which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ is the Scripture which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation it followes that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith that is a thing revealed by God and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes ād then it clearly followes that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound Neither cā you say that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture because our supposition is that we haue no knowledg suspicion imagination or inkling of revealed Truths except by meanes of Scripture alone For if you grant any other meanes you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone and admitt Tradition And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths but by believing aforehād the scriprure which if we be not preobliged to belieue we cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels This deduction of myne you cannot deny since it is the same with one of your owne Pag. 86. N. 93. where you say It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished Now is it not in effect all one to vs whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe or as I may say to vs while we are not obliged to belieue that is it the word of God And the same argument I take from your saying Pag 116. N. 159. that we are not bound to belieue scripture to be a Rule of Faith For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them and consequētly although we should suppose scripture to be evident in all poynts yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it as of the word of God nor to receaue the contens therof as divine revealed truths In a word Either God hath revealed this truth scriprure is the word of God or he hath not revealed it If he haue reuealed it then it is one of the things which we are to belieue and is a materiall Object of Faith against your particular Tenet If God hath not revealed it then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty as a divine truth nor consequently the contents of it nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation against the doctrine of all Protestāts And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith Surely if he belieue
to vvhat purpose you say in your second Ansvver that it is one thing to be a perfect Ruâ—e of Faith an other to be proved so vnto vs seing your adversary expressly spoke of scripture in order to vs affirming Pag 41. N. 6. that it could not be proved vnto vs to be the word of God by its owne saying so which you also grant vnless it were to giue a blow to Protestants who calumniate vs as if we did subject the word of God to the judgment of the Church wheras we say no more then here you acknowledg that Scripture is in it self true but not knowen or proved so to vs otherwise than only by Tradition which say you is a thing credible of it self against other Protestants who hold the Church to be only the first externall Motiue or inducement and direction to belieue scripture as Potter speakes Pag 193. and 141. but not that for which we chiefly belieue it which they hold to be either the privat Spirit or the Majesty or other signes found in scripture it self 190. Object 6. That all may vnderstand in Scripture enough for their salvation you endeavour to proue Pag 93. N. 105. out of S. Austine whose words you cite thus Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in Sacris Scripturis omnta continent quae pertinent ad Fidem moresque vivendi The place you cite not which is your ordinary custome I conceiue you meane de Doctrina Christiana Lib 2. Cap 9. Where S. Austine speaking of the Bookes of Holy Scripture sayth Illa quae in eis apertè posita sunt vel praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi solertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt Quae tanto quisque plura invenit quanto est intelligentiâ capacior In iis enim quae apertè in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent Fidem moresque vivendi spem scilicet atque charitatem 191. Answer You know very well that S. Austine believed we are obliged to belieue more then can be clearly and certainly and particularly proved out of scripture taken alone without the authority and Declaration of Gods Church Did he not belieue and most zealously defend the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretikes and taught it as a Point to be believed and practised by all And yet de vnit Eccles Cap. 22. he teacheth expressly that we must in this Point rely vpon the authority of the Church as we haue seene by his words This Testimony of S. Austine was alledged by Cha Ma Part 1. Ch 2. N. 27. Pag 74. and you take notice of it in your Page 118.119 N. 163. and yet returne to alledg against vs the words of the same saynt in iis quae apertè posita sunt c which shewes that I was not rash in saying you could not but know that S. Austine held that more points are to be believed and practised then can be proved out of scripture Nay your owne Answers to this authority of S. Austine demonstrate that you believed what I say about his judgment For 192. You answer First you say to Catholiques In many things you will not be tryed by S. Austines judgment this you proue by instances which are answered by an absolute denyall that S. Austine is contrary to vs in those points and therfor can with no reason or equity require vs to do so in this matter 2. To S. Austine in heate of disputation against the Donatists and ransaking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderately where he sayes In ijs que apertè posita sunt c. 193. Answer It is strang or rather ridiculous I will not say Boyes-play as you thought good to speake that you should except against our allegation of S. Austine because say you in many things we will not be tryed by him and that you in this very place alledg S. Austine against vs you I say who togeather with your fellow Socinians speak more contemptibly of that holy learned glorious Saint than of any other Father And no wonder seing you find that zealous Doctour to be most direct cleare and efficacious for the Visibility Splendour Amplitude Perpetuity Succession and Infallibility of Gods Church and vnwritten Traditions which is our present Question This spirit you discover Pag 152. N. 44. where you speake in this manner To deale ingenuously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to thinke a thing proved sufficiently be cause he sayes it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles But good Sr. what play is this To bring for an Argument and proofe against vs a saying of S. Austine and yet to professe not to thinke a thing proved sufficiently because he sayes it And which is most strang to bring for an Argument against vs a place of S. Austine to proue by his authority the contrary of that which you acknowledg him to affirme namely that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs come from the Apostles as if with reason and equity you may require vs to beleeue S. Austine when you bring him against vs and yet yourselfe not belieue him when in the very selfe same matter for which you alledg him against vs yourself acknowledg him to stand for vs to wit that whatsoeuer the vniversall Church holds must be believed to come from the Apostles and consequently to be believed although it be not expressed in Scripture which is directly against that for which you alledg him even here that all necessary Points of Faith are set downe in scripture alone But of your little respect to B. Saint Austine more may beseene through your whole Booke particularly Pag. 258. N. 16. Pag 259 N. 20.21 Pag 301. N 101. c 194. In your second answer you do not only slight S. Austines judgment but wickedly taxe his will and piety as if he had overlashed out of heate or had bene more excessiuely earnest in impugning heresyes than zealous in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity as you speake out of which Book you cite his words against vs or as if that can be called heate of disputation which is delivered in writing at leasure vpon mature study and never rétracted But as I sayd you cannot endure that B. Saint because he is so great a defender of Gods Church and you could not haue done a service more acceptable to the Divell and pernitious to soules than to giue a ground for every one to despise S. Austines Writings against the Donatists as being but exaggerations and effects of heate in disputation wheras of all those holy learned and pious volumes of his none can be of greater profit to Gods Church then those which he wrote against the Donatists who were Schismatikes
which is cleare by his words Quod horum sit faciendum Which of those things ought be done as also because he speakes vpon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe somthing and you will not deny but in that case we were obliged to belieue not only that it was or was not practised but also that the thing in it self was lawfull and then he sayth that beside scripture we ought to imbrace and not to dispute against the vniversall practise of the church The same Holy Father teaches that the custome of baptizing childrē cannot be proved by scriptute alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he Lib 10. de Gen ad Lit Cap 23. in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed vnless it were an Apostolicall Tradition 201. Ponder first how the baptizing of infants is not to be contemned or accounted a vaine or vnprofitable thing and not only that we are to belieue there is such a practise 2. That seing what the Church practises is to be believed and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved vnless it were an Apostolicall tradition it followes that what the vniversall Church practises is an Apostolicall Tradition and consequently certaine and infallible though it be not written in scripture And Serm 14. de Verbis Apostoli Chap 18. speaking of the same Point of baptizing children he sayth This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in peeces Which place is so cleare for vs that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could giue no answer but this Nos ab Augustine hac in parte libere dissentimus In this we freely disagree from Augustine But of this answer you take no notice though you redd it in Charity Maintayned and seeke to answer this very place of S Austine alledged by Him And of the Quesstion of not rebaptizing c Lib. 1. Cont Crescon Cap. 32. 33. He sayth we follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of canonicall scriptures But how Doth he meane that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture In no wise How then Heare his words Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonicall scriptures yet even in this Point the truth of the same scripture is held by vs while we do that which the authority of scriptures doth recommend that so because the Holy scripture cannot deceiue vs whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question must haue recourse to the same church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to vs. Consider that we are sayd to follow scripture while we follow the church even in a thing not expressed in scripture and that he speakes not only of examples not found in scripture but of that Question Doctrine and truth it selfe affirming that the truth of scripture is held while we follow the church and that because the scripture cannot deceiue vs the way not to be deceyved is to haue recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends which certainly were no good advise or direction if the church might be deceived neither could S. Austine referr vs to the church in stead of the scripture or as if the Question were defined by the scripture it self vnless the church be infallible as scripture is And de Baptismo cont Donat. Lib 5. C. 23. he hath these remarkable words The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this about not rebaptizing c but this custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition as are many things which the vniversall church observeth which are therfor with good reason believed to haue bene commanded by the Apostles although they be not written Could any thing haue bene spoken more clearly to shew that the vniversall church is an infallible Proposer not only of examples matters of fact or practise but also of Precepts Commands and Doctrine And the same glorious Saint saith vniversally Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53. It is safe for vs to avouch with confident and secure words that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthned by the consent of the vniversall church 202. By what we haue sayd in confutation of this your fift answer the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answeres Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44 to these and other places alledged out of S. Austine by Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16. as also out of S. Chrysostome who treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by speach or by our epistle saith Homil. 4. Hence it is manifest that they delivered delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of belief Let vs therfor account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief It is a Tradition seeke no more Which words are so plaine against Protestants that Whitaker de sacra scrip Pag 678. is as plaine with S. Chrisostome and sayes I Answer that this is an inconsiderate speech vnworthy so great a Father These words of Whitaker were alledged in the same place by Charity Maintayned but are dissembled by you who Pag. 153. N. 45.46 giue two slight answers to the sayd words of S. Chrisostome the first is like to that which in the first place you gaue to the words of S. Austine that I was to proue the Church infallible not in her Traditions but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes Which answer I haue confuted already and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome who not only sayth that we are to belieue the church affirming such or such a thing to haue bene delivered but also that the things so delivered are worthy of belief as he sayd of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing and to be believed in such manner as we are to seek no more Therfor we are to rely on the churches Tradition as vpon a sure and certaine ground or Rule of Faith It was not without cause that Whitaker a man of so great note in England was so angry with S. Chrisosstome 203. Your second Answer is That the things Which the Apostles delivered without writing are worthy of belief if we know what they were Which is not to answer but to deride S. Chrysostome as if he spoke of a Chimera and not of any thing of vse or existent and applicable to practise and in stead of saying as he doth It is a Tradition seeke no more it is worthy of belief He should haue sayd There is no such thing as Tradition seeke it not nor belieue it Besides in this very conditionall grant that we were to belieue Tradition of
the same tyme in thâ— same circumstances necessary to be belieyed Out of which words it followeth that seing one can at no tyme disbelieue or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason in vertue wherof he belieues another thing he must necessarily belieue it according to your doctrine Secondly If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason you will not I belieue be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing and are not obliged to belieue another for which we haue the same reason For if the command be only this that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equall the necessity of believing must be equall But if the command of believing be supernaturall or some Positiue Divine Precept then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation and so there will not be the same reason for both but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation and therfore Thirdly If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation and so your subtilty That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief wherof c is against reason against yourself aÌ„d against all divinity 11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying If any man should doubt or disbelieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight king of England it were most vnreasonably done of him yet it were no mortall sin nor sin at all God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue Yet perhaps some wold aske whether you suppose that he who in the example you giue so doubts or disbelieves doth it vincibly or invincibly If invincibly then in him it is not vnreasonable because he in such circumstances could judg no otherwise and so in him it is reasonable For it falls out often that a true judgment may be imprudent and vnreasonable if it be framed lightly and for insufficient reasons and contrarily one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self and yet judg prudently if he be moved by probable reasons and so a true judgment may be rash and a false one prudent But if he who so doubts be supposed to erre vincibly you will not easily excuse him from all fault for example of pertinacy and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men or precipitation or imprudency or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant vnreasonable false and foolish belief which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others or for the glory of God and you know our B. Saviour hath revealed that every idle word is a sin But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue yet I leaue it to be considered whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous for if it be no sin at all to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples of Kings Princes Commonwealths and Magistrats some perhaps will infer That if your Doctrine were true it could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours seing no body can succeed to a Chimera or to a No-Body or a Non-Entity as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene 12 But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly and to the purpose in your other reason or example That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the law though he did not belieue that Parchment to be his written will which indeed is so So I belieue that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity aÌ„d lives according to theÌ„ should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists nor the Epistles by the Apostles Yet in this also you either erre against truth or overthrow your owne maine cause For if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will he should neither satisfy the law which gives him no power but in vertue of the dead mans will nor his owne conscience but should vsurpe the office without any Authority and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning and depriving of their right those to whom for ought he knowes they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased Now apply this your case to our present Question and the result will be that seing according to Protestants de facto we know the contents of Scripture and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin only by Scripture it selfe aÌ„d by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture he cannot be obliged to belieue all or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation 13. And here I must not omitt your saying that a man may be saued though he should not know or not belâ—â—ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith and being the word of God wheras it is cleare that nothing caÌ„ be a Rule of ChristiaÌ„ Faith except it be the word of God because Christian Faith as I sayd hath for its Formall Object the Divine RevelatioÌ„ or word of God aÌ„d nothing which is not such caÌ„ be a Rule of our Faith D. Potter Pag 143. saith The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but thâ—s caÌ„ erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine In which words although he erre against truth in saying that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest must be made in scripture seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written or vnwritten yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour that one may belieue or reject scripture in which alone divine revelation is made according to him aÌ„d so take away scriptures or the belief of them all Revelations and Faith must be taken away and he declares
also transmitted to posterity by being recorded by S. Luke whom you alledg and so if your false assertion were true we are as sure that they held an errour as that they delivered any truth because we belieue both by the same Authority of scripture yea according to your doctrine related aboue we are not obliged to belieue that scripture it self is the word of God and yet are bound to belieue the truths delivered therin one of which you affirme to be that the Apostles did erre and therfor we must belieue that they erred and yet may deny the Authority of scripture which relates that errour God I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself and oblige vs to belieue with certainty the writing of those whom we belieue to haue erred and yet for whose Infallibility we belieue those very writings to be infallible For the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture but we belieue Scripture to be infallible because it was written by the Apostles who by Divine Meanes even before they wrote any Scripture immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit and so mediate those same Meanes proved their writings to be Divine and infallible We could not belieue any Booke to be Canonicall if we did thinke it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture and how can we certainly belieue the Apostles in other Matters of Faith if we once yeld them to haue erred and contradicted truth in any one 32. The second condition required by you for assuring vs that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false nor vncertaine is that it be delivered by them as a certaine Divine Truth This also is a source of vncertaintyes For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly or as I may say in actu signato whether the Writers therof intended to deliver this or that as a certaine Divine Truth and though they had done so yet if their infallibility be not Vniversall we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration And if their infallibility be Vniversall we must belieue them though they vse no such expression of a certaine Divine Truth Hitherto it hath bene believed that Scripture is the word of God and that all the Verityes contained in it though otherwise they be but naturall truths are revealed or testifyed by God and by that Meanes growe to be both certaine and Divine as invested with the supernaturall Divine Testimony Now if some things be delivered in Scripture as certaine Divine Truths others not you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths without being able to giue any infallible certaine generall Rule and not only some probable conjecture of your owne to know positively and certainly when the Scripture speakes of one kind and when of another which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving vs assurance whether the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true and in no part false or vncertaine For if that condition of delivering a certaine Divine Truth do not subsist we haue not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Diuine Faith and so we cannot be obliged to believe the contents of Scripture 33. The third condition which you require for our assurance that the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true is that it haue the attestation of Divine Miracles which either discredits the writings of the Apostles and most of the Uerityes contayned in them or els confutes your onwe Doctrine that the Apostles might erre in Matters belonging to Religion For if you meane that every particular Truth which they preached must be confirmed by Miracles you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture for which we haue no proofe that they were so particularly confirmed yea we haue no proofe from Scripture that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirme by Miracles that it is the word of God and yet vpon this ground all the pretended Religion of Protestants that is the whole Bible and Truths conteyned therin depends If your meaning be only that it was sufficient for the belief of every particular Truth which the Apostles spoke or wrote that by Miracles Sanctity of life and other vndoubted arguments they approoved themselves as it were in generall that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion then you cannot maintayne that S. Peter who wrought many Miracles to proue himself a man sent from ād approved by God did erre in that particular mayne article about preaching the Gospell to Gentils or if he could erre in that we cannot believe his words or writing in many other Points not confirmed in particular by Miracles The same I say of the other Apostles Preachers and Canonicall Writers Lastly I confute these your errours by your owne words Pag. 290. N. 88. To speak properly not any set knowne company of men is secured that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of Faith But you say Pag. 114. N. 155. The Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of controversies And Pag. 60. N. 17. That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible Therfore according to you we must inferr that the Apostles were secured not to erre though they were supposed to neglect the meanes of avoiding error and consequently they neither did nor could erre by inadvertence or prejudice or by any neglect of the meanes to avoide error Beside Pag. 146. N. 34. you say The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truths by the Apostles writings sufficienter How then could the Apostles actually fall into any error seing they were efficaciter led into all truths And yet againe you contradict yourself and say Pag 177. N. 77. Ye are the salt of the earth said our Saviour to his Disciples not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons but because it was theyr office to be so For if they must haue been so of necessity and could not haue been otherwise in vain had he put them in feare of that which followes if the salt haue lost his Savour c. If this be so what certainty can we haue that de facto the Apostles did not erre seing they may erre 34. Your Objection is easily answered S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospell were to be preached to the Gentils Neither can any such thing be proved out of the 11. and 12. of the acts as you pretend Pag. 137. N. 21. The Vision recorded in those Chapters as exhibited to S. Peter was ordayned to the satisfaction not of all Christians but of converted Jewes who were offended with him for conversing with Gentiles as is evident Chap. 11. V. 2.3 They that were of the Circumcision that is Jewes made Christians reasoned against him saying why didst thou enter into men vncircumcised
the holy Ghost as we may be most certainly assured that she will either neuer permit such corruptions to happen or will never make vse of them As we were assured the Apostles could never approue any corruption in scripture though in their tymes it could not be avoyded but that Errours might be committed by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of yeares before Printing was in vse And in vaine do you Pag. 62. N. 24. alledg that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked vp or made invisible which no man denyes but seing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself and disposes of all things sweetly by Meanes proportionable to his Ends we must even from hence gather that he hath left Meanes to beget a true divine supernaturall Faith more firme than we yield to humane storyes which cannot be done by scripture alone if we neither be certaine that it is not corrupted nor haue any other infallible Guide to rely on besides the bare written word and so this your Assertion proves that which you seeke most to avoyd that scripture alone even though it were falsly supposed to contayne all things necessary to be believed cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of Faith for want of strength of an infallible authority because still we remayne vncertaine and vnsatisfyed whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part vpon which we build our assent 54. Your sift Errour not vnlike to this I touched aboue out of your Pag. 116. N. 159. where you say We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Iesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate You should haue sayd we haue farr greater reason to belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight or Alexander Caesar Pompey c if your false Assertion were true that Christian Faith rihes no higser than humane Tradition and story can raise it For we haue a more full and vniversall Tradition and Consent of all sorts of Persons that there were such men as Caesar c and that they fought such battailes obtained such victoryes and the like than that there was one called Jesus Christ that he had Disciples c And what Christian can heare this without detestation Your saying that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c seemes to signify that we haue as great reason to belieue what is delivered by humane History or Tradition as that which is testifyed or revealed by God since you pretend to belieue that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus is the word of God and yet affirme that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight which we know only by humane tradition as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate which we learne from scripture If you grant this as it seemes you expressly doe I suppose your ground must be that which you express Pag 36. N. 8. that the Conclusion alwayes followes the worser part as if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me but by a messenger that is not so my considence of the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour and therfor because we know only by morall certainty as you speake in the same place that scripture is the word of God and that the contents therof were revealed by God and confirmed by Miracles our belief can be proportionable only to those morall inducements or humane tradition which being as great that there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered c we haue as great reason to belieue that as this If this be your meaning aÌ„d vpoÌ„ this ground theÌ„ I inferr which hither to I haue not so absolutely done that Christian Faith with you is not only fallible and not absolutely certaine but also is no more yea as I haue proved less certaine though it be testifyed by God than if it had bene testifyed or affirmed to be true by men only because all must depend on and be exactly measured not by the difference of Humane and divine testimony but wholy and only by the meanes or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our vnderstanding And this must be the cause which moves you to say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate because the Motives are a like though the testimony of God and of men be different Or if you say that when we haue the same motiues to belieue that God testifyes a thing and that man doth testify it we haue greater reason to belieue what is testifyed by God than what is testifyed by man then you contradict what yourself say that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate Howsoever I must still conclude that seing according to your Principles and express words we haue as great yea as I haue proved greater reason to belieue there was a Caesar Pompey c than Jesus Christ what will it availe vs in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith that all Points necessary to be believed are contayned in Scripture if in the meane tyme we haue as great reason to belieue what is related in prophane Storyes as what is revealed in scripture 46. A sixt Errour you teach Pag. 67. N. 38. I may beliâ—ue even those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly as â—f those Books which were never quâ—stioned At least I haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the examples of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excise such their doubting or denyall And Pag. 69. N. 45. The Canon of Scripture as we râ—â—eyue it is builded vpon Vniversall Tradition For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine neither do we vrge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue But this is not all For to the words of Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9. That according to the sixt Article of the English Protestants which sayth In the name of Holy Scripture we do vnderstand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church the whole Booke of Esther must quit the Canon and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied You answer Pag. 68. N. 43. When they say Of whose Authority there was never any doubt
in the Church they meane not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any tyme doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not vnâ—versall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receaue them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and Authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing that Gods Church from which we receaue Holy Scripture is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost than these your Assertions and pernicious Errours which yet do naturally result from the Opinyons of those Protestants who deservedly laughing at the pretended private spirit of rigid Calvinists and yet denying the infallibility of the Church are driven to such Conclusions as you publish and for which those others had disposed the Premises For if the Scripture be receaved vpon the Authority of the Church considered only as a company of men subject to errour and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost who can blame one for inferring that if those men once doubted of some Bookes of Scripture such books cannot chalenge so firme a belief as others in which all haue alwayes agreed Though even these in which all haue agreed can never arriue to be believed by an infallible assent of Divine Faith while these men though never so many are believed to be fallible 48. But to come to your Errour If it be granted that we belieue some bookes of Scripture more vndoubtedly then other by reason of a greater or less consent and so giue way to more or less in the belief of Gods word we shall soone come to end in nothing For why may not those bookes of which somtyme there was doubt and were afterward receyved for Canonicall in tyme loose some voices or sussrages and by that meanes come to be discanonized You teach that we haue not infallible certainty but only a probability for any part of Scripture how farr then shall we be removed from certainty for those bookes which participate of that probability in a less and less degree The common Doctrine of Protestants is that Scripture became a totall Rule of Faith when the Canon was perfited because they cannot determine with certainty in what particular bookes necessary Points are contayned If then some parts of Canonicall Scripture be more vndoubted than others in case some fundamentall points chance to be set downe only in these others it followes not only that they cannot be so certaine of the Truth of those necessary Points as of other truths not fundamentall or of no necessity at all being considered in themselves but also that they cannot be certaine at all since it is supposed that they do not belieue those bookes with absolute certainty but with a lower degree even of a probable assent Your pretended Bishop of London D. King in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Jonas sayes comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture are both odious and dangerous The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy Fundation With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from tyme to tyme receyved reverenced and embraced the whole volume of scriptures Marke that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture and that the children of Christs family with an vnpartiall respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures Yourself Pag 68. N. 42. say that the controversy about scripture is not to be tryed by most Voyces and what is the greater number of which we haue heard you speake in the next N. 43. that it was sufficient to prevaile against the contrary suffrages but only most voyces or consent in one judgment seing you attribute infallibility or the certaine direction of the Holy Ghost to no number great or small And as for the greater authority which in the same N. 43. you ascribe to one part more than to another what can it be in your Principles except greater learning or some such kind of Quality nothing proportionable to that authority on which Christian Faith must rely Take away the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and few for number even one single person may for waight haue as good reason for what he sayes as a great multitude for the contrary There is scarcely any part of scripture which hath not bene Questioned by so many as would haue made men doubt of the works of Cicero Livie c as we see men doubt of some workes which haue gone vnder the name of Old Authours because for example Erasmus or others haue called them in Question vpon meere conjecturall reasons as seeming difference of Stile or the like If then men haue not presumed to doubt of scripture as they would haue done of other Writings it is because they belieue Gods church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition or Definition I haue proved that in your grounds we haue greater certainty for what is related in humane storyes then for the contents of the most vndoubted Bookes of scripture What strength then can those Books of scripture haue which you receaue with a less degree of belief 49. You Object Pag 67. N. 36. and 38. Some Saints did once doubt of some parts of scripture therfor we haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse their doubting or deniall 50. Answer This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judg as will appeare after I haue first told you that by this forme of arguing we may now be saved though we belieue no part of the whole Bible because the tyme was when no part of it was written We may now adhere to many old Heresyes condemned by the whole Church which before such a condemnation or definition Saints might haue held without damnation or sinne We may now reject the Faith of Christ because many were Saints and saved in the Law of Nature and Moyses without it Yourself Pag 280. N. 66. affirme That what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough That the same errour may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who haue meanes and neglect to vse them Howsoever we Catholikes are safe by your owne words since we haue the example of Saints in Heaven and holy Fathers as is confessed even by Protestants for those Practises and Doctrines which you will needs call Errours beside S. Bernard S. Bonaverture and others whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven and therfor by your owne rule you haue no warrant to damne vs having such examples either to justify or
Constantinople and the Greek Rapsody of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees though they were receyved in Africa as Canonicall by the Decree of the African Councell And therfor you were ill advised vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority to write Greg M or Magnus the great wheras he was no Pope but only Deacon when he first wrote those commentaryes vpon Job Thus farr Cha Ma 55. As for your demand whether before Sixtus Quintus his tyme our Church had a defined canon of scripture or not I Answer We had the same Canon then which we haue novv and vvhich the sacred councell of Trent hath set dovvne Sess 4. decreto de Canonicis scripturis The church had alvvayes the same Canon that is she never declared by any decree any bookes to be Apocryphall at one tyme vvhich she admitted for Canonicall at another One Councell may omitt or not mention some booke vvhich another specifyes but can never declare it to be Apocryphall or not canonicall to vvhich contrariety only private persons are obnoxious But yet although our church had not set do vvne the canō of scripture it is very improper for you to object then was your Church surely a most vigilant keeper of scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was scripture and what was not For do not Protestāts till this day disagree about the canon of scripture and so are not able to define vvhat is scripture and what is not yea they positively deny some books to be scripture vvhich others of them affirme to be Canonicall It is true I cannot properly say that for 1500 yeares they haue not defined any canon because they haue no such ancient being But I must say although they should last 1500 millions of yeares they vvould never be able to set dovvne any certaine canon as not having any assured ground for vvhich one part should yield to another And still I must be putting you in mynd of the difference betvveen Catholiks and Protestants that vve vvho believe the church to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost are sure that she cannot deceaue vs vvith false or Apocryphall scriptures nor obtrude any false canon vvheras you vvho rely vpon scripture alone and yet can haue no certainty vvhat is the true canon as appeares both by your mutuall disagreements and because you haue no certaine infallible meanes to knovv vvhat is true scripture can haue no security for your faith in regard you haue no certainty concerning the totall rule therof 56. Your other Demand Whether our Canon of scripture vvas that vvhich vvas set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it be vvell considered is to speake truth exoticall for to the demand vvhat books be Canonicall the direct and right Ansvver is that such or such books belong to the Canon of scripture for example Genesis Exodus Psalmes foure Gospells c vvhich Demand and Ansvver abstract from that other question about different Translations and Editions And vvho vvill aske vvhether the Septuagint or Aquila or Luther Calvin Beza Castalio set out a different Canon of scripture I meane for those bookes in which they agree that they are Canonicall and yet it is notorious that their Translations of the same canon or books of scripture are most different Or if you will haue these demands to be all one seing both the Hebrew and Greeke books are corrupted as Calvin confesses your answer to your owne Demand must be that no true canon of scripture can be found and then woe be to Protestants whose Faith and salvation depends vpon the true canon of scripture If your Demand be about the Edition of Sixtus and Clement I Answer They sett forth no different canon but the selfsame to wit those books which before their tyme made vp the canon of scripture And as for the edition of Sixtus it is no good dealing in you to doe in this as you did concerning the words of S. Gregory concealing the large and cleare Answer which Cha Ma gaue to the same objection made by Potter Part. 2. Chap. 6. N. 3. where by the Authenticall Testimonyes of Persons aboue all exceptiō he shewed that the Decree of Sixtus about his edition was never promulgated that he himself had declared diverse things to haue crept in which needed a second review and that the whole work should be re-examined which he could never do being prevented by death 57. But good Sr. Reflect I beseech you that in this and the like Demands you give deadly wounds to Protestants who profess to rely vpon scripture alone and yet cannot possibly haue any certainty what scripture is true or corrupted by the Hebrew or Greek Texts which they acknowledg to be corrupted and much less by Translations of Protestants who bitterly accuse one another of most grievous errours in their Translations as Cha Ma hath shewed Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 16. which I wish the Reader for the Eternall good of his soule to peruse and reflect that if scripture be the only Rule of his Faith and yet he either is sure that some Texts therof are corrupted or at least not sure but that they are so he cannot be obliged to belieue any one Text nor can in Matters of Eternity rely theron as in case divers meates were set before me wherof I know some to be poysonous and I haue no meanes to discerne them from the other I cannot safely touch any one of them But the matter passes in a far different manner with vs Catholiks as I haue often sayd and must often repeate We being sure that the church can neither approue any least corruption nor ground vpon it any Point of Faith and so a corruption in a true booke of Scripture can no more hurt vs then false Scriptures or Gospells which were vented in the primitive church could prejudice those Christians Nevertheless although as I sayd the church cannot approue any false translation yet she is not obliged at all tymes to declare one for Authenticall till all circumstances considered there appeare some necessity therof as the sacred Councell of Trent did by occasion of a multitude of pernicious Translations published by moderne Heretiks in favour of theyr heresies and for other just causes Luther himself Lib contra Zwing de verit Corporis Christi in Euchar was at length foroed to confess that If the world last longer it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councells and to haue recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now raigne 58. To that which you say in the same N. 29. suppose it had bene true that never any Booke after reteyving had bene Questioned how had this bene a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what moode or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly
suppose you will not deny but that he can and then seing one cannot be a Saint or a converted sinner or persever to the end except by free Actions of the will proceeding from Grace you must grant that the congruous and efficacious Grace of God may consist both with freedome of our will aÌ„d infallibility in Gods fore-sight I sayd that if freewill in the Church cannot stand with infallibility neither could it consist with infallibility in the Apostles Now I add your Arguments proue not only against the fallibility of the Church and Apostles but also of Christ our Lord in your wicked doctrine that he is not God nor Consubstantiall to his Father but only man and then your demands enter whether he were moved by his Father resistibly or irresistibly And the same answer you giue for Him must be given for his Apostles and his Church You say Pag 86. N. 63. God gaue the Wâ—semen a starr to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starr that was left to their liberty But this instance makes against your self for no man dare deny but that God so moved those Wisemen as he was sure they would follow the starr and performe that for which he preseÌ„ted it to their eyes and gaue light to their vnderstandings and efficacy to their wills that so our Saviour Christ might be preached to the Gentils by their meanes as S. Leo serm 1. de Epiphan saith Dedit aspicientibus intellectum qui praestitit signum quod fecit intelligi fecit inquiri He who gaue the signe gaue them also light to vnderstand it and what he made to be vnderstood he made to be sought after where the word fecit signifyes that God did moue them effectually and yet we haue no necessity to say that they were necessitated 66. By what we haue sayd is answered a wild discourse which you make Pag. 87. N. 95. about the Popes calling the Councell of Trent which I haue shewed might be done both freely and yet proceed from the infallible fore-knowledg and Motion of the Holy Ghost And what you say of the Pope may be applyed against the Apostles and other Canonicall Writters why they did delay so long to write Scripture and whether they were moved to it resistibly or irresistibly c. 67. I conclude that togeather with the Church you impugne the infallibility of Christ and the Apostles and consequently of their Writings which forces me to repeat that according to your Doctrine scripture cannot be any Rule of Divine Faith and much less a sufficient Rule though it were supposed to contayne all necessary Points of Faith 68. Your 9. and most capitall Errour remaynes wherby you depriue scripture of certainty and infallibility and make both it and the contents of it lesse credible than the Books of prophane Authours and things related in them I meane your Assertion that we know Scripture to be the word of God not by an infallible private Spirit or by vndoubted criteria or signes appearing in Scripture it self as some other Protestants teach nor by the Church as infallibly assisted by the Direction of the Holy Ghost according to the Doctrine of Catholikes but from the Tradition of all Churches meerly as they are an Aggregation of men subject to Errour and as their consent is derived to vs by History and humane Tradition The private Spirit which must be tryed by Scripture and not Scripture by it and those pretended manifest signes found in Scripture it self are meere fopperyes confuted by the experience of so many learned men who hertofore haue differed and of Protestants who at this day differ about the Canon of Scripture and this forceth you to say to your Adversary Pag 69. N. 46. That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it self alone but by some extrinsecall Authority you need not proâ—e for no wise man dâ—nyes it And therfor wheras Protestants teach that the Church is only an inducement and not the certaine ground for which we belieue Scripture you in opposition to them affirme that those criteria or signes are only Inducements but that the ground to receyve Scripture is the Church in the manner I haue declared Out of these considerations you choose rather to be sacrilegious then seeme to be simple or no wise man and therfor teach that Christian Faith is not infallibly true but only probable Which being a doctrine detested by other Protestants and by all respectiyely who profess any Religion and Worshipp of God it followes that we must receyue Scripture from the Church of God acknowledged to be infallible This being once granted we must further say that Her infallibility is vniversall in all things concering matters of Faith and Religion neither is it possible to bring some other infallible Authority to proue the Church infallible in this Point alone For to omitt other Reasons you must proue that Authority by some other and so without end In the meane tyme we haue reasoÌ„ to bless our good God who hath forced ProtestaÌ„ts at length to see the foolery of a private spirit and the vanity of manifest signes pretended to be found evidently in scripture and so come either to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods church or with Atheists and enemyes of Christian Religion to deny the infallibility of Christian Faith by setling the truth therof vpon humane fallible tradition which say you Pag. 72. N. 51. is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men And Pag 53. N. 3. you teach that scripture may be judge of all controversyes those only excepted wherin the Scripture itself is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall Reason the only Principle beside scripture which is common to Christians Behold the Analysis or Resolution of Christian Faith into humane fallible naturall Reason But now let vs shew the falshood of this your Errour 69. First it is an argument of no small waight that both in this devise itself you contradict all Catholikes and Protestants and in the consequence which inavoidably followes it namely that the assent of Christian Faith is fallible wherin as I sayd you contradict all Christians and all men who profess any Religion 70. 2. Christian Faith is infallible as I haue proved which it could not be if the ground on which it relyes were fallible 71. 3. It hath bene proved that Christian Faith is the Gift of God and in all occasions requires the supernaturall influence of the Holy Ghost which yet could not be necessary if Faith were but a fallible conclusion evidently deduced from a Principle not in Christianity but in naturall reason as we haue heard you profess and vpon that ground affirme that Christian Faith is only probable not raysing our Vnderstanding aboue the probability of humane inducements wherin it differs froÌ„ the judicium credibilitatis of which Catholike Divines speake and by which
so all comes to be vncertaine vnless we admit some infallible Living guide 78. But here I must reflect how apt you are in every occasion to write contradictoryes You say of the places of Scripture wherby we proue the in fallibility of the Church that they are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other aâ—d made to speak as they do for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority You say that those places are more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible which signifyes that it was not possible and yet a few lines after you affirme that it is possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it Is the same thing not possible aÌ„d possible or not possible aÌ„d yet not improbable Beside you say it is more likly those places which we alledg for the infallibility of the Church haue bene corrupted if it had been possible than any other aÌ„d made to speake as they do for our advantage Wherin you confess that actually some places of Scripture speake for our advantage and then who are you to controwle Gods Word and speak against those for whose advantage it speakes Morover you say no proof can be pretended for the infallibility of the Church but incorrupted places of Scripture where you signify that nothing can be proved vnless we know certainly what places be incorrupted Now I aske whether it was possible for vs to corrupt those places which we bring to proue the infallibility of the Church or it was not possible If it were not possible then you wrong vs in saying that it is both possible and not altogeather improbable that we haue done it If it be possible then as I sayd what certainty haue you that we haue not done it seing you say it is both possible and not improbable that we haue done so Or what certainty can you haue that others haue not done the like in other Texts for defence of their severall Doctrines 79. Lastly You still go vpon a false ground that we cannot proue the Church otherwise then by Scripture wheras we must first proue Scripture by the Church 80. 8. How vncertaine your kind of Tradition is appeares by your owne words which are such as no enemy of Christian Religion could haue vttered more to the prejudice therof than you doe Pag 90. N. 101. Where in the Person of a member of the ProtestaÌ„t Church of England you speake to Catholiks in this manner You haue wronged so exceedingly his Christs Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the confirmation of your new Doctrine which might giue vs just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones what Authority haue you but that of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her Who with forging so many false Storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the Faith of all Storyes Questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who haue brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the word of Christ ô portentuous vntruth 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 susptâ—ious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerfull I pray you what good Christians were there before Luther except Roman Catholiques and such as agreed with them And therefore what difference can you put between good Christians and Roman Catholicks Who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remay ne vncorrupted For if you take this Authority vpon you vpon the six Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that tyme did not vsurpe the same Authority vpon the Authors of the six last Ages before them and so vpwards till we come to Chrict himself Whose questioned Doctrines none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition but haue insinuated themselves into the streames by little and little some in one Age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embryos yet hatching and in the shell Thus you and then conclude Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farr from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude seeing we receiue 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 81. Now let the Reader consider 1. If the Roman Church and all those Churches which agreed with Her before Luther that is all true Churches of Christ be such a thing as he describes what can they contribute to make vp any part of his vniversall Tradition Yea she must needs make it suspected for false fallacious fraudulent And then what Tradition will remayne creditable or even considerable The Greeke Church agreed and at this day agrees with Catholiques against Protestants as is manifest and confessed by learned Protestants for which cause they did directly refuse to joyne with Luther and his Associates The Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines either hold the Doctrine of Eutyches which even Protestants detest as a damnable Heresy or vse Circumcision or for the rest agree with the Greek and Roman Church and they can contribute little to your Tradition I desire the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned C 5. from N. 48. to 54. were he will find clearly demonstrated what I haue now sayd of the Greek and other Churches Since then you blast the credit of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her against Protestants there will remayne no Tradition at all 82. 2. You say That we by forging Miracles Might giue just occasion had you no assurance of them but our Authority to suspect the true ones of Christ and by forging so many false storyes and false Authors haue taken a faire way to make the faith of all Storyes questionable if you had no other ground for your belief of them but our Authority This is your Assertion or Major Proposition to which if an enemy of Christian Religion will subsume and add this Minor which is evidently true But you can haue no assurance of Miracles and ground for belief of Storyes but by our Testimony or Tradition as I haue clearly proved What will be the Conclusion but this That there is just occasion to suspect true Miracles of Christ and Question all Storyes Behold the effect of your Tradition This I confirme out of what you
not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture and all Christian Religion May not the enemyes of Christian Religion triumph and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned whether they be not corrupted Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith as if we were sure they were corrupted 86. 6. You say Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather Conclude Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or interpretation of Scripture But still I must aske from what true Christian church could England or any member of any church in England receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ except from the Church of Rome and such as agreed with Her You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther and yet you will not deny but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church seing you profess to belieue the Scripture which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ vpon the sole Authority of the church and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion and say seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture Having thus pondered your sayings and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition And therfor 87. 9. We haue shewed how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject if your Assertions were true But besides this I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption Pag 273. N. 56. You alledg Charity Maintayned saying Part. 1. Chap 5. N. 17. VVhen Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Churches one pure the other corrupted For to faine this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of Historyes which are silent of any such matter and then you reply in these words The ground of this is no way certaine nor here sufficiently proved For wheras you say Historyes are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant vncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath bene so perniciously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all records should remayne which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually to proue the necessity of a Living Judge who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility takes away all doubt or possibility of feare least the want or corruption or alteration or contrariety of any writings or records may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes For till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition whether there may not be extant some Storyes Records or Tradition contrary to that which he followes there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written which if they had bene extant and had come to his knowledg perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition which now he embraceth nor that all should be recorded which was done and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue nor finally whether the Tradition on which he relyes hath not bene corrupted and therfor sit only to lead him into and keepe him in errour Which yet is further confirmed by your words Pag 266. N. 35. Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages in some country or other there were not alwayes some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal And then Sr why may not you mistake in thinking that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind 88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver Pag 130. N. 6. where impugning some who as you say Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church to be the only way to decide Controversyes You haue these words VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receaue not the decree therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it I beseech you apply your owne words thus what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue it not therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it By this doctrine of yours those Heretiks who as you confess Pag 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus did accuse the Scriptures as if they were not right and came not from good Authority might haue defended themselves by saying the whole Church had not receyved them because they themselves were part of the Church and did not receiue them According to this account your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing because whosoever dissent from the rest will be ready to say that they also are part of the whole and so no Tradition contrary to them can be vniversall just as you say that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church because they did not depart from themselves and they were part of the Church Also Pag 362. N. 41. You overthrow your owne Tradition while you write thus Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles be a very great Argument of the truth of it Yet there is no certainty but that truth even Divine truth may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity and so loose this Argumēt and yet not want others to justify and support itself For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts or a conclusion evidently arising from them It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce But good Sr. seing that the Canō of
Scripture or what Books be CaÌ„onicall is not one of those principles which God hath written in mens harts nor a conclusion evidently arising from them nor is contained in Scripture in express termes or deducible from it by apparent consequence it being your owne Assertion Pag 69. N. 46. that it need not to be proved that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone but by some extrinsecall Authority for no wise man denyes it it followes that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles Now as you say there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth even a Divine truth constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity So also may the Canon or Bookes of Scripture which can haue no other argumeÌ„t to justify and support them beside Tradition run the some hazard by the wickednenss of meÌ„ and so come to loose vniversality aÌ„d perpetuity aÌ„d so cannot justify aÌ„d support any Divine truth And as true Books may come to loose so false ones may by the wickedness of meÌ„ come to gaine authority vnless we be assured of the contrary by the belief of an infallible Guide which can never admit of Apocryphall of false Scripture 89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words Pag 14. N. 14. were you say Though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church Yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them Out of these words I argue thus It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages that the whole Church of this age for example accept a Booke for Canonicall vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages as Pag 152. N. 44. You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this that whatsoever was practised or â—eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme that there alwayes must be Historyes and records which one Age is to receyve from another to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them and by them know the true Books of Scripture Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition especially if we consider that vnlearned men cannot possibly know whether there be such sufficient ground and Historyes as are necessary to make it Vniversall and yet all sorts of people must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone But with vs the case is farr different who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church For we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age as well as in another are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past as you are for your humane fallible Tradition in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible is perpetually indued whith such Notes Prerogatives and Evident Signes as make her manifest in every age and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion and among other Points for this in particular that herself must alwayes be Visible as shall be declared herafter more at large though it be also true that it may be evidently shewed for every age by all kind of Witnesses as well friends as Adversaryes that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being and Prosessours of her Doctrine with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours and this so manifestly that it can no more be denyed than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles yea or that there have bene Emperours Kings Writers Warrs or such publike things as no man can deny But you who ground your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages and every one of your sect must either despayre of salvation or els procure to be learned and versed in all Historyes though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself as I haue proved out of your owne words and to the rest I will add your saying Pag 361. N. 40. The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad 〈…〉 all the Apostelique Churcher with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same Doctrine not at a demonstration but only as a very probable Argument If this be so seing your vniversall Tradition can I hope be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable and no demonstratiue Argument especially if we reflect that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme to haue fallen into many great and gross errours even concerning the Canon of Scripture and consequently that the first vniversall Tradition from the Apostles came to be altered and corrupted and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath fayled if your Heresy were true that the whole Church hath fallen into errour 90. 12. Pag 149. N. 38. You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a Man as Christ that he taught such Doctrines that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods Word vnless I be taught it So then the church is though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words and can find nothing but contradictions and finally that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture You say I must learne of the Church or of some part of the Church or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall And in particular That Scripture is the Word of God I askeâ— what you meane by the Church or some part of the Church Is your meaning that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God Against this you profess every where that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches and Times from the Apostles At least will you
to wit the word of God who therfor will not deny his supernaturall concurse necessary to every true act of Divine Faith Otherwise in the ordinary course there would be left no meanes for the Faith and salvation of vnlearned persons from whom God exacts no more than that they proceed prudently according to the measure of their severall capacityes and vse such diligence as men ought to vse in a matter of highest moment All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke or wrote yea it is not certaine that every one of those thousands whom S. Peter converted did heare every sentence he spoke but might belieue some by relation of others who stood neere 13. Three things then are necessary and sufficient for exercising an Act of Faith 1. That the ground itself be infallible 2. That it exist in that case for example that God haue indeed revealed such a truth 3. That he who believes proceed prudently Now to determine in particular when one may be judged to proceed prudently depends on divers circumstances of Persons capacity instruction c. What I haue exemplifyed in Scripture may be applyed to Divine Revelation in generall which could not be the Formall Object or Motiue of our Faith if it colud beare witness to any least vntruth and yet we may belieue by an Act of true Faith that which we only prudently belieue that God hath revealed if indeed he hath revealed it And so the first ground which I layd is true that the Foundation vpon which we finally rely must be absolutly certaine whatsoever the particular meanes by which such Foundation or Principle is applyed may chance to be This I say is true speaking of particular persons cases motives and as I may say in actu exercito without touching for the present other Questions 14. This ground being premised I demonstrate That both learned and vnlearned Catholikes haue a firme Foundation vpon which they build their Faith and that Protestants whether they be learned or vnlearned haue no such ground 15. First we haue proved that Scripture doth not contayne all necessary Points of Faith and therfor for those necessarie Points which are not to be found in Scripture they must either be ignorant of them or erre by denying them or els belieue them vpon the Authority of the Church which they expressly and obstinately hold to be fallible and so we may apply against them your owne words Pag 148. N. 36. where you expressly grant that vnless the Church be Infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing and if it were in any thing then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to believe all that I haue to belieue one and therfor must either do vnreasonably in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Out of which words it followes that you cannot believe any one Point of Faith for the Authority of the Church and that it were vnreasonable in you to doe so and an vnreasonable and imprudent Act cannot be supernaturall or be pleasing to God nor proceed from the speciall motion of the Holy Ghost as every Act of Divine Faith must doe Therfor since Protestants rely vpon Scripture alone which contaynes not all necessary Points of Faith the best learned amongst them must be destitute of somthing necessary to salvation and then what shall we say of the vnlearned who depend on their teachers But it is cleare that Catholikes learned and vnlearned who belieue the infallibility of the church may learne of Her and by tradition or the vnwritten word of God what is not particularly contained in his written word or Scripture 16. But here as in divers other occasions I must vnexpectedly yet necessarily make some stay Charity Maintayned Part 1. Chap 3. N. 15. Pag 94. hath these words If I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture receyved for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferr That if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Poynts we could not belieue Her in any one and so not in propounding Canonicall Bookes or any other Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall At these words you take exception Pag 148. N. 36. and say By this Reason your Proselyts knowing you are not infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you yourself must not belieue yourself in any thing because you know that you are not infallible in all things Indeed if you had sayd we could not rationally belieue her for herowne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence which you proue in the next words alledged by me aboue For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing c 17. Answer You haue no reason to cavill at the words of Charity Maintayned which are very cleare and containe no more then what we haue heard yourself expressly teaching That an Authority subject to errour can be no firme Foundation of my belief in any thing And therfor He sayd expressly if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Points we could not belieue her in any one Where you see he speakes of Infallibility which is destroyed by any one least errour and consequently cannot possibly be vnderstood otherwise than of believing the Church for her owne infallibility and Authority and being so vnderstood yourself profess willingly to grant the consequence which is the very same which Charity Maintained did inferr and even out of the very same reason which you did giue Besides he speakes expressly of Scripture and the Church in order to the proposing of Canonicall Scripture or believing other Points of Faith Fundamentall or not Fundamentall which require a Proposer vniversally infallible as yourself grant And so to answer your Objection no body can belieue me nor I can belieue my self for my owne authority in matters which require certainty and Infallibility as all Points of Faith doe vnless I were believed to be infallible in all things for the same reason which we haue heard yourself giue that an Authority subject â—o errour can be no firme FouÌ„dation of my belief in any thing But you say there is no coÌ„sequeÌ„ce in this Argument which you say is like to myne the dâ—vell is not infallible therfor if he sayes there is one God I cannot belieue him No Geometrician is infallible in all things therfor not in the things which he demonstrates N. N. is not infallible in all things therfor he may not belieue that he wrote a Booke entituled Charity Maintayned 18. Answer It is very true that I cannot
belieue the Divell with an infallible Assent for his owne Authority in saying there is one God vnless I belieue him to be infallible But if he proue what he sayes by some evident demonstration I do not belieue him for his Authority but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself proved by such a demonstration and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent yea and as I may say feeles to his cost that there is a God but whether you can belieue him with certainty when exteriourly he vtters that or any other Point meerly for his Authority is nothing to our purpose though it seemes you can best diue into his intentions by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue where you say The Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keepe him constanâ— to it or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe you should add and as yourself did before you were a Papist and be afrayd of following Luther as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion it having bene done already in a litle Treatise intituled Heantomachta or Mr. Chillingworth against himself and in an other called Motives Maintayned Certainly you haue not observed that saying We must not bely the Divell 19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian whom in those things which he demonstrates we do not belieue for his Authority but for evidence of his demonstration which is infallible neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority that he hath written such a Booke but by evidence and infallibility offense And here you should remember your owne words Pag 325. N. 2. Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and somthing more but he that believes many tymes does not know nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue he doth never know Therfor according to your owne Doctrine he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration doth know and not belieue for the Authority of another And who sees not that if I belieue a thing for some other reason and not for the Authority of him who affirmes it I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority but I assent to it for that other reason Yea if we consider the matter well when I know one affirmes a thing and yet do not belieue it for his Authority but for some other Motiue or reason I may be sayd of the two rather to disbelieue then belieue him at least I do not belieue him at all for that Point but either some other Person or for some other Reason Wherfor You do but trifle when Pag 138. N. 36. You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words You say we cannot belieue the Church in propounding Canonicall Books if the Church be not vniversally infallible if you meane still as you must doe vnless you play the Sophister not vpon her owne Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church but vpon vniversall Tradition If you meane not at all and that with reason we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it In these words I say you do but trifle For you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority which is so true that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister and what then shall we think you play in imputing to him such a sense wheras you deny not but that his words may be taken in a good sense as indeed they could not be taken otherwise Beside I do not at all belieue the Church when I chance to belieue that which she proposes if I belieue it for some other reason and not for her Authority and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say I belieue the Church at all when I belieue for some other reason as I haue declared aboue You say Pag 35. N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature in any one thing which God requires men to belieue we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd If now one should turne your owne words against yourself and say Indeed if you had sayd we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake I should willingly grant your consequence But if you meane not at all I deny it Would you not say that he did but cavill Remember then Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne seceris But let vs goe forward 20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes and both those kinds of Protestants is this You say Pag 87 N. 94. The Scripture is not so much the words as the sense If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture to them it cannot be Scripture nor the infallible Word of God But I haue proved that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes or Rule Therfor we must inferr that by pretending to follow Scripture alone they do not rely vpon any certaine ground and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule And this being true even in respect of the learned the Faith of the vnlearned who depend on them cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes believing their Pastors who rely on the Church which both is and is believed to be infallible their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible The like Argument may be taken from Translations Additions Detractions and Corruptions of Scripture of which the learned Protestants can haue no certainty and much less the vnlearned and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you touch the very generall grounds of your Faith and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one 21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man desirous to saue his soule whether in Prudence one ought not to preferr the Roman Church and those who agree with Her before any companie of Sectaryes who disagreeing among themselves cannot all belieue aright and yet none of them is able to satisfy why their particular sect should be preferred before others who pretend Scripture alone no less then they Of
which differences the vnlearned amongst them being not able to judg they cannot prudently joyne themselves rather to one than another Sect as for the same reason they being not learned cannot prudently conceiue themselves able to convince vs out of Scripture no more than they can judg what company of Sectaryes is to be preferred before all other seing the learned Protestants cannot convince one another especially if we remember that they assigne for vnderstanding the sense of Scripture many Requisites and Rules which exceed the capacity of the vnlearned who therfor must resolue either to be of no Religion at all which no man indued with the common light of reason can resolue or els must judg that they may safely and ought constantly to imbrace the Catholique Roman Religion which if they doe their proceeding being prudent God will not be wanting to affoard them his supernaturall concurrence for the production of an Act of Faith even though we should suppose that the particular immediate reasons which induce them to this resolution be not of themselves certaine and infallible but yet such as all circumstances considered are prudent and the best that occurre in such an occasion Beside No Man of ordinary discretion knowledg and prudence though otherwise vnlearned can choose but haue heard that the Roman Religion is very ancient that divers learned Protestants thinke very well of it and of those who dy in that profession yea expressly grant that divers whom they belieue to be Saints in Heaven did liue and dye in our Religion they see evidently that we agree among ourselves that great Miracles haue bene wrought in our Church with the happy success of converting Infidells to Christian Religion Wheras contrarily for every one of the sayd considerations it is evident that Protestants cannot chaleng them yea they profess that before Luther the world was in darkness and that their reformation began with him that we hold no Heretike whether Protestant or other can be saved without repentance and yet as I sayd that the most learned among Protestants grant Vs salvation that they haue no peace among themselves nor can ever hope for it that they profess Miracles to haue ceased that they do not so much as endeavour to convert Nations and yet every Christian believes that Christ commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospell to Nations for their conversion these things I say and divers other are so manifest that the vnlearned cannot be ignorant of them and therfor no Protestant can prudently adhere to any particular Sect. 22. You in particular who teach that Christian Faith is but probable must profess that even learned Protestants haue no infallible ground for their Faith For if they had such a ground and did certainly know it to be such their Faith would be infallible which you deny But this head of vncertainty doth nothing at all touch Catholikes learned or vnlearned who vnanimously believe Christian Faith to be absolutely certaine and infallible Out of these grounds I come now to answer your Objections 23. You aske Pag 93. N. 108. How shall an vnlearned man ignorant of Scripture know watch of all the Societyes of Christians is indeed the Church 24. Answer This Demand must be answered by yourself who profess to belieue the Scripture for the Authority of the Church as for the chief ground of such your belief and other Protestants acknowledg the Church to be an inducement to belieue it How then do you and they independently of Scripture or before they belieue Scripture know which of all the Societyes of Christians is indeed the Church The Church was before Scripture and might still haue continued without Scripture in which respect there cannot want evident Notes to distinguish between the true and false Church even for the vnâ—â—arned if they will apply themselves to cooperate with the occasions and Grace which Goind his Goodness never failes to offer 25. But then say you ibidem seeing men may deceive and be deceyved and their words are not demonstrations how shall he be assured that what they say is true Answer First the Notes and Markes of Gods Church are so patent that every one may evidently see them vpon condition that he be not negligent in an affaire of so great moment 2. I haue shewed already that the Meanes by which infallible grounds of Faith are applyed to every one need not be of themselves infallible as also I haue declared the difference between vnlearned Catholikes and Protestants in this behalf Now the true Church being once found your other Objections are of no force For that Church infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost cannot faile to make Decrees and conserue or renew and communicate them to faithfull people as need shall require A thing not hard to be done in the Catholike Church professing obedience to one supreame Head the Vicar of Christ and Successour to S. Peter who by subordinate Prelates and Pastours can easily and effectually convey Decrees Ordinations and Lawes to all sorts of Persons 26. You say Pag 94. N. 108. even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning divers things whether they be de fide or not But this can apport no prejudice to the vnlearned yea nor to the learned so that they all stand prepared and resolved to belieue and obey what the Church shall determine which as I haue often sayd she will be sure to doe when it shall be necessary for the good of soules and to doe it so as her voyce shall be clearly heard and vnderstood by one or more decrees and declarations Thus we see Generall Councells haue declared divers Points of Faith after they began to be controverted by some and found meanes to notify them to Catholikes of all sorts I beseech you what Christians after the ancient and sacred Councell of Nice were ignorant that Arius and is followers your progenitours were condemned for denying our Saviour Christ to be the Son of God true God and equall to his Father Or what Catholike in these latter tymes is ignorant that Heretikes hold and haue bene condemnd for holding divers Errours contrary to the belief and practise of the Catholique Church as making the signe of the Crosse The Reall presence and Adoration of our Saviour Christ in the B. Sacrament the Sacrifice of the Masse Prayers to the Saints in Heaven and for the Soules in Purgatory Worshipping of Images Seaven Sacraments observing of set feasts and fasts vow of Chastity for Persons in holy Orders and Religious men and woemen and the like 27. You vrge Pag 94. N. 108. How shall an vnlearned man be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of Decrees made by the Church then of plaine Texts of Scripture especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceyved so obscurely that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them And then they are written all in such languages which the ignorant vnderstand not and therfor must of necessity rely herin vpon the vncertaine and
conforme to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England Neither can you answer that your Arguments proceed only against the ground we goe on that intention of the Minister is necessary to the validity of Sacraments For if indeed it be not necessary then you must grant that those vncertaintyes which you exaggerate against our Baptisme Ordination c are but imaginary feares as yourself say Pag 358. That some mens perswasion that there is no such thing as an indeleble Character hinders them not from having it if there be any such thing no more than a mans perswasion that be has not taken Physick or Poyson will make him not to haue taken it if he has Though by your leaue this instance of Physick c is not convincing because they who deny an indeleble Character may perhaps out of an obstinate loue to their Heresy and hatred against our Doctrine resolve and intend rather not to receiue the Sacrament than to admit any thought that there is such a thing as a Character which you call a creature of our owne making a fancy of our oâ—ne Imagination and then really they receaue neither Character nor Sacrament and so if intention be not necessary the want of it cannot possibly make any Sacrament invalide If it be necessary you haue destroyed your owne Hierarchy while you impugne ours vpon this ground that we hold the intention of the Minister to be necessary Nay seing not only all Catholikes but some learned Protestants also teach intention to be necessary at least you cannot be sure that it is not so and then againe you must either renounce your owne Objections or vndermine and make doubtfull your Hierarchy Which you must do also in another respect For though you take our Catholique Doctrine about the necessity of intention as one ground of vncertainty for the validity of our SacrameÌ„ts yet you mention other Points which are common to vs and Protestants as that determinate Matter and Forme are essentiall to Sacraments and your English Church in particular in the Administration of Baptisme expressly saith If they which bring the infants to the Church do make such vncertaine answers to the Priests questions as that it cannot appeare that the child was baptized with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which are essentiall parts of Baptisme then let the Priest baptise it in Forme aboue writteâ— concerning Publike Baptisme c And Pag 76. N. 64. You say To be certaine that one is a Priest he must know first that he was baptized with due Matter 2. With the due Forme of words which he cannoâ— know vnless he were both present and attentiue And N. 65. He must vndertake to know that the Bishop which ordayned him Prtest ordayned him compleatly with due Matter and Forme And N. 60. He must vndertake to know that the Bishop which made him Priest was a Priest himself And N. 67. He must protend to know the same of him that made him Priest even vntill he comes to the very fountaâ—ne of Priesthoed For take any one in the whole traine and Su cession of Ordainers and suppâ—se him by reason of any defect only a supposed and not a true Priest then according to your Doctrine and according to the Doctrine of Protestants also if the defect fall vpon the Matter or Forme he could not giue a true but only a supposed Priesthood and they that receyve it of him and againe they that derive it from them can giue no better than they receyved receyving nothing but a name and shadow can give nothing but a name and shadow and so from age to age from generation to generation being equivocall Fathers beget only equivocall Sons Thus you And it is Gods just judgmeÌ„t that the certainty aÌ„d validity of ProtestaÌ„ts OrdinatioÌ„s aÌ„d their whole Hierarchy of Bishops should be made questionable seing they could endure the publishing of your Booke wherin the certainty of Christian Faith is denyed 31. But now to say somthing by this occasion concerning the Intention in administration of Sacraments whatsoever you are pleased to say yet in true judgment there is less danger of any defect in that behalf than in any other for example of Matter or Forme which may be vitiated both by the malice of the Minister and also against his will wheras a due Intention is wholly in his owne power and will and as I may say costs him nothing and we suppose him to be a man not a Divell delighting in the damnation of Soules without any self interest or if in your Charity you will suppose him to be so full of malice it is easy for him to vitiate the Forme For seing the validity of the Sacrament doth not oblige him to speake with a voice loud and audible to others he may pretend to speak the forme secretly and yet either say nothing at all and so omit the Forme or els say somthing els or if he pronounce most of the words audibly he may with an vnder-voyce interpose some words which will destroy the Forme as if for example he say openly I Baptize the and secretly put in this word Not in the Name of the Father c And this he may be induced to doe by your doctrine that Intention is not necessary and so the want of it will not invalidate the Sacrament and therfoâ— to be sure of some defect to be committed in that which is essentially necesary even in the opinion of Protestants he will procure to corrupt the matter oâ— forme or both 32. Besides as I began to say aboue some chief learned Protestants teach the necessity of Intention in the Ministers of Sacraments Pag 326. N. 3. you stile Mr. Hooker a Protestant Divine of great Authority and no way singular in his opinions and yet this very man who you say is not singular in his Opinions in his sift Booke of Ecclesiasticall Policy Sect 58. sayth That in as much as Sacraments are Actions religious and mysticall which nature they haue not vnless they proceed from a serious meaning and what every mans private mynd is as we cannot know so neither are we bound to examine therfor alwayes in these cases the knowne inof the Church generally doth suffice and where the contrary is not manifest we may presume that he which outwardly doth the worke hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God Consider how this your Divine of great Authority affirmes that Sacraments cannot be so much as religious and mysticall actions which are Attributes essentiall to Sacraments vnless they proceede from a serious meaning and that this meaning hath noe difficulty seing it suffices that one intend to exercise that Action as Christians are wont to doe which intention we may in a manner say a man cannot chuse but haue For though he were a Pagan yet if he intended to do what Christians are wont to doe in that particular action it were sufficient Covell also in
vncertaintyes For the Objection returnes vpon you many wayes 38. Answer I assure you Charity Maintayned hath never felt nor ever will feele any such repentance as you mention having never bene taught to repent him self of a good deed as it seemes you confess his to haue bene while you say to him I feare you will repent the tyme Do you feare He will repent the Object of feare is some apprehended evill and therfor your feare that He will repent must imply that it were ill done of him to repent and consequently that he must persist in what he wrote and so He may well do for any thing you bring to the contrary all your Objections being already answered by the Ground which I layed That more certainty and strength is required in the generall Principles of Faith than in that particular meanes or Act wherby such Principles are applyed in Practise to the Person of every one as for example we are certaine by Revelation certitudine Fidei that he who persevers vnto the end shall be saved but that every particular person doth performe on his part what is requisite to persever we haue no revelation nor absolute certainty God having so disposed that we ought to work our salvation with feare and trembling The further reason wherof may be because if the generall Grounds or Meanes appointed by God were in themselves fallible and vncertaine this want would be ascribed to God himself as if he had not given vs sufficient Meanes for our salvation but for the particular application made by free Acts of men or by Meanes of second causes all the defect is imputed to them alone and in no wise to God who on his part hath provided Meanes certaine and sufficient as will appeare herafter by answering all the particulars which you alledg wherby it will be found that no vncertainty can be derived from the generall Principles or Grounds of our Faith as it must proceed from the very Grounds of Protestants but only from the fallibility infirmity or fault of men in particular cases 39. To this Ground I add this other briefe consideration That it is one thing to treate whether or no a Sacrament be valid and an other whether the defect of an invalid Sacrament may be supplyed by some other Meanes For example Intention of the Ministers is vniversally necessary to the validity of a Sacrament in the sense I haue declared but whether or when or to whom Sacraments be so necessary that they cannot be supplyed by other Meanes must be resolved by descending to particular cases as will appeare after a while and will shew the weakness of the Objections which you extend to no fewer numbers or Sections than the 63.64.65.66.67.68.69.70.72.73.74 And yet all are the same which we haue toucht and answered already as that we cannot be sure that he who absolves the Penitent or consecrates the Eucharist is a true Priest because we cannot know that he or any other was baptized with due Matter Forme and Intention and for the like reasons we are not certaine that the Bishop who ordained him was a true Bishop But as I sayd these vncertaintyes neither are nor can be so great as you make them nor do they touch the Principles of our Faith but are as it were matters of Fact and concerne only the application of those generall Grounds to particular occasions for which we haue no Revelation or certainty of Faith which assures vs only that there shall be alwayes in Gods Church a succession of Bishopes and Priests and this is enough to shew that your Objections are but exaggerations and panick feares as if of many millions not twenty should be true Prists which in effect is to say that God hath no Providence over his Church but leaves all things to chance or the weakness and possible malice of men You teach that we cannot be certain of the Decrees of Councells because we are not certaine that the Pope who must confirme them is true Pope you should say the contrary There haue bene true generall Councells Therfor they who celebrated them were true Bishops and the Pope who confirmed them was true Pope Thus also we are sure true Priests haue Power to absolue repentent sinners and true Bishops to or dayne Priests but not that this or that in particular is a true Priest or Bishop or that every particular Penitent hath true sorrow Otherwise every one must be sure that he is in state of grace and salvation making no distinction between the vertue of Hope and Faith but must with absolute certainty belieue and not only hope that his sins are forgiven And therfor Charity Maintayned did not object against Protestants who belieue Christian Faith to be absolutely infallible and with whom He had to doe and not with such as you are whatsoever vncertainty but sayd expressly that their Faith did rely vpon an vncertaine Ground and therefore could not be infallible And it is strang that you N. 68. should speake to vs in this manner I hope you will preach no more against others for making mens salvation depend vpon fallible and vncertaine Grounds least by judging others you make your selves and your owne Church inexcusable who are strangly guilty of this fault aboue all the men and Churches of the world I say it is strang this should be objected by you that we make mens salvation depend vpon vncertaine Grounds who profess that no Article of Christian Faith is to vs certainly true and therfor though one were certaine that he did vse all meanes prescribed by Christian Religion for attaining salvation yet he might misse therof which is plaine blasphemy putting our want of salvation not vpon any defect in men but vpon the vncertainty of Christian Religion and of the Grounds which Allmighty God hath provided for the belief therof You say indeed N. 70. that we belieue the Church to be infallible only vpon prudentiall Motives but this we vtterly deny For we belieue this Point for the same Reason for which we belieue other Articles of Christian Faith which I haue proved Chap 1. to rely vpon most infallible Grounds 40. In your N. 71.72 you object no more than what I haue answered more than once That although particular men may be moved to accept Christian belief for some immediate reason or Motiue not infallible of it selfe yet still their Faith may be resolved into an infallible Ground which is Divine Revelation proposed by the Church of God certainly acknowledged to be infallible as I haue shewed and that no particular Translations can prejudice vs who submit to the Church which God will never permit to be deceyved by them 41. For the vulgate Translation of which you speake N. 74.75.76.77.78.79 I need say for the present only this That it being approved in the sacred Councell of Trent we are sure that it cannot contayne any least Point against Faith or good manners And if by the fault of the Printers or by any other meanes any
regeneration Tit 3. And Baptisme is a meane or instrument by which is made the communication of Christs benefits For by Baptisme Christ cleanseth and sanctifyeth Ephes 5. Yea he saith expressly The testimonyes of Scripture are manifest which as they cannot be denyed so they ought not to be shifted of Ephes 5. Clensing her with the laver of water in the Word Joan 3. Vnless one he borne againe of water c. Act 22. Be Baptized and wash away thy sinnes 1. Pet 3. Speaknig of water c He sayth Baptisme being of the like forme of the Arke of Noë saveth vs. And he concludes These being most manifest tectimonyes which expressly ascribe Efficacy to Sacraments and declare what that Efficacy is are not to be perverted by tropes from their simple and native signisication which the proper signification of the words giveth and so the ancient Fathers haue vnderstood these testimonyes simply as they sound Behold the Doctrine of a chiefest Protestant proved out of Scripture and confessed to be the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers interpreting Scriptures so as our Catholike Doctrine comes to be approved by Protestants by Scripture and by the Ancient Fathers and by Protestants interpreting Scripture all which Poynts are further taught by the Protestant Urbanus Regius In 1. Part Operum in Cathechismo minori Folio 105. confessing that the Scripture and the Authority of the ancient Church constraine him to belieue that children dying vnbaptized are damned The same Doctrine is delivered by Sarcerius ād by Confess Augustana The Protestants of Saxony and sundry other Protestant Writers as may be seene in the Tripl Cord Chap 20. Sect 4. Pag 456. 61. Now we may reflect First seing these Protestants for their Doctrine of the necessity of Baptisme rely vpon Scripture as indeed the words of Scripture are as cleare for this Point as any can be I would gladly know what certaine Ground you or any man can haue that so many learned Protestants to say nothing of all Fathers Antiquity and moderne Catholike Writters haue erred in this their Interpretation of Scripture Is it not your owne Rule That when men truly desirous to know the truth and of vpright meaning I hope you belieue Protestants to be such at least most of them differ about the sense of Scripture it is a signe that such places are not evident And seing we now treat of a Point which at least is necessary to be knowen whether or no it be necessary otherwise we cannot be assured that we want nothing necessary to salvation it followes that Scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowen and therfor we must haue recourse to a Living Judg. 2. Seing so many of those whom you call brethren teach our Catholique Doctrine whatsoever you object against vs makes no less against them 3. Your saying That Baptisme is a casuall thing and in the power of man to conferr though yet many learned Protestants hold Baptisme to be necessary is a prophane speech as if God had not a most particular Providence in disposing all rhings for the good of his Elect particularly in things necessary to salvation Why do you not likewise object against all Christians their making the salvation of every one depend on the preaching of the Gospell of which our Saviour spoke when he also commanded his Apostles to conferr Baptisme Matth 28.19 which you may also say is a casuall thing and in the power of man to doe or omitt as if God could not be sure how to order infallibly all events or effects vnless they fall out by necessity Nay I say more Our God is so good and desirous that all be saved that if men did strictly concurre and cooperate with his holy Providence and Grace in all occasions things would so fall out as that mediatè or immediatè proximè or remotè one way or other there would never want sufficient Meanes for infants to be baptized So farr is this matter from being a casuall thing And still we must consider that infants dying without baptisme are deprived of salvation not for the fault of those who omitted to Baptize them nor properly for want of Baptisme itself but for Originall sin once contracted and never abolished by that meanes and instrument which God hath appointed for that End and Effect as he might in his Justice haue left all Mankind in their sins without providing for them a Redeemer according to the proceeding which he held with the apostating Angells and therfore this Doctrine That children dying without Baptisme cannot be saved implyes no cruelty absurdity or strangeness to those who believe other Poynts of Christian Faith Especially if we consider that although they shall not enjoy felicity in Heaven yet they shall lead their life with much content by contemplation and also by considering that perhaps if their Creatour had granted them longer life yea and procured them to be baptized they might haue dyed in actuall deadly sinne and haue bene damned in Hell with Poena Damni Sensus both of being deprived of the beatificall Vision and of insufferable torments of sense and what greater absurdity is it that infants should Misse of salvation for want of intention in the Minister then if they had not bene in the occasion of not being baptized at all by reason of some other impediment And therfor I see no reason why we should for such cases of want of Intention in the Minister or of due Forme or Matter haue recourse to any extraordinary Meanes which should not be extraordinary but ordinary if God did provide it whensoever the infant is not baptized vpon whatsoever occasion or impediment and so indeed Baptisme should never be absolutely necessary to salvation Besides seing there can be no certainty of extraordinary meanes the matter will still remaine doubtfull and objections must be answered some other waie 62. But you will object That at least we differ from Protestants in suspending the salvation of infants on the Baptizers Intention 63. Answer I haue shewed that some learned Protestants of chief note require the same intention which we doe and also that every iudicious man will certainly judg that there is no danger of invalidity in Baptisme for want of intention but rather in respect of the Matter or Forme and yet not only the Protestant Church of England teaches that the Matter and Forme are necessary for Baptisme but also divers other Protestants deliver the same Doctrine as may be seene in The Triple Cord Pag 457. and the thing is evident of it self to every one who vnderstands the termes of Matter and Forme If men may be damned for their Actuall sinnes though they be supposed to be invincibly ignorant of necessary or fundamentall points of Faith as Potter confesses why may not infants be deprived of Heaven for originall sinne though theire want of Baptisme be not immediatly voluntary to any 64. Your last Objection N. 69. is against Our making he Reall Presence of Christ in
Fundamentall Points but that Particular Churches ād Persons may But in your doctrine there cā be no such distinction The vniversall Church with you is infallible because if she erre Fundamentally she ceases to be a Church as also Particular Churches if they erre Fundamentally cease to be Churches and the same I say of particular Persons and so particular Churches and Persons shall be no less infallible than the vniversall Church which is contrary to the doctrine of other Protestants and to your owne words also Pag 106. N. 140. We yield vnto you that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points because as we conceaue God hath promised so much Now you will not say that God hath promised so much to particular Churches and Persons and therfor you must put a difference between the vniversall and particular Churches which difference cannot stand with this your speculation that the Church is only in fallible in some points because if she erre in them she ceases to be a Church which exoticall kind of infallibility agrees to all particular Churches and persons 87. Hence it is that Protestants ground the Perpetuily of the vniverfall Church not vpon a probable belief or hope that it shall be so or vpon Her actuall not erring Fundamentally as you do but vpon some antecedent Principle namely the Promises of our Saviour Christ and Assistance of the Holy Ghost Dr. Potter in particular whom you vndertooke to defend speakes very clearly to this purpose Pag 105. in these words The whole Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly erre either in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it For such an errour must needs disvnite all the Members from Christ the Head and so dissolue the Body and leaue Him no Church which is impossible Mark that he sayth not as you doe The Church cannot erre in any necessary Article because therby she should cease to be a Church but contrarily seing it is impossible that she can cease to be a Church and leaue Christ no Church she cannot possibly erre in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it With what modesty or conscience do you alledg here Dr. Potter as if he did not disagree from you The contrary wherof will appeare more by his words Pag 153.154.155 The Church saith he Vniversall is ever in such manner assisted by the good spirit that it never totally failes or falls of from Christ For it is so firmely founded on the Rocke Matth 16.18 that is on Christ the only Fundation Cor 3.11 that the gates of Hell whether by temptation or persecution shall not prevaile against it And that you may see how far he was from dreaming of your Chimericall infallibility he cites Bellarmine de Eccles Lib 3. Cap 13. saying That the Church cannot erre is proved out of Scripture Matth 16. vpon this rocke I will build my Church and then goes on in these words The whole Church cannot so erre as to be destroyed For then our Lords promise here Matth 16.18 of Her stable edification should be of no value Obserue this And what he hath afterward in these words The Church vniversall hath not the like assurance from Christ that she shall not erre in vnnecessary additions as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith what is Fundamentall and necessary It is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemyes But she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error That the Church be never robbed of any truth necessary to the being of the Church the promises of Christ assure vs. Behold First The Church may erre in not Fundamentall but cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts wheras you say she may erre in both 2. That the reason why she canot erre in Fundamentall Points is because she is firmely founded on the rocke and if she did faile our Lords promise of her stableedification should be of no value And therfore the Lord will even secure her from all capitall dangers and of this the promises of Christ assure vs. And this as I sayd is the common doctrine of Protestants Wherby it appeares that the Church is not sayd to be infallible in Fundamentall Points because she should perish by every such Error but contrarily because she is assisted by the Holy Ghost never to erre in such Points she shall never be destroyed in direct opposition to you who say that she may erre and by erring be destroyed What a kind of Syllogisme must be framed out of this your Doctrine in this manner The Church is infallible or cannot erre in Fundamentall Points because if she did so erre she should cease to be a Church But she may cease to be a Church Therfore she is infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentalls You should in ferr the direct contrary Therfore she may erre and is not infallible I beseech you of what value should our Saviours promises be according to your doctrine That the Church should not erre at least in Fundamentall Poynts of Faith No. You say she can erre in such Points In what then Only in this admirable worke that if she did erre she should be sure to pay for it by perishing For say you To say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implyes contradiction and is all one as to say the Church while it is the Church may not be the Church This then is the effect of Gods Promises that that shall be which implyes contradiction to be otherwise that is Gods Power and Promise shall only effect that two contradictions be not true as that if some Living sensible creature be a beast he shall not be a man Is not this to be sacrilegiously impious against God and his holy Promises and Providence Is the Church so built vpon a Rocke assisted by the Holy Ghost that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her only to this effect that if she erre she shall perish that is the Gates of Hell shall in the most prevalent way that can be imagined prevaile against her What foolish impietyes are these Let vs therfore inferr out of these Premises That there must be alwayes a true visible Church knowen and discernable from all false ones and therfore of one denomination That even according to Protestants this true Church must be infallible in all Fundamentall Points That if she be infallible in Fundamentall Points we must belieue Her to be infallible in all even according to your owne grant as I haue shewed out of your owne words And so finally we must conclude that there must be alwayes a visible Church of one denomination and infallible in all Points of Faith as well Fundamentall as not Fundamentall 88. And by what hath bene sayd I confute and retort your saying Pag 150. N. 39. A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to
this Objection or invention no certainty can be had what the Apostles or other Preachers teach or teach not with infallibility Nor will there remaine any meanes to convert men to Christianity For every one may say that not the Poynt which he apprehends to be false was confirmed by Miracles but those other Articles which he conceaves to be true And so no Heretike can be convinced by Scripture which he will say is not the word of God except for his opinions and so nothing will be proved out of Scripture even for those things which are contayned in it Neither will anie thing remayne certaine except a generall vnprofitable impracticable Notion that the Apostles taught and the Scripture contaynes some things revealed by God without knowing what they are in particular which would be nothing to the purpose and therfore as good as nothing 8. But yet dato non concesso That the Apostles and the Church are to be believed only in such particular Points as are proved by Miracles c we say that innumerable Miracles haue bene wrought in consirmation of those particular Points wherin we disagree from Protestants as may be seene in Brierly Tract 2. Chap 3 Sect 7. subdiv 1. For example of Prayer to Saints out of S. Austine Civit L. 22. C. 8. Worship of Reliques out of S. Gregory Nazian S. Austine S. Hierom S. Basil Greg Turonen Theodoret the Image of Christ Reall presence Sacrifice of Christs Body Purgatory Prayer for the Dead The great vertue of the signe of the Crosse Holy water Lights in the Church Reservation of the Sacrament Holy Chrisme Adoration of the crosse Confession of sins to a Priest and extreme Vnction which miracles Brierly proves by irrefragable Testimonyes of most creditable Authors and Holy Fathers wherof if any Protestant doubt he can do no lesse for the salvation of his soule than examine the matter either by the 〈◊〉 of this Authour or of other Catholique Writers and not only by 〈…〉 clamours and calumnyes of Protestant Preachers in their Ser 〈…〉 Writers in their Bookes And let him take with him for his 〈…〉 thefe considerations 1. That these Miracles were wrought and testifyed before any Protestant appeared in the world And therfore could not be fayned or recorded vpon any particular designe against them and their Heresyes 2. That even Protestants acknowledg the Truths of such Miracles Whitaker cont Duraeum Lib 10. sayth I do not thinke those Miracles vaine which are reported to haue bene done at the monuments of Saints as also Fox and Godwin acknowledg Miracles wrought by S. Austine the Monke sent by S. Gregory Pope to convert England through Gods hand as may be seene in Brierly Tract 1. Sect 5. and yet it is confessed by Protestants and is evident of itself that he converted vs to the Roman Faith But not to be long I referr the Reader to Brierly in the Index of whose Booke in the word Miracles he will find full satisfaction if he examine his allegations that in every Age since our Saviour Christ there haue bene wrought many ad great Miracles both by the Professors of the Roman Faith and expressly in confirmation of it This I say and avouch for a certaine truth that whatsoever Heretikes can object against Miracles wrought by Professors of our Religion and in proofe if it may be in the same manner objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour and his Apostles and that they cannot impugne vs but joyntly they must vndermine all Christianity 9. To these two considerations let this Third be added that it is evidently delivered in Scripture Miracles to be certaine Proofes of the true Faith and Religion as being appointed by God for that end Exod 4.1 when Moyses sayd They will not belieue me nor heare my voice God gaue him the Gift of Miracles that they might belieue God had spoken to him 3. Reg 17. Vers 24. That woman whose sonne Elias had raised to life sayd Now in this I haue knowen that thou art a man of God and the word of our Lord in thy mouth is true Christ Matt 11. V. 3.4.5 being asked whether he was the Messias proved himself to be such by the Miracle which he wrought The blind see the lame walke the lepers are made cleane the deafe heare the dead rise againe Which words signify that Miracles are not only effectuall but necessary to proue the truth of a Doctrine contrary to what was receyved before Yea Joan 5.36 Miracles are called a greater testimony thē John Marc vlt they preached every where our Lord working withall and consirming the Word with signes that followed 2. Cor 12. V. 12. The signes of my Apostleship haue beene done vpon you in all patience and wonders and mighty deeds Hebr. 2.4 God withall testifying by signes and wonders and divers Miracles But why do I vrge this Point You clearly confess it Pag 144. N. 31. in these words If you be so infallible as the Apostles were shew it as the Apostles did They went forth saith S. Marke and preached every where the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood or of such doctrine as is partly true and partly false The Aposiles doctrine was thus confirmed therfore it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine 10. Now put these Truths togeather Many and great Miracles haue bene wrought by professours of the Roman Religion and particularly in confirmation of it Miracles are vndoubted Proofes of the true Church Faith and Religion What will follow but that the Roman Faith and Religion is entirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine Wherfore men desirous of their Eternall salvation may say confidently with B. S. Austine Lib de Vtilit credendi Cap 17. Dubitabimus nos ejus Ecclesiae c. Shall we doubt to rest in the bosome of that Church which with the acknowledgment of mankind hath obtained the height of Authority from the Apostolique Sea by Succession of Bishops Heretikes in vaine barking about her and being condemned partly by the judgment of the people partly by the gravity of Councells partly by the Majesty of Miracles To which not to giue the first place is indeed either most great impiety or precipitous arrogancie 11. Behold the Notes of the true Church Miracles Succession of Bishops Which perpetuall Succession of Bishops is the Ground and Foundation of the Amplitude Propagation Splendor and Glory of the Church promised by God ād foretold by the Prophets as may be seene Isaiae Chap 60. Vers 22. Chap 2. Vers 2. Chap 49. Vers 23. Chap. 54. Vers 2.3 Psalm 2.8 Dan 2.44 Which Promises some learned Protestants finding evidently not to be fulfilled in the Protestant Church which before Luther was none and being resolved not to embrace the Catholique Church wherin alone those Promises are clearly fulfilled fell
so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And Tom 5. Annot breviss he sayth Dost thou who art but One and of no account take vpon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many and all Mark all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those Arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councells the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom do not these Mountaines of Arguments these clouds yea these seas of examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deepe in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had Colloq mensall Fol 158. never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried Praefat in Tom German Jen in eternall oblivion 15. Another Argument to proue that Protestants are Schismatiks at least for dividing themselves from one another is delivered by Charity Mamtayned Part 1. N. 38. Pag 203. For if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines farr different from his and divided themselves from him must be reputed Schismatiks and the like Argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions and subdivisions Which reason is confirmed out of Dr. Potter Pag 20. affirming that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errours of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teaches as I shewe elswere that their difference from the Roman Church is not in Fundamentall poynts and therfore seing Protestants differ in Points at least not Fundamentall a reconciliation between them must be impossible and damnable Which yet may be further proved out of Potter who Pag 69. confesseth that even among Protestants the weeds thistles tares and cockle are not perfectly taken away nor every where alike Now I aske whether by reason of these weeds Ptotestants must separate from one another or no If they must there will be no end of Schismes and Divisions and what a Church or Churches are those from which one is obliged to divide himself If they must not separate from one another by reason of errours or weeds it was not lawfull for them to divide theÌ„selves from vs vnless they will returne to say that Protestants are obliged to separate both from Catholikes and from one another making eÌ„dless Schismes and Divisions not only lawfull but necessary For which Chilling worth opens a fayre way Pag 292. N. 91. in these words If the Church were obnaxious to corruption as we Protestants pretend it was who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in and prevaile in the 〈◊〉 or 4. or 3. or 2. age What is this but to say that in those primitiue ages for ought we know men were obliged to forsake the Communion of the vniversall visible Church 16. To these reasons we may yet add what Potter saith Pag 131 and 132. That the Donatists and Novatians were just branded for Schismatiks for opposing the Church and that it will never be proved that Protestants oppose any Declaration of the Catholike Church and therfore are vnjustly charged either with schisme or Heresy But M. Doctor I beseech you informe vs whether Luther and his followers did not oppose the doctrines and declarations of all Churches extant before them and consequently of the vniversall Church And therfore you are justly charged both with Schisme and Heresy according to your owne ground 17. Other Arguments Charity Maintayned alledges of which we shall haue occasion to treate herafter Particularly that is to be observed which N. 47 Pag 221. et seqq he proves to wit that Luther and the rest departed from the Roman Church and were Schismatiks for such their division from her Communion And because some Protestants are wont to produce certaine persons as members of their Church harity Maintayned demonstrates that the Grecians Waldenses Wickless Huss Muscovites Armenians Georgians cannot be of the same Church with Protestants and therfore that Luther and his followers opposed the doctrine and separated themselves from the Communion of all Christian Churches which cannot be done without Schisme and Heresy vnless men haue a mynd to deny that there are any such sins as Schisme and Heresy And here I must not omit that Chillingworth thought it not wisdome to answer the discourse of Charity Maintayned proving that the aforesayd people Waldenses Wickleff c were Protestants but dissembles that matter A signe that he judged those vulgar allegations of Protestants to be wholy false and impertinent 18. Now then we having proved that Potters evasions cannot cleare Protestants from Schisme we must examine what you can say whose answers being confuted this truth will remaine firme Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme 19. Your mayne and capitall answer consists in three propositions set downe Pag 264. And 265. N. 30 3â—.32 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme That imposing vpon men vnder payne of excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practâ—sing known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation And that this is the cause which Protestants alledge to justify their separation from the Church of Rome That to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church at least as Dr. Potter vnderstands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requïsites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her liturgies and publike worship of God 20. These be his remembrances and memorandums as he calls them but indeed are conceypts borrowed out of a letter of Mr. John Hales of Eaton written to a private friend of his as I am most credibly informed by a Person well knowen to them both at that tyme and who sawe the letter itself And further affirmes of his owne certaine knowledg that Mr. Hales was of a very inconstant judgment one yeare for example doubting of or denying the Blessed Trinity the next yeare professing and adoring the same The substance of all consists in the first That only a causeless separation from the externall communion of any â—hurch is the sin of Schisme For if you aske the cause excusing from Schisme their separation from vs he will answer The Church was corrupted and it is not lawfull to communicate with any Church in her corruptions This I say is his mayne ground with which his other Momorandums must stand or fall For if either the Church cannot erre or els her errours and corruptions be not such as can yield just cause to leaue her externall communion the Prelates of Gods Church may impose vpon maÌ„ vnder paine of excommuniation a necessity to remaine in
her communion and by Ecclesiasticall censures oblige them to doe that which otherwise they are by divine Law most strictly obliged to performe And further if the separation be causeless the separatists from the externall communion of the Church do jointly leaue the Church either by professing a different Faith or denying obedience both to the Church and to God who commands vs not to forsake the communion of the Church faith and obedience being those requisites which say you constitute a man a member of a Church And so all is reduced to your Memorandum a causeless separation from the externall communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme Yourselfe say expressly Pag 267. N. 38. The cause in this matter of separation is all in all And why then would you entangle men with I know not what other vnnecessary and vntrue remembrances But necessity hath no Law You cannot giue any reason why you leaue vs aÌ„d yet why Protestants must not leaue one another since it is cleare that they in disagree Points at least not fundameÌ„tall and therfore you fly to other chifts besides the cause which yet you say is all in all though Pag 267. N. 40. you expressly say that the cause or the corruption of our Church is not the only or principall reason of your not communicating with vs. A pretty congruity the cause is all in all and yet is not the principall reason 21. Now to that pretended maine ground of yours It is not lawfull to professe known errours or practise known corruptions I say That either we may consider what is true in it selfe or what in good consequence followes from the principles of Protestants and in particular of Potter and Chillingworth or as the Logicians speake ad hominem which are two very differenr considerations and yet by the assistance of Gods holy grace I will shew that according to both of them Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme 22. For the first It is most true in itselfe that in no case it can ever be lawfull to dissemble Equivocate or Ly in matters of Faith and he shall be denyed in Heaven who in that manner denyes God on earth But as I began to say aboue from this very ground we proue that the Church cannot erre in such matters For seing all Fathers Antiquity and Divines haue hitherto proclaimed with a most vnanimous consent that to forsake the externall communion of Gods Visible Church is the sin of Schisme it followes that there can be no cause sufficient for such a division and consequently that she cannot fall into such errours or corruptions as may force any to leaue her Communion And therfore as we proue a priori that the Church cannot fall into errour because she is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost So as it were a posteriori or ab absurdo we must inferr that she is infallible and not subject to errour because otherwise we might forsake her Communion and men could haue no certainty who be Heretikes or Schismatikes but all would be obliged to leaue all Churches seing none are free from errour and so remaining members of no Church on earth could hope for no salvation in Heaven 23. For this cause in the definition of Schisme our Forfathers never put your limiting particle causless well knowing and taking it as a principle in Christianity that there could be no cause to forsake the Communion of Gods Church as in proportion if one should say it is not lawfull to divide ones selfe from Christ without cause he should insinuate that there might be some cause in some case to do so and yet Potter Pag 75. affirmes That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himselfe Durum telum necessitas It could not be denyed that Luther departed from all Churches and so there was no possible way to avoyde the note of open Schisme but by inventing a new definition of that crime and supposing the possibility of a thing impossible that there may be just cause of separating from the Communion of the Church But while they labour to avoide Schisme they broach a most pernicious Heresy that indeed there may be any such just cause verifying what S. Hierome sayth vpon those words of the Apostle which a good conscience some casting off haue suffered shipwracke Though schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from Heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to itselfe that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason That is that their divsion may not seeme to be a causless separation as you speake in your new definition But I pray you heare S. Austine Lib 2. Cont Petil Chap 16. saying I object to thee the sin of Schisme which thou wilt deny but I will straight proue For thou dost not communicate with all Nations To which if you add what he hath Epist 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their communion from the communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the communion of all Nations vpon just cause and Lib 2. Cont Parm Cap 11. There is no just necessity to divide vnity And Lib 3. Cap 4. The world doth securely judge that they are not good who separate themselves from the world in what part of land soever If I say you consider these sayings of S Austine the conclusion must be that Luther who divided himselfe from the communion of the whole world and all Nations was a Schismatike seing it is not possible that any may haue just cause to do so as S. Austine affirmes Obserue also what this same glorious Doctour sayth Lib de Vnit Eccl Cap 4. Whosoever belieue that Iesus Christ came in flesh in which he suffered was borne c yet so differ from his Body which is the Church as their communion is not with the whole whersoever it is spread but is found separate in some part it is manifest that they are not in the Catholike Church Was Luthers communion with the whole which was not with any one place or person Dr. Lawd Pag 139. sayth plainly The whole Church cannot vnâ—versally erre in absolute Fundamentall Doctrines And therfore t' is true that there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Which must be vnderstood that absolutely there can be no cause at all For it were ridiculous to say There can be no just cause to make a causeless Schisme or division seing if there be cause it is not causeless And it is to be observed that the Reason he gives why there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church is because she cannot erre in absolute Fundamentall doctrines which supposes both that she may erre in Points not Fundamentall and that errours in such points cannot
that the chiefest malice in Heresy consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object or Truth great or little Fundamentall or not Fundamentall but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall And therfore he must either say that Obedience is to be yielded in both which were most absurd or in neither And that it may be securely yielded in both we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells which Catholiks belieue to be infallible but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants affirming them to be fallible even in Fundamentall Points and consequently private men are neither obliged nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith for which Morall Certainty is not strongh enough but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture or reason and may oppose their Decrees nor can ever obey them against their Conscience And if all Councells be fallible what greater certainty can I receaue from the second than from the first if we meerly respect their Authority For if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration I am not mooved for the Authority of the Councell but for that Reason which seemes good to mee And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells 46. Sixthly He saith A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity From whence I inferr that seing Luther opposed the whole Church and so many Generall Councells held before his tyme he is to be presumed to haue opposed them not for any manifest Fundamentall but at most for Errours not Fundamentall to speake as Protestants do For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind in which Points not Fundamentall he sayth men are to yield Obedience and therfore He and all those who formerly did and now do follow his example are to be judged guilty of Schisme 47. Seaventhly He saith It may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome that a Generall Councell thus erring should stand in force till evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants that Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points For if evidence of Scripture or a Demonstration may be so inevident or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours which in the grounds of Protestants are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing when they talke of evidence of Scripture but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident which he desires should be so And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind as not to see that which is evident And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells I will not vrge what he meanes by a Demonstration when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable and as I may say an Evident Evidence and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith it must be evidence of naturall Reason which is common to all men And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce But as I sayd Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word which they make vse of to their purpose Besides Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall than it is in some which are Fundamentall and therfore all who belieue Scripture are obliged to belieue those no less than these vnless men will say that it is not damnable to belieue and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture and therfore in this there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture in which case it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some and I hope it appeares by what I haue now said out of it that we may be saved that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs against Protestants as we can desire and they feare 48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose who speaking of Generall Councells saith Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake As also we will consider Potters words Pag 165. speaking thus We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally 49. But let vs proceed in proving that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall not to be of any great moment and much less to be destructiue of salvation It is cleare that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith nor hinder thē from being Brethren and of the same Church And why because such Points are small matter as Whitaker speakes Cont ◠Quest 4. Cap 3. Things in different and tittles as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle Matters of no great moment as Andrewes Respons ad Apolog Bellarmin Cap 14. No great matters Apology of the Church of England Matters of nothing as Calvin calls them Admonit Vlt Pag 132. Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr in locis Classe 4. C. 10. § 65. Formes and phrases of speech as Potter speaks Pag 90. a curious nicity Pag 91. 50. Out of all which we must conclude both out of the words deeds and principles of Protestants First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not
wherin this separation of one part of the Church from another consists But seing you distinguish Schisme from Heresy and affirme that separation by Heresy consists in Errours against any necessary Article of Faith Schisme must consist in a separation from the externall Communion of that Church with which one agrees in all necessary Articles of the Christian Faith and consequently agreement in Fundamentall Articles is not sufficient to constitute men members of one Church seing it may stand with Schisme taken in the most proper sense which you say separates one part of the Church from another And therfore whosoever divides himselfe from the externall Communion of the Church is divided from the Church it selfe and so your Memorandum that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is not the same thing is a meere vngrounded speculation Here also that which I haue often told you offers it selfe to be insinuated that Errours in Points not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded as testifyed by God become Fundamentall that is damnable and are true Heresyes as Potter grants and as I shewed out of your owne words they who are guilty of such Errours obserue not that Obedience which is required as a Condition for remission of sins and salvation and yet you require Obedience as one of those requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church and therfore a separation by Errours in Points not Fundamentall is not pure Schisme but more it is Heresy and separates a man from the Church though he beleeue all Points which are Fundamentall of themselves so that as I saied agreement in such Points which are Fundamentall of themselves is in no wise sufficient to make one a member of the Church yea and beside agreement in beliefe both of Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points it is essentially required that he be not divided from her externall Communion and yourselfe say Pag 264. N. 30. A causlesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme which were not true if the same beliefe of all Fundamentalls yea and vnfundamentalls also were of it selfe sufficient to denominate and conserue one a member of the Church For then he should remaine such a member by that beliefe alone though he did causelesly divide himselfe from the externall Communion of the Church And therefore we must conclude out of your owne grounds against your last Memorandum that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church is the same thing And thus having confuted your Remembrances wherby you pretended to excuse yourselfe from Schisme let vs now see what you can object against vs. 76. Object 1. You say Pag 132. N. 11. If you would at this tyme propose a forme of Liturgy which both side shold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this liturgy you might haue some colour then to say they renounce your Communion absolutely 77. Answer What a Chimera do you fancy to yourselfe and propose to vs First you must suppose that the Roman Church holds all essentiall and Fundamentall Points of Faith otherwise she should cease to be a Church and so you could not communicate with Her as with a Church neither could there be any Liturgy common to her and Protestants and then why do you so often blame Charity Maintayned for affirming that Potter acknowledged vs to hold all substantiall and Fundamentall Points of Faith which now yourself must suppose and also Pag 269. N. 45. you say That men of different opinion may be menbers of the same Church Provided that what they forsake be not one of those things wherin the essence of the Church consists And therfore no forme of Liturgy can be sufficient to warrant your joyning with vs if we erre in Points Fundamentall of themselves 78. Secondly Seing no Forme of Liturgy could be lawfull in case it did containe any Fuudamentall Errour and that you confesse it impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall it followes that you cannot know what forme of Liturgy is lawfull and so in practise you cannot communicate with one another nor with vs nor with any Church at all as not knowing whether in their Liturgy there be not contained some Fundamentall Errours yea no man can frame any set Forme to himselfe but may feare least it containe some such Errour Neither can you avoide this difficulty by saying as you are wont to doe that whosoever believes all that is evident in Scripture is sure to belieue all Fundamentall Points For we speake not now in generall of what every one believes for himselfe but in practise of a particular Forme of Liturgy wherin he communicates with others which cannot be lawfull if it containe any Fundamentall Errour as well it may for ought you can know who profess not to know what errours be Fundamentall vnless for a short Forme of Liturgy you will propose the whole Bible which in your grounds is the only way to know all Fundamentall Points 79. Thirdly Some Points may be necessary for the constitution of a Church which are not necessary for every private person as for example to know who are lawfull Governous of and Ministers in the Church and consequently by whom the publike Liturgy is to be lawfully read to the people For seing we belieue your pretended Bishops in England to be no more then meere Lay men as those Protestants who stand for Episcopacy must hold the same of Ministers not ordayned by Bishops what Liturgy can be found common to Catholiks and Protestants or to Protestants among themselves seing there can be no agreement who be Lawfull Ministers for celebrating the Liturgy officiating reading publike Service and preaching to the people 80. Fourthly I must put you in mynd that you and Potter affirme and the thing in it selfe is very certaine and cleare that it is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith not to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God though in it selfe not Fundamentall and therfore there can be no Communion with any Church which denyes any such Point because she ceases to be a Church Seing then you say we erre in such Points and diverse learned Protestants hold with vs against their pretended Brethren and Protestants say that different Sects among themselves disagree in such Points all these must hold that all the rest disagreeing from them are no Church and consequently not capable of their Communion How then shall all such no churches agree in one Forme of Liturgy common to all Churches Since they differ in the very essence and being of a Church which is prerequired to all Communion of Churches in any lawfull Forme of Liturgy They may be a company of men but not one community Communion or Church of faithfull Believers 11. Fifthly You teach that minimum vt sic is to belieue That God is and is a rewardeâ— Would you haue a Liturgy so short as to containe only this point for feare of Errour
and great sins Wheras Charity Maintayned did not speake of holyness but of true Faith which is essentiall to the Church and every member therof as justifying Grace and Charity and Holyness in this sense are not since many grievous sinners are true members of the Church We profess I grant in the Creed The Holy Catholique Church yet not so as every member of it must needs be holy by justifying Grace but for many other important reasons which are excellently declared in the Roman Cathecisme ad Parochos vpon that Article of the Creed 88. You aske Where doth Dr. Potter acknowledg any such matter as you pretend Where doth he say that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word or due administration of the Sacraments Or where doth he say that from which you collect this you wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to salvation 89. Answer It shall be proved herafter to your small credit that yourselfe Potter and other Protestants acknowledg the Roman Church to be a true Church and not to erre in any Fundamentall and Essentiall Point and it is cleare that she could not be a true Church vnless she had for the substance the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments which to be essentiall Notes of the Church and without which the Church ceases to be a Church we haue proved out of Protestants and then how can the Roman Church conserve the Essence of a Church if it want what is essentiall to a Church Indeed you are inexcusable to aske in this place this Question seing in that very place which you cite Charity Maintayned expressly alledges Potter seeking to free himselfe and other Protestants from Schisme because they do not cut off from the Body of Christ and hope of Salvation our Church which certainly they must doe vnlesse they belieue that shee wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to Salvation 90. In your next Page 264. N. 27. you speake thus to your Adversary In vaine haue you troubled your selfe in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greekes Waldenses Wickleffists Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the visible Church For all this discourse proceeds from a false and vaine supposition and beggs another Point in Question between vs which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greeke c must be always exclusively to all other Communions the whole visible Church 91. Answer Charity Maintayned being to proue that the Church of Rome that is all Visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chayre of Peter as he expressly declares himselfe was that visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed beside other reasons proves it by a sensible Argument ab enumeratione partium that there was no true Christian Church or Churches before Luther except either those which agreed with the Roman or which held wicked errours condemned by Protestants themselves which therfore they must deny to haue been members of their Church and therfore we must either say that Christ had no true Church on earth or els that it was the Roman and such as agreed with Her and consequently that Luther departed out of the Roman Church taken in that sense that is out of the Catholique Church there being then no other true Church Now what thinke you was this labour in vaine Certainly it was not whether we consider the end which I haue declared or another of no small moment connected with this which is as I touched aboue That wheras Protestants were wont to make ignorant persons belieue that before Luther they had some visible Protestant Church and to that end would be naming the Waldenses Wicklefists Hussits and such others Charity Maintayned demonstrated that those men held damnable Errours against both Catholikes and Protestants and in many Points agreed with vs against Protestants and therfore could not be Protestants though they casually agreed with them in some Points In the meane tyme Protestants haue no reason to giue you thanks for leaving them and in fact acknowledging that Charity Maintayned had evident reason for what he sayd and that the old plea of Protestants had no ground of truth 92. You say Charity Maintayned begs a Point in Question between vs which is that some Church of one denomination must be always exclusively to all other Communions the whole visible Church But with what modesty can you say this Seing Charity Maintayned was so farr from supposing or affirming some particular Church of one denomination to be alwayes exclusively to all other the whole visible Church that as you haue heard he expressly and purposely declared himself to speak of all true Visible Churches and not of the Roman Church as it is taken for the particular Diocesse of Rome and therfore that not any particular Church but all true Churches are the whole Visible Church 93. Object 3. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 151. N. 2. saith Because Schisme will be found to be a division from the Church which could not happen vnless there were always a visible Church we will proue that in all Ages there hath been such a visible congregation of faithfull people Against this you object Pag 254. N. 2. That 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 Schisme might now be and be a division from the present visible Church 94. Answer Charity Maintayned said truly That seing Schisme is a division from the Church it cannot happen for that is his express word but when there is a Church not always vnless there be always a Church never if never there were a Church If then for many Ages there was no Church there could not happen a Schisme in all those Ages The Fathers Doctours and Divines of all Ages speake and treat of Schisme as of a subject and sin which morally and ordinarily and always might happen and which de facto did happen too often as Heresyes did and were inpugned by the writers of every Age which they could not haue done if they had not supposed the Existence of a Church through all Ages and Tymes And much less would they haue done so if they had ever imagined that of sixteene hundred yeares and more there was to be no true Church for the space of a thousand within the compass of which tyme many of those Divines did liue and never dreamed that in Defining and frequent treating of Schisme they spoke of a thing only possible and not incident to their present occasions and so they had not in winter defined a rose which is your example Pag 260. N. 22. to proue that a thing may be defined though it be not existent which they were sure to see the next ensuing summer but rather a conceit little better than a Chimaera or a non ens which had once existed though they could not tell how short a
tyme and then disappeared as if it had never been And by this is answered what you object in the sayd Page 260. against the saying of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 165. N. 11. That all Devines by defining Schisme to be a division from the Church suppose that there must be a knowne Church from which it is possible for men to depart 95. Object 4. Pag 254. N. 4. you cite Charity Maintayned as saying thus That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme it is certainly consequent that all who persist in the division must be so likewise which say you is not so certaine as you pretend But the word certainly which you set downe as the word of Charity maintayned and vpon which you ground your Objection is not to be found in his words Pag 151. which you pretend to alledge Yet because the thing in it selfe is certainly true let vs heare what you can object to the contrary You say they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall do committ a great fault wherof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and no the vtmost of their power oppose a chang though to the former state when continuance of tyme hath once setled the present 96. Answer It is no less then great prophaness in you to make a parity between a Schisme from Gods Church which is intrinsecè and essentially vnlawfull and alterations in a Civill or Ecclesiasticall state for things accidentall and of their nature indifferent For if you suppose those alterations to be of their owne nature vnlawfull and sinfull they can never be innocent who continue them nor can any continuance of tyme establish them Luther and his followers separated themselves from the Church by sinfull profession of Faith contrary in many Points to the beliefe of all Churches for you suppose for the present that their separation was causeless and sinfull which is to be noted and will you say it is lawfull to continue in a false profession of Faith against ones conscience because others haue begun it How oftē do you profess that it is alwayes damnable to dissemble or speake against ones conscience in matters of Faith Well then if vpon supposition he be obliged to profess the whole Catholique Faith he must among other Points belieue that it is absolutely vnlawfull to communicate with Heretiks in their Sacraments and that there can be no just cause to liue out of the Communion of the Church and that it is vnlawfull either to begin or continue a division from Her and that they are obliged to returne to Her Communion And this I proue out of your owne words Pag 312. N. 112. it should be 113. where you speake to Charity Maintayned in this manner You spend a great deale of reading and witt and reason against some men who pretending to honour and belieue the Doctrine and Practise of the visible Church you meane your owne and condemning their forefathers who forsooke her say they would not haue done so yet remaine divided from Her Communion VVhich men in my judgment cannot be defended For if they belieue the doctrine of your Church then must they belieue this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therfore if they do not so it cannot be avoyded but that they must be a'vtocatacritoi Behold whosoever believes as we do must also belieue that they cannot continue this Schisme begun by others I wish all would reflect vpon this grant which evidence of truth hath drawne from you though it hath cost you a contradiction against your saying that a Schisme with vs might be begun with sin and yet they be innocent who continue it Your captious Words that Charity Maintayned should not haue written against these kind of men in a worke which he professes to haue written meerly against Protestants shall be answered in their proper place 97. Object 5. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 152. N. 3. said Charity vniteth all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body VVhich you say Pag 255. N. 6. is manifestly vntrue for many of them haue no Charity 98. Answer Some would say that it is hard to determine whether this objection hath more of the insolent or proud or malicious But I abstaine from censures What Charity Maintayned saied was not his alone but the Doctrine of all Divines and in particular of the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas whose express words he cited wherin 2.2 Quest 39. Art 1. in Corp he defines Schisme A voluntary separation from the vnity of that Charity wherby all the members of the Church are vnited Peccatum saith he Schismatis propriè est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intenditse ab vnitate separare quam Charitas facit In which words of this holy Doctour you haue both the affirmation of Charity Maintayned and the reason therof That as Heresy is opposite to Faith so Schisme to Charity and for that cause Heresy and Schisme are two distinct vices Otherwise how will you distinguish them In the same place as also N. 7. Charity Maintayned alledges S. Austine Lib. 1. de Fid ad Simp Cap 10. saying Heretiks corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiks by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity although they belieue what we belieue And Lib 1. de Serm Dom in Mon Cap. 5. Many Heretiks vnder the name of Christians deceaving mens soules do suffer many such things but where there is not sound Faith there cannot be justice Neither can Schismatiks promise to themselves any part of this reward Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice because likewise where there is no Charity there cannot be justice The loue of our neighbour doth not worke evill which if they had they would not teare in peeces the Body of Christ which is the Church Do you not see that this Saint still opposes Heresy to Faith and Schisme to that Charity which vnites the members of Gods Church in one mysticall Body which Schisme divides Also the same Saint sayes Ep 204. Being out of the Church and divided from the heape of vnity and the bond of Charity thou shouldest be punished with eternall death though thou shouldest be burned aliue for the name of Christ Now if many of the members of the Church haue no Charity as you say they must be Schismatiks or if they be not they haue that Charity which Schismatiks want and consequently it is vntrue that they haue no Charity Will you haue them be members of the Church because they are not divided from her by Schisme and yet not be members of the Church in regard they haue no Charity Potter Pag 42. saith Though faith be kept entire yet if Charity be wanting the vnity of the Church is disturbed her vnton dissolved Schisme is no lesse damnable than Heresy Why do you not object against your client That many members of
Austine How familiar is it with you to overthrow yourselfe and plead for your Adversary 119. But this is not all For when S. Austine affirmes against the Donatists It is not possible that any man may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communiō of the whole world he could not ground his Asseveration vpon any accidentall vnity in Communion which might be altered and which you say de facto is taken away by Divisions and subdivisions but vpon a higher and more vniversall and stable Ground that God hath obliged himselfe never to permitt the Gates of Hell to privaile against his Church in such manner as men not only might but also should be obliged to forsake her Communion Otherwise S. Austines Argument had beene of no force and only a Petitio principii as being grounded vpon a Point which was the thing in Controversy between Catholikes and Donatists that is whether the Church at that tyme was corrupted and therfore S. Austine and other Fathers did rely vpon an vniversall ād constant ground as I also observed when I spoke of succession of Bishops And the words of S. Austine can signify no less For he saith not There is not any just cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world as if he spoke only of some present state and condition or some accidentall and changeable thing but he saith absolutely It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world wheras according to your glosse it is not only possible but you say that de facto there was just and necessary cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world This being so I now inferr demonstratively that seing it is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate from the Communion of the whole world It is not possible that the Church of the whole world could fall into any errour or corruption and that Luther was a Schismatike for leaving Her Communion vpon a pretence so false and injurious to God and his Church Morover this your answer doth vndoubtedly crosse your owne conscience For you do not only belieue that there were many errours in the Church of S. Austires tyme as the beliefe of the B. Trinity the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father c but you also affirme againe and againe that S. Austine himselfe and the whole Church with him held a great errour about the necessity of the Eucharist for children wherin though you do perniciously erre and wrong that Holy Father yet in your judgment the Donatists could not be truly convinced of Schisme for leaving that Church which you hold to haue beene in an errour against Faith in a Point of very great moment Or if the Donatists could not separate from the Church of that tyme though corrupted what excuse could Luther haue for his Division from all Churches of the whole world vpon pretence of errours 120. And here that the world may see with what spirit you began to swell in leaving the Catholique Church I cannot omitt to reflect how irreligously in this Page and Section you are bold with that great Doctour of Gods Church that Conquerour of Heretiks that Champion for Gods Grace that Cherubin for knowledg and that Seraphin for most ardent loue of God glorious S. Austine 121. Charity Maintayned Part 1. Cap 5. having cited the forsayd saying of S. Austine Ep 48. It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world adds this other sentence of the same Blessed Saint de Bapt Lib 5. Cap 1. the most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation To which sayings of S. Austine you giue this answer Pag 301. N. 101. The second of these sentences seemes to me to imply the contradiction of the first For to say that the sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there is no cause of separation implyes to my vnderstanding that there may be a cause of separation Now in the first he sayes plainly that this is impossible But by your leaue there is no such thing implyed in the words of S. Austine as your vnderstanding and will depraved by pride and Heresy moue you to apprehend And to facilitate your apprehension it made for your purpose to abbreviate or rather falsify S. Austines words which are these and are so cited by Charity Maintayned whom you had read The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation As if he had sayd in direct contrariety to your vnderstanding and false glosse it is always true that Schisme is agrievous sin but is most Manifest and Eminent when there could not be pretended any true or probable cause of separation I say any true or probable cause For you do not defend but betray the cause of S. Austine and of the Catholikes of his tyme by saying the Donatists did not deny but that the publike service of God 〈◊〉 at that tyme vnpolluted wheras it is notorious that they professed the whole Church beside their particular congregation in Afrike to haue perished by reason that Catholikes did communicate with some men who as they falsely sayd were guilty of great crimes and if they held the Church to haue perished how can you say that they pretended no cause for their separation Nay how could they chuse but alledge for their excuse a most convincing and necessary cause if it had been true the totall ruine and destruction of the Church with which therfore it was wholy impossible for them to communicate Neither can it be denyed but that they calumniated Catholikes for communicating with Caecilianus whom they falsly accused of partaking with them who were called Traditors of the holy Bible to be burnt though indeed not Caecilianus but they themselves were guilty of that crime And beside this cause which you do not deny they objected to Catholiques that they erred in believing that Baptisme might be cōferred by Heretiques and that they received without competent pennance those who in tyme of persecution had denied Christ and saieth Potter Pag 125. out of S. Austine Epist 167. That the efficacie of Sacraments depends on the dignity of the Minister that being no true Baptisme which is not given by a just man 122. As for that which you say the Donatists objected against Catholikes that they set pictures vpon their Altars and you speake of the same matter P. 334. N. 16. you cannot but in your conscience know that they meant such as were to be worshipped with idolatry which was a huge falshood and calumny and therfore S. Austine Epist 48. saith To how many did the reports of ill tongues shut vp the way to enter into the Catholike Church who sayd that we put I know not what vpon the Altar And in this I say againe you cannot but speak against your owne conscience seing you cite Optatus
say that the Church ought not to be forsaken in any least Point least perhaps that proue to be Fundamentall Neither can you say that Protestants were certaine that the Points wherin they left the Church were errours For to omit the reasons which I haue already giuen here I must put you in mynd that diverse learned chiefe Protestants agree with vs in very many yea I may say in all the maine differences betwixt Protestants and vs And therfore your preence of so great evidence and certainty against the Doctrine of the Roman Church is meerly voluntary and verball And besides I would know how the Church can be supposed to be infallible in fundamentall Points and yet may be in danger to fall into such errours as are pernicious and pestilent and vndermine the very Fundations of Religion and Piety 139. These maine dissicultyes being taken away your other Objections cited aboue are answered by only mentioning them The Question is not whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty as you vainly speak but whether the word and will of God Almighty be better vnderstood and declared to vs by Gods vniversall true Church or by any private person or particulat Sect. 140. If particular Churches haue been liberall of their Anathemas which yet were never conceaved infallible What is that to the Anathemas of the vniversall Church granted to be infallible in fundameÌ„tall points in which whosoever disobeyes her puts himselfe in state of damnation And seing you confess that men cannot know what points be fundamentall it followes that we cannot with safety disobey her in any one point for feare of leaving her in some fundamentall Article 141. That the visible Church of Christ holds itselfe to be infallible cannot be doubted seing even her enemyes belieue she cannot erre in fund mentall Points and she proposes all her definitions of faith to be believed without distinguishing betweene Points fundamentall and not Fundamentall which she could not doe without great temerity and injury to Faithfull people if she did not hold herselfe to be vniversally infallible Of which point Ch Ma P. 2. Ch 5. N. 20. P. 132. spekes at large in answer to a demand or objection of Potter and in vaine you say God in Scripture can better informe vs what are the limits of the Churches Power than the Church herselfe For the Question is only whether God will haue his meaning in Scripture declared by the Church or by every mans private spirit wit or fancy Besides God declares his sacred pleasure not only by the written but also by the vnwritten word 142. That there is no danger in being of the Roman Church Protestants must affirme who hold that she had all things necessary to salvation as shall appeare herafter and whosoever denyes it must grant that Christ had no Church vpon Earth when Luther appeared and that there is danger to leaue her experience makes manifest by the infinite multitude of different Sects and opinions wherof all cannot be true and so must be esteemed a deluge of Heresyes 143. The Heresy of the Donatists did consist formally in this that the Church might erre or be polluted and by that Meanes giue just cause to forsake her communion For if without any such errour in their vnderstanding they did only de facto separate by the obstancy of their will they were indeed Schismatikes but not Heretikes as not dividing themselves from the Church in Matter of Faith And yet Potter saieth they were properly Heretiques Yea if it be not an Heresy to say in generall that the Church may erre and be corrupted or polluted to say that in such a particular case she is corrupted comes to be only a matter of History or fact whether she hath done so or no but it is not a point of Faith and so is not of a nature sufficient to constiute an Heresy supposing as I saied it be once granted that she may erre For example the Donatists gaue out that the Catholique Church was defild by communicating with those who were called traditors The Heresy consists precisely in this Point That the whole Church may be corrupted and so give just cause to be forfaken not in that other Point whether or no the possibility of the thing being supposed de facto Catholikes did communicate with those traditours Since therfore it is supposed by you aÌ„d affirmed by Potter that the Donatists were heretiks their heresy must coÌ„sist in this that the Catholique Church spredd over the whole world might erre and be polluted And is not this the very heresy of Protestants And do they not pretend to leaue the Church vpon this same ground that she erred And this particularly is evident in those Protestants who say the whole visible Church before Luther perished The names of which Protestants may be seene in Charity Maintayned Part 1. N. 9. Pag 161. and more may be read in Brierley Tract 2. Ca 3. Sect 2. And therefore I wonder you would say that Charity Maintayned had not named those Protestants who hold the Church to haue perished for many Ages That it is a fundamentall errour of its owne nature properly hereticall to say The Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world is the Doctrine of Potter as we haue seene as also that Whitaker calls it a prophane heresy and more Protestants may be seene to that purpose in that place where we cited Whitaker And Dr. Lawd holds it to be against the Article of our Creed I belieue the Holy Catholique Church and that to say that Article is not true is blasphemy 144. That he which is an Hererike in one Article may haue true Faith in other Articles is against the true and common Doctrine of all Catolique Divines and vniversally against all Catholikes to say That such a Faith can be sufficient to salvation because his very heresy is a deadly sin And therfore to say the Church can erre in any one point of Faith is to say the whole Church may be in state of damnation for faith which is an intollerable injury to God and his spouse the Church For if she may be in state of damnation by any culpable errour she must be supposed to want some thing necessary to salvation namely the beliefe of that truth which such culpable errour denyes But more of this herafter 145. By the way How can you say N. 56. to Charity Maintayned That when it was for his purpose to haue it so the greatness or smallness of the matter was not considerable the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all For where doth Charity Maintayned say That evidence of the Revelation is all in all Yea doth he not expressly teach Part 1. Chap. 6. N. 2. that evidence is not compatible with an ordinary Act of Faith and therby proves N. 30. that Protestants want true Faith 146. Object 14. Charity Maâ—ntayned in diverse occasions affirmes or supposes that Dr. Potter and other
Protestants teach that the Roman Church doth not erre in any Point Fundamentall or necessary to salvation and this you say diverse tymes is not true 147. Answer I will not say as you Pag. 76. N. 63. speake to Charity Maintayned I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged this Point against Charity Maintayned but contrarily I hope that the Reader if he be not a Protestant will find just occasion to prayse God that the Answer to this your Objection will demonstrate to him in how safe a way we Catholikes are even by the confession of our Adversaryes and how much it imports him to place his soule in the like safety 148. I haue already vpon severall occasions mentioned some passages wherin you and Dr. Potter confesse that the Roman Church wants nothing necessary to salvation Now I will doe it more at large Potter Pag 63. saith The most necessary and fundamentall Truths which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned And for that reason learned Protestants yield them Romanisis as he calls vs the name and substance of a Christian Church Where we see that he saith in generall learued Protestants yield them c. In proofe wherof he cites in his margent Junius D. Reinolds and sayes See the juagment of many other writers in the Advertisement annexed to the Old Religion by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter and adds The very Anabaotists grant it Fr. Ichnson in his Christian plea Pa 123. So that with this one Testimony of Potter we haue many other even of our greatest Adversaryes And I desire the reader to obserue well that here P 62 he saith To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteâ—med a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine they Catholikes haue added many more Such are for instance their Apocryphall Scriptures and vnwrâ—ten dogmaticall Traditions their Transsubstantiation and dry Communion their Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Latine service trafficke of Indulgences and shortly the other new Doctrines and Decrees canonized in their late Synode of Trent Vpon these and the like new Articles is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants And then he adds the words which we haue cited The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constatute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned and for that c. Where we see he grants we belieue the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed which he teaches at large to containe all Fundamentall Points of Faith and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church Therfore those Points of our Doctrine which he giues for instance are no Fundementall errours nor the contrary Articles necessary and Fundamentall truths and yet he names all the Chiefest Points controverted betweene vs and Protestants even transubstantiation Communion in one kind and Latine Service which are the things they are wont most to oppose yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councell of Trent Therfore we are free from fundamentall errours by the confession of our Adversaryes Pag 59. The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church but to purge the Old The Reformation did not change the substance of Religion but only clensed it from corrupt and impure qualityes If the Protestants erected not a new Church then ours is still the Old Church and if it were only clensed from corrupt qualityes without change of the substance the substance must be still the same that it was and that which was must be the same with that which is Pag 61. The things which the Protestants belieue on their part and wherin they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized are most if not all of them so evidently and indisputably true that their Adversaryes themselves do avow and receaue them as well as they Therfore we Catolikes haue the life and substance of Religion Pag 60. In the prime grounds of Principles or Christian Religion wee haue not forsaken the Church of Rome Therfore you grant that we haue the prime grounds or Fundamentall Articles of Religion Pag 11. For those Catholique Verityes which she the Roman Church retaines we yield her a member of the Catholike though one of the most vnsound and corrupt members In this sense the Romanists may be called Catholikes Behold we are members of the Catholike Church which could not be if we erred in any one fundamentall Point By the way If the Romanists may be called Catholikes why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholique And yet this is that Argument which Protestants are wont to vrge against vs and Potter in particular in this very place not considering that he impugnes himselfe while he speakes against vs nor distinguishing between vniversall as Logicians speake of it which signifyes one common thing abstracting or abstracted from all particulars and Catholique as it is taken in true Divinity for the Church spred over the whole world that is all Churches which agree with the Roman and vpon that vaine conceit telling his vnlearned Reader that vniversall and particular are termes repugnant and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other that is say I Catholique cannot be affirmed of Dr. Potter nor Dr. Potter sayd to be a Catholike because a particular cannot be sayd to be vniversall or an vniversall Pag 75. To depart from the Church of RomeÌ„ in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation P 70. They the Roman Doctours confess that setting aside all matters controverted the maine positiue truths wherin all agree are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian both for his knowledge and for his practise teaching him what to belieue and how to liue so as he may be saved His saying that the Roman Doctours confesse that setting a side all matters controverted c. is very vntrue it being manifest that Catholikes belieue Protestants to erre damnably both in matters of Faith and practise yet his words convince ad hominem that we haue all that is necessary yea and abundantly sufficient both for knowledg and practise for vs to be saved And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherin we differ from Protestants saith Pag 74. If the mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and noveltyes he shall find in that which remaines little difference of importance betweene vs. Therfore de facto we belieue all things of importance which Protestants belieue After these words without any interruption he goes forward and sayes Pag 75. But by this discourse the Mistaker happily may belieue his cause to be advantaged and may reply If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion or to a Church how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church or free themselves from damnable Schisme Doth not this discourse proue and the Objection which he rayses from it suppose that we want nothing essentiall to Religion Otherwise
divided and therfore properly there is no division of one part from another seing that which is cut of ceases to be a part except perhaps aequivocè You discourse as of you spoke of a Division of Genus into species or of quantity into parts or in generall of Divisum into membra dividentia where all species participate of Genus every part of quantity retaines the same nature which it had before the division and in generall the Divisum is involued in every member of the Dividents and so you imagine that Schismatikes divided from the Church remaine a part of the Church as if the Church were a Divisū divided into Obedient Persons and Schismatikes as into membra dividentia wheras contrarily the Division we speake of is not into but from that is we speake of a Division from the Church which alters the formality ād condition of the person who is divided causing him to be no member of the Church who formerly was such 177. But I suppose that you who will be broaching a new Divinity cannot faile to haue found out some new Reason for your Assertion as indeed I find your reason to be and such a one as is not taught in any Logike while you argue thus I might desire you to consider whether Schisme be not rather or at least be not as well a Division of the Church as from it VVhat I haue found by considering your proposition my discourse both in this place and hertofore will informe you But then you come with another desire If you liked not this Definition I might desire you to informe me in those many Schismes which haue happened in the Church of Rome which of the Parts was the Church and which was divided from it This is all your Argument which I might answer as you confute the common Definition of Divines by a counter-desire of myne and say I might desire you to apply your owne Objection to your owne Definition and informe me in those Schismes which you mention in the Church of Rome or any other Schisme for your Objection is common to all which you say is a Division of some parts from the other which of the parts is Schismaticall and which not and consequently which is the true Church and which the Schismaticall part For I hope you will not say That in every Schisme the true Church looses her Being of one Church as the Schismaticall part ceases to be a member therof which Being if the Church retaine you must assigne which is the Church and which is not the true Church but a Schismaticall member divided from Her so that your Argument must be answered by yourselfe yea it will be harder for you to answer than for vs. For of two disagreeing parts every one as I sayd before will thinke his right as good as that of the other and it will not be easy to determine which of them should yield But according to our Definition when we compare a part with the whole it is easy to judge whether a part must yield to the whole or the whole to a part and for that cause we find no difficulty at all in answering your Demand or Objection In those Schismes which haue happened in the Church of Rome which of the Parts was the Church and which was divided from it by saying That part was and remained the Church which was vnited to the true vniversall Church and lawfull Head thereof which could be but one Or if you will imagine that for a tyme it is not knowne who is the true Head and the disagreeing partyes proceed bona fide and cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae prudently and charitably in that case there is no formall Schisme but both parts remaine members of the vniversall Church and really vnited to him who is the true Head Yea they remaine vnited among themselves mediate in asmuch as they are vnited in vno tertio that is to the true vniversall Church and the true Head therof And even this proves that Schisme is not formally a Diuision of parts but from the whole because two parts disagreeing among themselves and so divided if they be considered as compared immediatily one with another may be no Schismatikes if they be vnited in vno tertio the Church and Head of the Church Two parts may be separated from the whole and not be separated one from another as the hand and arme cut of from the Body but it is impossible that they can be wholy separated from one another if both of them remaine Parts of One whole in which therfore they must needs be vnited Thus he who inculpably errs actually against Divine Revelation is really vnited to it by preparation of mynd and an implicite beliefe of all things which are sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God Contrarily it is impossible that one can divide himselfe from the true Head or from the whole but that tacitè he must divide himselfe from the members or Parts which remaine vnited with the Head and with the whole as it is impossible that the hand can be divided from the Body and yet remaine vnited with the arme if the arme still remaine vnited with the Body 177. But you whose principles giue full scope to separations and divisions loue not to heare of one Head or one Church or succession of Bishops or Obedience and subordination but of parts and parity amongst all ād evēby this definitiō you giue vs an vnanswerable Reason to proue the necessity of an infallible living Guide frō whom whosoever disagrees in Faith must be an Heretike and of one Head and Apostolicall Sea ād Church from which whosoever departs may be knowne to be a Schismatike Otherwise there will be no certaine Rule Measure or ground to discover Heresyes or judge who be Schismatiks but-every part will looke vpon another not as a Head or Whole or superiour but as a part and an Equall which would be an endless sourse of perpetuall Schismes without any certaine meanes to convince either parte To which purpose Baronius Anno Christi 31. N. 51. recounts a memorable story out of Josephus Judaeus Antiq. Lib. 12. C. 6. how Ptolomaeus Philometor gaue sentēce in favour of the Jewes ād their Temple and condemned the Samâritans as Schismatiks or Novellists because the Jewes could shew a continued Succession of Bishops from the beginning till their tyme. And who sees not that for the same reason Luther and his followes must be condemned of Schisme wherof see more in Baronius ibid N. 52. 178 And now to end this Chapter in conformity to what was proposed in the beginning therof I say that seing Charity Maintayne confuted all the evasions which Dr. Potter could invent to excuse Protestants from the sin of Schisme and that I haue answered all that Mr. Chillingworth hath alledged against the Arguments of Charity Maintayned in defense of the Doctour the conclusion must be that Protestants are guilty of the most grievous sins of Schisme and Heresy by
grace who desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledg of truth Where you see Ch Ma saith it is in our power with Gods grace to find that saving Truth which is but one and is to be found only in the true visible Church of Christ and so it must 〈◊〉 our fault if we misse therof and consequently that our errours will be sinfull and that we cannot effectually repent of them without passing to the Truth that is without destroying those culpable sinfull errours which by Gods grace is in our power to destroy by embracing the contrary truths And afterward Ch Ma saith that the search of this truth will not proue so hard and intricate as men imagine because God hath endued his visible Church with so conspicuous markes of vnity and agreement in Doctrine Vniversality for tyme and place a never interrupted Succession of Pastours a perpetuall visibility from the Apostles to vs c. far beyond any probable pretence that can be made by any other congregations that whosoever doth seriously and vnpartially weigh these notes may easily discerne to what Church they belong Thus Ch Ma to shew how culpable and inexcusable they are who do not actually embrace Catholique Religion and forsake all other Congregations and errours And yet to take away all possibility for you to deceiue the world with this vnjust calumnie Ch Ma hath these very words Let not men flatter and deceiue themselves that ignorance will excuse them For there are so many and so easy and yet withall so powerfull meanes to find the true Church that it is a most dangerous ād pernicious errour to rely vpon the excuse of invincible ignorance What could he haue sayd more than to stile the Hope of Salvation by meanes of ignorance a pernicious errour Yet more and more to confute your calumnie and declare his owne sense he adds I wish them to consider that he can least hope for reliefe by ignorance who once confides therin because his very alledging of ignorance shewes that God hath put some thoughts into his mynd of seeking the safest way which if he relying on Gods Grace do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine discusse and perfitt he shall not faile to find what he seekes and to obtaine what he askes Now if Ch Ma teach so effectually that none must hope to be saved by ignorance with what truth or justice can you say that in his opinion Protestants may be saved without actually retracting their sinfull errours Nay I am sure Ch Ma believes that if God will in his Goodness bring a man to Salvation he will be sure by his Wisdome to apply those Meanes which in the ordinary course of his holy providence he hath appointed for that end which is to embrace the true Faith and to be a true member of the true visible Church 3. You pretend to beleeue that de facto God will bring none to heaven without Faith in Christ and beliefe of Christian Religion If then one should aske whether a Pagan or Jew or Turke could be saved with an vniversall sorrow for all his errours and sins knowne and vnknowne what would you answer If you say they might be saved you contradict yourselfe and grant that Salvation may be had without faith in Christ If you say they could not be saved because God de facto hath appointed Faith in Christ as a necessary condition or meanes for Salvation The same I answer in our case that God hath decreed to saue none without true Faith which is only in the true Uisible Church yea to be a true Christian and to be a Catholike is all one there being not any other true Christian Faith than that which is taught by the Catholique Church nor is there any true Church of Christ but One and therfore as you pretend to hold Christian Faith to be necessary for Salvation you should also hold the same of the Catholique Faith and consequently that none can be saved with any sinfull errour contrary to that Faith nor that it can be true Repentance which doth not exclude any such errour And all that you can Object against this truth may be objected in behalfe of Jewes or Turks against your pretended beliefe that Faith in Christ is necessary to Salvation They might I say demand of you why they may not haue true Contrition and pardon of their sins by a generall repentance of all their offences knowne and vnknowne and among the rest of their errours against or ignorance of Christian Religion and what you answer to them will serve for a confutation of your Arguments against vs. For this cause Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 28 N. 3. saith that we hope and pray for the conversion of Protestants and surely our meaning is not that they be converted to vs by remaining in their former beliefe contrary to vs. But Ch M. need not wonder that you falsify him seing you are not ashamed to say Pag 34. N. 6. that according to the grounds of our Catholike Religion Protestants may dy in their supposed errours either with excusable ignorance or with contrition and if they do so may be saved But I beseech you out of what Ground or Principle of Catholique Religion can you dreame to collect that Protestants can be saved by ignorance or with Contrition remayning formall Protestants And it is a comfort for Ch Ma to be calumniated by you in that very thing wherin you calumniate the whole Church of God In the meane tyme by what I haue sayd innumerable places I may say the chiefest part of your Booke are answered which goe vpon this false ground that men may be saved without relinquishing their sinfull and damnable errours which you perpetually affirme without any proofe And what reason can be given why a man cannot be saved without relinquishing other deadly sins for example Hatred Perjury Theft c. and yet that it is not necessary to forsake errours confessed to be sinfull and damnable But it is no wonder that Heretikes are willing to sooth their Heresyes with false priviledges denyed to all other deadly sins 4. To your numbers 1.2.3.4.5.6 I haue answered already You say Pag 33. N. 4. the truth is the corruption of the Church and the destruction of it is not all one For if a particular man or Church may as you confesse they may hold some particular errours and yet be a member of the Church vniversall why may not the Church hold some vniversall errour and yet be still the Church Especially seing you say it is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose itselfe Why do you stopp here and not goe forward to declare what lyes involued in your discourse thus In the tyme of the Apostles if a particular man or Church might haue held some errour and yet remained a member of the Church
an Eye togeather with the vnderstanding to see the Scripture Wherby it still appeares that not our vnderstanding alone but it with some other Helpe not produced by the Scripture must be compared to our corporall Eye The same may be sayd of Barons Criteria which cannot be seene without some particular light of the Holy Ghost and therfore our vnderstanding with that light is the Eye not produced by the Scripture but presupposed to the beliefe of Scripture And lastly you who teach that we belieue for the Authority of the Church must say that the eye wherby we see Scripture is our vnderstanding togeather with the Tradition of the Church Which Tradition therfore must be knowne and believed before we belieue Scripture and not be produced by Scripture 12. Wheras you say Transsubstantiation is fruitfull of such monsters contradictions but they that haue not sworne themselves to the defence of errour will easily perceiue that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible you speake wickedly and ignorantly We haue heard Dr. Taylor in his Liberty c § 10. N. 16. confessing that Christians belieue the Mystery of the Trinity with as much violence to the Principles of naturall and supernatur all Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And it is certaine that this sacred Mystery of the Trinity to any learned Philosopher containess farr greater dissiculty than any that can be objected against Transubstantiation And yourselfe vpon a certaine occasion could say to some Protestants Either deny the Trinity or admitt Transubstantiation and it was answered we will rather admitt this than deny that And with good reason For if we respect humane discourse there are as I sayd more difficult objections against that Mystery than against this And if we regard Revelation Scripture is more cleare for the reall Presence and Transubstantiation than for the Mystery of the B. Trinity And if regard were to be had of Heretikes more haue hertofore impugned the Doctrine of the Trinity than of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But no wonder if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith to the weight of naturall Reason taking hold of the present tyme are glad vnder the name of Transubstantiation to vndermine the Doctrine of the B. Trinity and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Faith The other part of your Affirmation That jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible is extreme bold seing so many great learned men hold the first and no man the latter being betweene them as great difference as betweene Est Est and Fuit non fuit But I feare you do not vnderstand what learned men meane by a Reproduction of the same existent thing or jam factum facere which signifyes only that the same thing is and is wheras every body knowes that factum infectum facere is to say That which was was not A manifest Contradiction Yet withall I must add that no Doctrine of the Catholique Church doth necessarily depend on that Question Whether it be impossible jam factum facere But enough of this least others haue occasion to say of me as you say truly of yourselfe in the close of this N. 48. I digress 13. I know not well what to make of your long and distracted discourse N. 49. we do not deny but that Protestants and other Heretikes may assent to some Mystery of Faith by a humane opinion and perswasion but that assent of theirs is not true Divine supernaturall Faith God not giving his particular Grace for believing one Article of Faith to him who denyes another equally proposed as revealed by God wherby even the infused Habit of Faith is destroyed Vnlearned Catholikes may exercise a true Act of Faith because indeed their assent comes to rely vpon a firme ground that is Divine Revelation propounded by an infallible meanes Gods Church wheras Heretikes haue no such ground for the resolution of their Faith as hath beene shewed in severall occasions 14. For gaining tyme and saving vnnecessary paines I had omitted to take notice of your N. 51.52 vnless your proceeding had forced me to say at least thus much that whosoever will reade aÌ„d compare the words of Ch Ma. with your Answer shall find that he speakes clearly and that you do so involue and obscure and alter what he spoke plainly that I know not what to make of your words He tells you that the Scripture is not such a first principle in Christianity that it may not be proved by another belonging to Christians namely by the Authority of the Uisible Church of Christ as yourself grant and to say as you doe that the Church or Tradition of the Church is a Principle not in Christianity but in Reason nor proper to Christians but common to all men for ought I can judge is repugnant to Reason and Christianity For what hath naturall Reason alone to doe with the Church of Christ which cannot be knowne except by some supernaturall Arguments as Miracles Sanctity Scripture Revelation c. 15. I do not vnderstand these your words N. 52. addressed to C. Mâ— That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canenâ—all and need no proofe of its owne being so you haue produced diverse Protestants that deny it but who they are that affirme it nondum constat I pray you where did Ch Ma say that there is any part of Scripture which needs no proofe of its being Canonicall Doth he not proue the necessity of a Living guide even by this Argument that otherwise we cannot be assured what Booke and parts of Scripture are Canonicall And for discerning what Bookes be Canonicall or suppositious are not Protestants wont to proue that such or such a Booke which they are pleased to stile Apocryphall is not conforme to other parts of Scripture and therfore cannot be Canonicall Do not yourselfe say N. 27. The Question whether such or such a Booke be Canonicall Scripture may be decided negatively out of Scripture by she wing apparent and irreconciliable contradictions between it and some other Booke confessedly Canonicall And may we not proue affirmatively for example that those Texts of the old Testament which are cited in the New are Canonicall because they are cited for such in Bookes which we belieue to be Canonicall I beseech you to what purpose or vpon what occasion given do you N. 51. vtter these words As if the Scripture might not be the first and most knowne Principle in Christianity and yet not the most knowne in all sciences Or as if to be a first Principle in Christanity and in all sciences Were all one Charity Maintayned said if Potter meane that Scripture is one of those Principles which being the first and most know ne in all sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles he supposes that which is in Question whether there be not some Principle for example the Church wherby we may come to the
Living Guide to them who haue and belieue the Scripture Wherby you must signify that to those who either haue not Scripture or haue not sufficient reason to belieue it it is all one as if Scripture had never beene written and consequently that de facto there is an absolute necessity of an infallible Guide Nay men could not haue had sufficient reason to belieue infallibly the Scripture except for the Authority of the Church of God which therfore must be believed to be absolutely infallible before any Scripture be believed which is directly contradictory to your saying that the necessity of an infallible Guide is grounded vpon a false supposition in case we had no Scripture For contrarily if we haue and belieue Scripture we must first belieue an infallible Church independently of that supposition and vpon which that supposition of our believing Scripture must depend 57. But it seemes this Authority of S. Irenaeus doth yet vex you And therfore N. 146. 147. 148. you say That in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other then of Apostolique Preaching 58. This I haue answered hertofore and told you that when the Fathers alledge the Authority of the Church or Tradition they suppose the Church to be absolutly infallible and not only that accidentally she teaches at that tyme the truth which had beene no proofe but a meere petitio principij For if the Church might erre as you say she hath done the Heretikes against whom the Fathers wrote would easily haue answered that all Churches might erre and had erred in such or such particular Points and how could you or any Protestant impugne such an Answer supposing once the Church could erre When Luther appeared he forsooke the Faith and Communion of all Churches vpon pretence that they all agreed in errours against Scripture and how do you now tell vs that the agreement of Churches was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common fountaine and they had no other but Apostolicall Preaching In this manner hertofore I retorted against you the saying which you alledge out of Tertullian Variasse debuerat c If the Churches had erred they could not but haue varied but that which is one amongst so many cannot be errour but Tradition That seing all Churches agreed in a beliefe contrary to the Faith of Protestants we must affirme that the thing which is one among so many can not by errour but Tradition And your words here add a particular strength to my retortions while you say that the agreement and vnity of Churches about the Fundamentalls of Faith is a good assurance that what they so agree in comes from the common fountaine of Apostolique Preaching For those Heretikes might haue answered that the errours of the Church which they impugned were not Fundamentall as we haue proved that you say the errours of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her when Luther appeared were not Fundamentall and so the assurance taken from vnity in Fundamentalls could be no Argument against them Besides I pray you reflect on your saying that Protestants departed not from the whole Church because they were a part therof and they departed not from themselves and then you cannot but see that those Heretikes in S. Irenaeus his tyme might haue sayd all Churches are not at an agreement about matters of Faith seing we who are a part of the Church do not agree with the rest and therfore the agreement which you speake of is of no force against vs but you must proue by some other kind of Argument that our doctrines are false just as Protestants answer vs when we object against them the agreement of all Churches against the doctrine of Luther when he first appeared Wherfore I must still inferr that it is not the actuall or accidentall agreement but the constant ground therof that is the infallibility of the Church that must assure vs what is Orthodoxe and what is Hereticall doctrine Moreover whereas you say In S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith I beseech you informe vs how it could be otherwise then how can it be otherwise now how shall it be otherwise for the tyme to come or for any imaginable tyme than that all Churches are at an agreement in Fundamentalls of Faith Seing you professe through your whole Booke that if they faile in Fundamentalls they cease to be Churches and so it is as necessary for all Churches to agree in Fundamentalls as for all men to agree in the essence of man And you might as well haue sayd that at S. Irenaeus his tyme the Definition did agree or was all one with the Definitum as that all Churches agreed in Fundamentalls If therfore it was easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church in S. Irenaeus his tyme as he affirmes and you grant it will be no lesse easy to doe it in these our tymes seing the Church can never faile in Fundamentall Points of Faith and so it was easy for Luther and his companions to haue received the truth or rather to haue retained the truths they found in the Church seing she was a true Church and consequently did not erre in Fundamentall Points From whence it followes that when S. Irenaeus saith the Apostles haue most fully deposited in the Church as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth it must be vnderstood that she cannot but keepe that depositum sincere for Fundamentall Points even according to Protestants and you say here N. 164. The visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church in which sense that depositum is not committed to private persons though otherwise never so qualifyed and therfore all that you haue N. 148. is of no force even in the Principles of Protestants And then further seing indeed any errour against divine Revelation is damnable and without Repentance destroyes salvation as you grant it is impossible that the Church which must needs enjoy all things necessary to salvation as we haue heard you even now saying the visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven It is I say impossiblle that the Church can fall into any damnable Errour but must be vniversally infallible Which is vnanswerably confirmed by your doctrine that it is impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall and so we cannot know that she failes not to propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven vnless we belieue Her to be infallible in all Points of Faith as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall And here againe how could you
well disposed towards an object evident can faile to see and vnderstand actually if such an object be placed within the spheare or compasse of their actuity And therfore if Scripture be evident whosoever can assent to it cannot possibly dissent from it Before I end this number you must be intreated to remember what you teach Pag 329. N. 7. that it is necessary to Faith that the object of it should not be so evidently certaine as to necessitate our vnderstanding to an Assent that so there might be some obedience in it which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the vnderstanding does all and the will nothing Now if the vnderstanding be not necessitated by the evidence of Faith or contents of Scripture you must find some other meanes to moue the vnderstanding namely such as Protestants vsually prescribe which cannot exceede probability nor is sufficient for an Act of Faith And so your Arguments and Similitudes grounded vpon the plaine evidence of Scripture cannot be rightly applyed by you seing it is not an evidence sufficient to assure the vnderstanding without some other meanes which being but probable if you will arriue to certainty you must still haue recourse to the Church 67. Your N. 151. going vpon a false supposition that our first Proofes and Arguments for the infallibility of the Church are taken from Scripture need no Answer seing we haue proved the contrary at large It is true that having once found the true Church and by Her authority Canonicall Scriptures we do with good reason proue out of them the authority and infallibility of the same Church with other particulars concerning her which were not knowne by the first generall notion of her being the true Church but this is done without any pretence of such evidence as must force every mans vnderstanding to assent in that manner as the Principles of naturall Sciences do necessitate vs and therfore there alwayes remaines a necessity of a Living Judge 68. In your N. 154. I find nothing but an Aggregatum of diverse Heads of which we haue treated at large as the infallibillty of Christian Faith how farr the Motives or arguments of credibility concurre to an act of Faith The manner we hold in proving the Church and believing those articles which she proposes what vse there is of Reason in finding out the Church that in vaine you distinguish betweene Christianity and Popery as you speake seing there can be but one true Christian Church c And therfore I will goe forward having first toucht in a word that wheras you say to vs you should require only a morall and modest Assent to the proposalls of the Church and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith It seemes you confesse that your Faith is not to be called Divine as you professe it not to be infallible and therfore indeed not Divine but a meere humane perswasion even in those Points wherin you chance notto erre 69. To your N. 155.156.157.158.159.160 of which for the substance I haue spoken hertofore I will only say That you are still taking vpon you to declare the Doctrine of Protestants in their name without any commission from them Thus here you talke as if no Protestants held that Scripture may be proved to be the word of God by Scripture it selfe the contrary whereof we haue shewed in particular of Baron and Potter And Ch. Ma. Part 2. Chap 3. Pag 91. cites Dr. Willet in his meditation ypon the 122. Psalme Pag 91. who puts among whirle-points and buboles of new Doctrine as he speakes That the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God And whatsoever you take vpon you yet Ch. Ma. had reason to say that seing it is to Protestants a most necessary Point of Faith to know what Bookes be Scripture and that this Point cannot be proved by Scripture it followes that all matters of Faith are not contained in Scripture wherby it appeares that God hath not tyed his testimony or Revelation to his written word alone but that you must of necessity admitt Tradition or His vnwritten Word and so not learne all necessary Points from Scripture And if one Tradition must be believed by Faith you can bring no positiue Rule or reason why there may not be some other Traditions without any prejudice to the perfection of Scripture 70. In your N. 160. you impugne these words of Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 73. N. 26. If Dr. Potter answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only judge of Controversyes is not a Fundamentall Point of Faith then as he teacheth that the vniversall Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall so I hope he will not deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to errour in such Points and in particular in this that the Scripture alone is judge of Controversyes And so the very Principle vpon which their whole Faith is grounded remaines to them vncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is judge of Controversyes Against which discourse you object A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this Principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre And vpon this ground what will hinder me from concluding that seing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are infallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine A judge may possibly erre in judgment can he therfore never haue assurance that he hath judged right A traveller may possibly mistake his way must I therfore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London Carryer haue 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 as like your owne as an egg to an egge or milke to milke 71. Answer I hope it will be found that you triumph before any possibility of victory on your behalfe and that your Objection will be turned against yourselfe Where find you in Charity Maintayned any Argument depending vpon this principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certaine that he does not erre This is your fiction not any principle of Ch. Ma. His principle is in this Whosoever possibly may erre by relying vpon some Principle Ground or Reason he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre as long as he followes that Principle only without addition of any other helpe or greater light or certainty For if the Principle be of it selfe false fallible or contingent it cannot possibly being left to itselâ—e produce an infallible Assent which is the very Ground for which you teach Christian Faith to be fallible But it doth in no case follow from hence that absolutly whosoever may possibly
erre he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre vnless you add this necessary restriction he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre as long as he grounds himselfe only vpon that Principle which he believes to be fallible and subject to errour though for other things or vpon other certaine and infallible Grounds he may be and is sure that he neither doth nor can erre while he relyes vpon those infallible Grounds 72. For better vnderstanding of this matter We may distinguish a double infallibility The one may be termed Personall or belonging to or accompanying the Person The other we may call Reall or taken from the thing itselfe If God promise his assistance to some person that he shall never erre even in things of themselves obscure this man shall be sure never to erre not in vertue of any intrinsecall evident Principle but by reason of that Divine assistance But if one haue no such promise or Priviledge yet is directed by some Principle evident to humane Reason he is certaine that he neither doth nor can erre by a certainty derived from evidence of the Thing it selfe as long as he relyes vpon that certaine ground Now to our purpose You cannot be certaine of this proposition Scripture alone is the totall Rule of Faith by evidence of sense or some Principle knowne to naturall Reason but only by certainty proceeding from infallible supernaturall Assistance And therfore seing you deny any such Assistance to the vniversall Church and much more to particular Churches or private persons for Points not Fundamentall as you acknowledge this to be it followes that you can haue no certainty of it which is the thing that Charity Maintayned affirmed and so it proves to be very true that whosoever may erre cannot be certaine that he doth not erre if he depend vpon Grounds subject to falshood and errour as contrarily whosoever doth not erre because he relyes vpon evident Principles or vpon some extrinsecall Authority being in it selfe and being believed to be Infallible he is sure he cannot erre in such matters though he may erre in other knowne by some probable reason or fallible Authority If you say A thing may be certainly knowne or believed because it is evidently contained in Scripture which we belieue to be infallible This evasion answers not my argument For if you imagine a thing to be so evident in Scripture that there is required no more than evidence of sense or Reason to see and read and know the Grammaticall signification of the word then whosoever does so he is certaine not only that he doth not but that he cannot erre seing he is evidently certaine that he sees reades and vnderstands the Grammaticall signification of the word If beside the sayd knowledge or ability to see read c. there be other meanes required as certainly there are to know what is not the Grammaticall signification but the meaning of the word intended by the Holy Ghost in that place then if those meanes be fallible and only probable no man can by the assistance of them alone be certaine that he doth not erre But if the meanes be and be believed to be infallible he is sure that he neither doth nor can erre by vsing those meanes and so to erre in a way in which one is certaine that he doth not erre and yet may erre as long as he retaines the meanes of that Certainty and followes them is an impossible thing Thus your owne Objection turnes vpon yourselfe and makes good the discourse of Charity Maintayned 73. But you vrge vs and say Vpon this Ground what will hinder me from concluding that seing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are in fallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine 74. Answer Your inference were very good if in the beliefe of the Fundamentalls of Christianity we did rely vpon the Authority of particular Churches or private men But we rely vpon the Authority of the vniversall Church which is absolutly infallible Contrarily for you who rely vpon no infallible Authority of any Church but vpon your owne fallible discourse or the Scripture interpreted by fallible meanes nothing I am sure can hinder vs from concluding that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine Still you are wounded with your owne weapons And to turne also against you your owne similitudes A Judge may possibly erre in judgment if he proceed only vpon probable reasons that he Judges according to Law neither can he haue assurance that he hath judged right if his sentence be grounded vpon such reasons only If in some other case he haue assurance that he hath judged right it must be grounded vpon certaine and evident reasons which can never faile nor he ever can fall into errour by following such reasons or rules Neither can your London Carryer or any other in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his witts mistake the waie which he knowes with absolute certainty and evidence as you aboue all others must grant who say that we need no Guide for Controversyes of Faith because as you pretend you haue a cleare way namely Scripture which therefore if you can mistake and know the meaning therof only probably you must confess the necessity of some Guide to direct and keepe you in that way Your owne caution in the middle of the day might haue put you in mynd that Faith is obscure and like a light in a darke place as S. Peter speakes which therfore is a way which may not only be mistaken but cannot be assuredly found without the direction of some infallible Guide How many wayes do your Arguments strongly recoyle against yourselfe without the least hurt to your Adversary Even your vaine conclusion these you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your owne as an egg to an egge or milke to milke must be applyed against yourselfe that as one egg is really different from another so your consequences are really different from those of Charity Maintayned though to your friendes they may perhaps haue seemed to be all one But indeed being examined proue to be as like to those of Charity Maintayned as an apple to an oyster 75. By what I haue sayd your N. 161. is fully answered and your Examples appeare to be clearly impertinent For these Propositions the snowe is black the fire is cold c are false and the contrary true as is evident to sense and reason not so that Scripture is the totall Rule of Faith the truth or falshood wherof must be tryed by some other meanes and you can haue none certaine if you take away the infallibility of Gods Church And I wonder you can say concerning these words of Charity Maintayn for the selfe same reason Protestants are not certaine that the Church is not Judge of Controversyes the Ground of this Sophâ—sme is very like the former viz That
we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions but these only which are damnable Errours For you know that we spoke not of whatsoever truth or falshood but of a Proposition the truth or falshood wherof cannot be knowne by sense or naturall Reason but only by Revelation in which if the vniversall Church may erre for Points not Fundamentall we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them as I haue proved and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument we may be certaine that snow is not blacke nor fire cold therfore we may be certaine of truths which can be knowne only by Revelation for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ and much more private men may erre 76. To your N. 162. I need only say that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith and interpret Scriptures must be infallible otherwise it might either be disobeyed or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour as hertofore I haue declared and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes and Controversyes in matters of Faith alledging to that purpose your owne words Pag 59. N. 17. That in Matters of Religion such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversyes every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge but in Religion none but he that is infallible And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this N. 162. I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations Infallble while they proceed according to Law How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill and a Judge in Controversyes of Religion vnless you grant not only a conditionall but an absolute infallibility to this latter whereby he is sure never to erre whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre by not proceeding according to Law If therfore the Propositions which were publikly defended in Oxford that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith and to interpret Scripture be patient of your Explication I can only say that they either say nothing or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith by obeying the Commandements of the Church against their Conscience I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae who teaches that no man ought now after the tyme of the Apostles who were infallible to be punished by Excommunication as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience and how do you tell vs that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith Though you admit no infallible Judge to declare the sense of Scripture and that those Texts which seeme evident to some appeare obscure to others as is manifest in the examples which you alledge as evident of our Saviours Passion and Resurection which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church and yourselfe in particular belieue that his suffering and Death was not the Death and Passion of God and that his Sufferings did not merit and satisfy for mankind and that he remaines in Heaven with a Body of a different nature and Essence from that which he had vpon Earth which is to deny his Resurrection for substance and Death for the fruite therof You say The Doctor who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule But how doth this agree with the whole Scope of your Booke that the Bible the Bible the Bible is the only Rule and with your express words heere N. 155. that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall Seing beside Scripture you grant a Tradition which you say gives an infallibility to him who proceeds according to it Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word or Tradition You say But what now if I should tell you that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway one was that God predeterminates men to All their Actions I answer That if you will inferr any thing from hence it must only be this that as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church but left to be disputed in Schooles with an express command of our Supreme Pastour that one part do not censure another so if you grant that out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford I may inferr that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith or at least that you are not certaine it is so nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary if I say you grant this you overthrow that Ground in which alone all Protestants pretend to agree and of which if they be not absolutly certaine the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous You overlash in supposing we say that the Church cannot erre whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End of not erring so also he will not faile to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes as shall be needfull for that End Your N. 163. about a place of S. Austine I haue answered very largly hertofore 77. In your N. 164. you say Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman There being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne 78. Answer If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece she is so farr from being divided from the Roman that she doth not only agree with but submitts to Her and receives from her Priests ordained in Rome it selfe and brought vp in Catholique Countries The Scismaticall Grecians to their division from the Roman Church haue added Heresy as even Protestants confesse and so are neither the whole Church nor any Church at all it being indeed no lesse than a kind of blasphemy to affirme that Conventicles of Heretikes can be the true Church of Christ Dr Lawde Pag 24. saith of the Errour of the Grecians I know and acknowledge that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son to be a grievous errour in Divinity And Pag 154. I would faine know what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall than that of Filioque Which Errour of the Grecians hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells in which the Grecians
different natures yea there should be as many formall differences of Faith as there are different Points which men belieue according to different capacities or instruction c And therfore we must say that vnity in Faith doth not depend vpon Points Fundamentall but vpon Gods Revelation equally or vnequally proposed And Protestants pretending an vnity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamentall Points do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of Faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them and since they disagree in things equally revealed by God it is evident that they forsake the very formall motiue of Faith which is Gods Revelation and consequently loose all Faith and vnity therein In which words we see Charity Maintayned speakes of that vnity of Faith which is taken from the Formall Object and which to oppose is the proper cause of damnation for erring persons in all Objects whether they be great or small like or vnlike of themselves 21 Now in this discourse what false Propositions what confusion can you finde You say Who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits and therfore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit bespecall from the Act and Object inspeciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which is moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 22. Answer To what purpose talk you of the Essence of Habits seing the Discourse of Cha Ma concerned only the Act of Faith whereby we belieue some Truths because they are revealed by God and vpon this ground he proved that every contrary Act is damnable and a grievous sinne which cannot be verifyed of Habits which of themselves are not sinnes Now who can deny that an Act of Faith takes its nature Essence and specification as Philosophers speak from the Divine Revelation And I hope you will not tell vs that the Essence of all Acts is taken from their Act and their Object as if the Essence of the Act were derived from the Act. Dr Potter Pag 139. saith expressly The formall Object or reason of Faith the chiefe Motiue mark motiue the first and farthest Principle into which it resolves is only divine Revelation Obserue that Divine Revelation only is the first and last into which Faith resolves without mentioning that it is taken from the Act yea excluding it by the word only only Divine Revelation And Pag 143. he saieth The chiefe Principle and ground on which Faith rests and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds is divine Revelation made in Scripture Nothing less then this nothing but this can erect or qualify an Act of supernaturall Faith which must be absotutely vndoubted and certaine and without this Faith is but opinion or perswasion or at the most acquired humane beleef Which words not only declare the Essence of Divine Faith but also express how by that Essence it is distinguished from other things and in particular from humane Faith perswasion and opinion as Cha Ma saied the vnity and distinction of every thing followeth the Nature and Essence therof Thus you see that Cha Ma spoke truth in affirming that the Nature and Being of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes and that Potter vseth the word Motiue directly in this sense and to this purpose 23. What doe you meane in saying If the habit be generall the essence is taken from the Act and Object in generall If the Habit be speciall from the Act and Obiect in speciall I am very sure that every Habit and Act exists in particular though their Obiects be never so generall and so the Acts to which Habits incline are particular Acts producible by those Habits and nothing taken only in generall can be producible 24. Cha. Ma. and Dr. Potter saied that our motiue to belieue is the Divine Revelation and which is more you affirme the same heere That Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him And yet you strangely object That the Motiue to a thing cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves who can doubt that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect 25. Answer First The motiue or Formall Object of which we speak is not an efficient cause in respect of the Habit or Act of Faith but if you will reduce it to one of the foure kinds of Causes which are commonly assigned some will saie it is Causa formalis extrinseca and perhaps others will say that you belieue the motiue to a thing to be an efficient cause because Aristotle defines the efficient cause to be Principium motus and you confound motum and motivum or motion and motiue Secondly Though a motiue were an efficient Cause your Argument That it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves because the efficient cause is is alwayes extrinsecall to the effect is of no moment For no man ever dreamed that the motiue or formall Object of Faith is of the intrinsecall essence of the act therof as Genus and Differentia are intrinsecall to the Species or Materia and Forma are intrinsecall Composito physico but that the act takes its essence from the formall Motiue or object and essentially is or includes a Referēce to it as every creature essentially hath a Relation to God who is the Prime and supreme efficient cause of all things and consequently as you say extrinsecall to them For this cause C Ma saied not that the Motiue to belieue is the essence of Faith but that the essence or nature of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes Which words signify a difference not an identity seing a thing is not saied to take from itself but to be its owne Essence Do not yourselfe say that the Essence of all Habits is taken from their Act and from their Object And yet I suppose you will not grant that the Act and Object are of the Essence of Habits as intrinsecall to them Especially seing naturall Habits are essiciently produced by Acts and Acts by Habits even supernaturall Acts as by their efficient causes And therfore according to your words are always extrinsecall to the effect And so you answer and confute your owne selfe 26. You doubt what Cha ma did meane by these words Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects But his meaning is cleare that Gods Revelation is the same whether it be applyed to Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and can no more be disbelieved in one kind of these Objects than in another it being no lesse impossible that the Supreme Verity and Veracity can testify a falshood in
were not the Apostles an aggregation of men of which every one had freewill and was subject to passions and errour if they had beene left to themselves And therfore by your Divinity it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility which the Holy Ghost did offer to them I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme But is the Church indeed nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to paâ—sions and errour Hath she not a promise of divine assistance even according to Protestants against all Fundamentall errours which surely is more than to be nothing else than an aggregation of men subject to passions and errours even Fundamentall And as for freewill I aske whether that be taken away by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points or no. If not then freewill may well consist with infallibility If it be taken away then what absurdity is it to say that it is takeÌ„ away by infallibility in Points not FudameÌ„tall In aword whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles for all Points and in the Church for Fundamentall articles the same will serue to confute your owne Objection and shew that you contradict your owne doctrine and the Doctrine of Protestants yea of all Christians who belieue the Apostles to be infallible But of this I haue spoken hertofore more than once and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned that by Potters manner of interpreting those texts of Scripture which speake of the stability and infallibility of the Church and limiting it to Points Fundamentall he may affirme that the Apostles and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting downe Points Fundamentall For if it be vrged that all Scripture is divinely inspired Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer that Scripture is inspired only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice but only say that the Scripture saith All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church shew where it is written that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end But all this is not to the purpose to shew by what Law Rule Priviledge or evident Text of Scripture you take vpon you to restraine generall Promises made for the Church to Points Fundamentall and not limite those words All Scripture is divinely inspired to the same Fundamentall Points For this you neither doe nor are able to answer but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text All Scripture is divinely inspired Nay beside this you do not shew by what authority you do not only restraine the Praedicatum divinitus inspirata but also the subjectum togeather with the signe all All Scripture which not only may but in your doctrine must be limited in a strange manner seing you teach that some Part of Scripture is infallible neither in Fundamentall nor vnfundamentall Points For here N. 32. you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence and not as Divine Revelation And so it will not be vniversally true for any kind of Points that All Scripture is divinely inspired How then will you proue by these words that Scripture is infallible in all Points if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition which is Scripture to certaine Parts of Scripture and that indeed the Praedicatum divinely inspired may be limited to Fundamentall Points vpon as good ground as you limite the generall promises ef God and words of Scripture which concerne the infallibility of the Church 39. But N. 33. you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them and to proue this sequele you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme But I haue shewd that the Apostles may haue infallibility in a more high absolute and independent manner than the Church although the Churches infallibility reach to Points not Fundamentall as Protestants will not deny that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points in a more high manner than the Church hath though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles Yea if you will haue the Doctour speake properly to say the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church must suppose that the Church hath that guidance and consequently as you inferr infallibility though not in so high a manner as the Apostles I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned N. 13. and judge whether he speakes not with all reason and proves what he saith in this behalfe and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise and teach notwithstanding his owne confession that what was promised to the Apostles is verifyed also in the vniversall Church that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall I can only favour him and you so far as to tell you he contradicts himselfe 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary Charity Maintayned N. 13. spoke truth in affirming that Potter Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points For though the Doctor name the Church when he saieth Pag 152. that there are many millions of truths in Nature and History whereof the Church is ignorant and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome where with the Church is not acquainted yet his reasons either proue nothing or els must comprise the Apostles no less than the Church as Charity Maintayned expressly observes Pag 93. though I grant that some of the Doctors words agree only to the Church which is nothing against Charity Maintayned that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the c at which you carp But let the Doctour say and meane what he best pleases sure I am that neither he nor you will ever be able to proue by any evident Text of Scripture that the foresayd or other generall promises of infallibility extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles and to Fundamentall Articles only for the Church And this is the maine businesse in hand Though in the meane tyme I must not omit to say that your Syllogisme is very captious and deceitfull which is He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls But Dr Potter grants to the Church such a limited infallibility and ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner Therfore he limits not the Apostles
infallibility to Fundamentalls I say the Major of this Syllogisme on which all depends is deceitfull For though he that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls by only and precisely granting the Church infallible in Fundamentalls and ascribing to the Apostles the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner yet he may doe it by some other way and in particular by the meanes of which now we speake that is by restraining the selfe same words of Scripture which without distinction speak of the Apostles and the Church to Fundamentall Points in respect of the Church and not in order to the Apostles and this voluntarily without proofe from any other evident Text of Scripture which yet in the Grounds of Protestants were necessary in this case As also by proving the fallibility of the Church by Arguments which must involue the Apostles no lesse than the Church as even now I haue proved Howsoever that you are not a faithfull interpreter of Dr Potter appeares by your saying He out of curtesy grants you that those words the Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and shall abide with you for ever though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the Apostles yet in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense they may be vnderstood of the Church For where doth Dr Potter say that these words agree to the Church in a conditionall sense Which conditionall sense you interpret N. 34. to singify if the Church adhere to the direction of the Apostles and so far as she doth adhere to it which overthrowes the doctrine of Potter and other Protestants that the Church is absolutely infallible and cannot erre in Fundamentall Points in which yet she might erre if the promise of our Saviour were only conditionall and it would giue no more to the Church than to any private person who is sure not to erre not only in Fundamentall but even in vnfundamentall Points as far as he adheres to the direction of the Apostles And by this reflection the difficulty against Dr Potter and you growes to be greater how the same words of Scripture are vnderstood both of the Apostles and of the Church absolutely for Points Fundamentall and only conditionally for the Church in Points not Fundamentall And how will you be able to proue this various acception of the same words in order to the same Church and not only in respect of the Apostles and the Church by any other evident Text of Scripture You say to Cha Ma Do you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Doctour sayes which yet I know he never intended no more was promised in this place therfore he sayes no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 41. Answer If the Doctour spoke beyond or contrary to what he intended I cannot wonder since whosoever defends a bad cause is subject to write contradictions which yet men intend no to doe You say there may be other places besides this I answer It is neither in your nor in any mans power to alledg any place which may not be interpreted and restrayned as you limit this of which we speake Certainly the Doctour being to proue the absolute infallibility of the Apostles was much to blame for alledging ineffectuall Texts if He could haue found better Indeed I find in his Pag 152. these words That other promise of Christs being with his Matth 28.20 vnto the end of the world is properly meant as some Ancients truly giue the sense of his comfortable ayde and assistance supporting the weaknesse of his Apostles and their Successours in their Ministery or preaching of Christ But it may well be also applyed as it is by others (a) 5. Leo Scrm 10 de Nativ Cap 5. to the Church vniversall Which is ever in such manner assisted by the good Spirit that it never totally falls from Christ But as in the other Texts so in this the Question returnes to be asked by what evident place of Scripture can you or He proue that this Text speakes of an vniversall Assistance for the Apostles and only a limited direction for the Church seeing Potter grants that it may well be also applyed as it is by others to the Church vniversall You could say N. 30. Shew where it is written that all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end And much more may we say to you Shew some evidenr Text of Scripture that the Apostles are infallible in all Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall the Church only in Fundamentalls or that any Text of Scripture makes any such distinction I say much more may we say Shew c. Because the truth Authority and infallibility of the Church is proved independently of Scripture as the infallibility of the Apostles was proved before any Scripture of the New Testament was written But you who hold that we can belieue nothing as a matter of Faith vnlesse it be evidently set downe in Scripture are obliged either to proue the difference of infallibility in the Apostles and the Church by some evident Text of Scripture or els you cannot be assured of it as a thing revealed by God You see how hard you were pressed and therfore were forced to giue this noble answer That Dr. Potter out of courtesy grants vs that those words The spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever in a conditionall limited moderate secondary sense may be vnderstood of the Church But I haue shewed that you misalledge the Doctour who sayes expressly that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles and is verifyed in the Church vniversall Now I aske whether or no it be true that this promise is verifyed in the Church If it be true that is if God hath revealed it to be so one would thinke it were no point of ceremony or courtesy but a matter of necessity to acknowledge so much It seemes you thinke the Doctour was of your disposition who Pag 69. N. 47. say to Charity Maintayned You might haue met with an answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose But I goe on and say if it be not true nor revealed that those words are verifyed of the Church how durst Potter affirme that they were verifyed of Her Is it lawfull to add to the old and coyne new Revelations Doth not Potter say Pag 222. to add to it he speakes of the Creed is high presumption almost as great as to detract from it 42. You say The Apostles must be ledd into all such truths as was requisite to make them the
cockle is to be suffered or as I may say tolerated to growe with the wheate least vntymely weeding the cockle spoile the good corne that is of two vnavoidable evills it is not only lawfull but laudable yea necessary to chuse the lesser which taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sorte good as in some proportion I declared heretofore speaking of the case of invincible and inculpable Perplexity as heere the Church is necessitated without any fault of hers either to suffer a less or doe a greater evill by vntymely and fruiteless rigor Did not the Apostles and must not all Prelats permit many sinnes of diverse kinds which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth vnless they were Omnipotent to rule the wills of men and effectually drawe them only to good But you speak very vnworthily of the vniversall Church of Christ when you would make the world belieue that the farre greater part of Christians in S. Austines tyme was guilty of vaine superstitions and avowed and practised them yea or even dissembled them in silence when prudent Charity and zeale could dictate the contrary As for your parity betwen the whole Church and particular members thereof it hath bene confuted heretofore infallibility being promised to the Church not to private persons and you might make the same Argument to proue that the Apostles might erre in matters which they delivered as Points of Faith and yet remaine parts of the Church as well as particular men might erre and remaine members of the Church if their errours were inculpable If you say the Apostles were to teach others and so could not erre even inculpably you know we say the same of the Church which is Judge of Controversyes and was before Scripture and from which we receyue true Tradition Scripture and the interpretation thereof But if we suppose that those superstitious persons chanced to erre in any Point against Faith and remained obstinate therein after sufficient Declaration of the Churches Doctrine to the contrary then they became formall Heretiques excluded from being members of the Church and so cannot be saied to be either the greater or lesser or any part thereof 60. In your N. 49. You say But now after all this adoe what if S. AustaneÌ„ sayes not this which is pretended of the Church viz that she neither approves nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but only of good men of the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen qûae sunâ— contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c The Church tolerater many things and yet what is against Faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 61. Answer But who beside yourself hath made all this adoe Which certainly you would never haue made vnless you had believed that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintayned cites it and for that cause you found it necessary to take so much paines spend so many words and make so much adoe to answer it If an English Protestant should cite the English Translation approved in England as the Text hath it were he obliged to take notice of every different Lection quoted in the Margin And were not such English Protestants obliged to answer according to the Reading which all things considered the Translators though fittest and securest to be placed in the Text itself If the Text condemne can the margent acquit him I haue procured to know what divers Editions haue and amongst the rest one of Basilea Anno 1556 and not one of them all hath in the Text nec bonus only the Edition of Lovaine hath it in the margin But you are much mistaken if you conceyue that our Argument looses its force though we should read nec bonus approbat For to omit your owne manner of arguing els where and even in this place that good men are part of the Church and therefore it is impossible that the whole Church can be saied to approue or dissemble or practise those things we ground our proofe on such considerations as I touched aboue that the Church is saied only to tolerate and is contradistinguished from those who approue or practise the saied abuses as also she is opposed to cockâ—e and chasse yea yourfelf confess that S. Austine affirmes that they were neither contained in Scripture deâ—reed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the vniversall Church Which shewes how innocent she was from being obnoxious to that imputation of approving those presumptions Which also appeares by the whole drift of S. Austines discourse where still he makes a difference betwene the Church and those erring persons Besides when you would haue him say A good man will neither approue nor c by a good man you must not vnderstand every pious or devout or even holy person who may be subject to such abuses as S. Austine speaks of seing you cite him saying Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely disollow But by good men you must of necessity vnderstand such as haue zeale with knowledg such as are of a right and settled true judgment in matters belonging to Faith and Religion and certainly such they cannot be in the opinyon of S. Augustine who could think that the Church can approue any errour or superstition seing we haue heard him say Ep 118. If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be done is a most insolent madness Will you haue an vnderstanding good man to be guilty of most insolent madness If a good man cannot approue such things much less in truth and in the opinion of S. Austine the Church could doe it So that reade S. Austine as you please the sentence which Charity Maintayned alledged proves the infallibility of Gods Church neither can you finde any meanes to avoide this inference except by vnmasking yourself and saying as you doe here N. 44. To deal ingeniously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it or that all his sentences ore oracles And so I may returne your owne words and say But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies what Charity Maintayned affirmes him to say seing you do not much regard what S. Austine saies 62. For answer to your N. 53. I say that Charity Maintayned had reason to affirme that seing no private persoÌ„s ought to presume that they are endued with greater infallibility than the Church which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamentall Points they cannot
to bring one to open contradictions which you confess is very difficult and vnreasonable you should say impossible for a man in his right wits to belieue and so you forsake your two Dr. Vsher and Potter in this Assertion which you say N. 47. the one preached and printed the other reprinted Your second answer is that the latter part of Dr. Vshers words is but a repetition of the former But this answer destroyes the former which yet you do not deny to be good and agreeable to the meaning of the Doctor For if the Second part be a contradiction of the former as according to your first answer it is how can it be only a repetition therof And you tooke not a fitt example out of S. Athanasius his Creed to proue a meere repetition you I say who wickedly hold that Creed which indeed is a Catholique profession of the chiefest Articles of Christian Religion to be but an aggregate of Contradictions And yet that explication of S. Athanasius Neither confounding the Persons c was necessary against some Heresies that grāted a distinction of Persons only quoad nomina ād not in reality For your other vulgar examples to proue that those latter words may be only a repetition of the former you must remember that in matters of Faith all shew or shadow of contradictions or falshood must be carefully avoided as certainly it is a pernicious thing to giue occasion of believing that a damnable Heresie may stand with the belief of all necessary Articles of Faith and so a formall Heretique may be saved and nevertheless you do not deny but that Dr. Vshers words may suppose this Yet Charity Maintayned out of this poyson gathered this wholsome doctrine in the same N. 17. that if one believing all Fundamentall Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable heresies it followes that the fundamentall truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed And so the Creed cannot be saied to containe all Points necessary to be believed which is the maine Point in hand You wonder that Ch. Ma. did nor espie an other contradiction in D. Vshers words like to that which He noted but if that other be a contradiction you say it is of the same nature with that which was observed and so it had bene to multiply things without necessity But enough of this which Ch. Ma. N. 17. professed to note only by the way which yet did either trouble you very much for the difficulty of his argument or else you are willing to take anie occasion of making a vaine shew of your skill in Logick and Metaphysick but with how many contradictions and little credit to yourselfe I hope the Reader hath seene by the confutation of all your Reasons 35. In your number 48.49 you are highly offended with Ch. Ma. as if he had said N. 18. that Dr. Potter patches vp a Religion of men agreeing in some few or one Article of beliefe that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest hold conceipts plainly contradictory which you say is a shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his owne judgment but relates the opinion of others M. Hocker and M. Morton but especially even these men as they are related by Dr. Potter to the constitution of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world but also submission to his Doctrine in minde and will Now I beseech you Syr tell me ingenuously whether the Doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions agree with one consent in the beliefe of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation And so the truths wherin they agree amount to many millions c. 36. Answer First Ch Ma in the said N. 18. doth not ground his Assertion vpon the Doctrine of Hooker and Morton but vpon the principles of Potter and Protestants who hold that men may be members of the same Church if they agree in fundamentall Articles though they should differ in never so many other points and you cannot deny this not only to be true but the very ground for which they hold themselves to be brethren and capable of salvation notwithstanding their differences in matters not fundamentall From whence it followes that although it were granted that Protestants agree in many Points not fundamentall yet this is meerely accidentall and nothing against the Assertion of Ch Ma because if once you suppose them to agree in all fundamentalls and disagree in all other Points they must still be members of one Church For in this mattet more or fewer cannot alter their case so they keepe with in the compass of non-fundamentalls as contrarily though they were supposed to agree in those many millions which you mention and in as many millions more as you may please to imagine of points not fundamentall yet if they differ but in one fundamentall they cannot be members of the same Church and so your millions of such points can availe nothing either to constitute men members of the same Church or to hinder them from being so and therfor if you agree in never so many such points it helps you no more then if you agreed in none at all according to the ground and Doctrine of Potter and Model of his Church and therfor the saying of Ch Ma is very true who speaks reservedly in this manner According to this Model of Dr. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarcely one Point of Faith what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one or few Articles of beliefe who yet for the rest should be holding conceipts plainly contradictory so patching vp a Religion of men who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimera having the head of a man the neck of a horse c. For there is greater repugnancy betwene assent and dissent then betwene integrall parts as head neck c. These words if you read them with attention doe not affirme what is de facto but only goe vpon a supposition that is what a Church he would make if men agreed only in fundamētall points and for the rest should hold conceipts plainly contradictorie and therfor he vseth the word Model which signifies not necessarily what is but what would be if Potter proceeded according to his owne grounds taking them for a Model of his building Thus Ch Ma doth not wrong Dr. Potter in imputing to him the opinions of others but you misalledge Ch Ma that you may accuse him of calumny created by yourselfe 37. Secondly I answer if Ch Ma had spoken not vpon meere supposition but by way of affirmation as he did not if he committed any
Maintayned sayd not so much as he might haue sayd of Potters assertion and therfor was far enough from doing him any wrong 48. Thirdly Seing that one must not at first be referred to Scripture as we haue proved nor to Generall Councells which Dr. Potter says may erre weakely and so be deceaved and wilfully and so deceaue nor that he can consult with the whole Church collectiuè or all togeather as you grant the Doctour sayes what remaines but that he must deale a parte with every particular member of the Church Which being also impossible as is clear of it selfe and when you seeke to proue it you labour for your Adversary who sayeth the very same thing it remaines that all the wayes which Potter can propose to a man desirous to saue his soule are not only ineffectuall but impossible also and only chalke out a way to desperation and that He and other Protestants must haue patience to be told this truth that they must not wonder if contradictories be deduced from their Assertions which they must often vary even against their wills Ch Ma never intended to make or not make a difference betweene the vniversall Church and the whole Church militant but only Pag. 137. cites the Doctours words as he findes them and proves that they cannot serue for the effect of quieting an afflicted soule not regarding whether those different words which he vseth signifie any different thing or noe 49. Fourthly Seing in pursuit of some good and infallible ground wheron to settle Divine Faith Potter can admit none but the Scripture or the vniversall Church and that Scripture cannot instruct vs with certainty independently of the Church as we haue demonstrated nor that the whole Church can be consulted it remaines only that he must wish one to finde out some who believes all fundameÌ„tall points and follow him and that then the first question to passe betweene them should be to know whether he knows all such points and if this cannot be knowne it is cleare the Doctour can giue no satisfaction to any considering man desirous to know the truth It is pretty that you tell vs the Doctour in all his Booke gives no such Answer as this procure to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of Faith as if Ch Ma had pretended to relate a history and not only to tell the Reader what Potter must be forced to answer according to his grounds Though I grant he will by doing so be necessitated to contradict both Truth and Himselfe And you will never be able to shew but that Potter must make such answers as Ch ma exprest if the Doctor will be faithfull to his owne grounds Your discourse about probabilities and even wagers is impertinent both because we deny that indeed Dr. Potters opinion about the Creed hath any probability at all and because Ch Ma speakes only of probabilities and even wagers which is a good comparison seing a thing very probable doth not hinder but that the contradictory may be very probable and so be eaven or equall one to an other aÌ„d your talking of probability in the highest degree is your owne addition or fiction and not the Doctors Assertion as may be seene in his Pag. 241. and yourself expresly confess N. 4. and 5. Pag. 194. that he affirmed it only to be very probable that the Creed containes all necessary points of those which you call Credenda What you write so often about the vncertainty that one is a Pope hath been answered at large 50. Fiftly Who can deny but that whosoever desires to be saved and knowes that to obtaine salvation it is necessary to belieue explicitly all fundamentall points will instantly judge it necessary to know what those points be as de facto Ch. Mist vrged to haue a Catalogue of them Now if to satisfy this demand Dr. Potter gives vs no other answer but only some Definitions and Descriptions or Explications of the name Fundamentall without specifying what they are in particular and so not satisfy at all the desire of any wise man what can I helpe that Or who can blame Ch Ma for having sayd as much as Dr. Potters Booke could enable him to say Neither hath he patched vp any thing out of the Doctours Booke which he the Doctor is not obliged to grant according to his owne grounds as I haue sayd 51. Sixthly Seing every article contained in the Creed is not Fundamentall it would be demanded with Ch. Ma. How shall one know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall You say Dr. Potter would haue answered it is a vaine question belieue all and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall But by your leaue this businesse cannot be dispatched to soone For by occasion of your Answer I must make some demands whether every one is obliged to belieue or know explicitly those points of the Creed which are not fundâ—mentall To say every one is bound were to make them properly Fundamentall For we haue heard Potter saying Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith If one be not obliged to belieue explicitely those points of the Creed which are not fundamentall then I am not bound to know the Creed that I may know them Perhaps some may say I am obliged to know the Creed because it containes fundamentall points which I am bound to know expresly and so I shall at least per accidens and by consequence be obliged to know all points contained in the Creed as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall This Answer must suppose that I am obliged vnder damnation to know that Symbol which we call the Creed of the Apostles and seing Protestants professe that all things necessary to Salvation are contained in Scripture alone they must shew out of some expresse evident text of Scripture such a command which you know is impossible to be done since Scripture never mentions any such thing as the Apostles Creed and therfor one cannot be obliged to know points not Fundamentall in vertue of a precept to know the Creed seing Protestants cannot belieue any command obliging men to know the Creed c. Besides All the Arguments which proue that the Creed was composed by the Apostles or that it containes all fundamentall points must be grounded vpon the Authority of the Church which according to Potter and other Protestants may erre in points not fundamentall and none of them affirmes that it is a fundamentall point which all vnder damnation are bound explicitely to belieue that the Apostles composed the Creed or that it containes all fundamentall points and then men cannot be sure that all points contained in it are true and much lesse can they be obliged to belieue explicitly by an act of Faith every Article therof according to the grounds of Protestants Moreover suppose one were perswaded that all the Articles contained in the Creed were true yet the arguments which Potter brings
answer with Ch. Ma. that the Apostles set downe those Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall which the Holy Ghost inspired them to deliver as you say they were inspired to set downe Credenda and not Agenda though these be of no lesse importance and necessity then those and you still begg the Question N. 75. that the end which the Apostles proposed was to set downe all necessary points of Faith The reasons which you giue N. 76. why some mysteries were omitted and others set downe can only be congruences of that which is done de facto and not arguments convincing that they could not haue done otherwise thē they did ād if they had set downe others and not these there could not haue wanted reasons for their so doing That the three Sages who came to adore our Saviour were also Kings is no new invention of Ch. Ma. but the judgment of the Ancient as may be seene in Cornelius a Lapide in Matth. Chap. 2. citing by name the Saints Ciprian Basil Chrisostom Hierom Hilary and Tertullian Isidore Beda Idacius The words which you cited out of Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr 2. Cap. 10. N. 10. that the Apostles were not so forgetfull after the receiving of the holy Ghost as to leaue out any prime ād Principall Foundation of Faith make nothing for your purpos seing we dispute not whether any prime or principall foundation of Faith be left out for we acknowledge that the Creed expresses the Creator of all things and Redeemer of mankinde as also the Blessed Trinity Resurrection Catholique Church Remission of sinnes and life everlasting which of themselves are prime and principall foundations of our Faith if they be vnderstood according to the interpretation and tradition of the Church but whether any necessary though not prime and principall be left out and that may well be necessary which is not prime and principall as many parts are necessary to make a house which are not the prime and principall parts therof Yet indeed Gordonius in that 10. Chapter assignes the properties of the foundation of Faith that is of that Authority vpon which our Faith relies which he proves Chap. 11. not to be Scripture alone and C. 12. not to be the private spirit but Chap 13. to be the Church and he saieth the Apostles could not leaue out of their Creed in quo continentur omnia prima fundamenta Fidei this primum praencipuum Fidei fundamentum Where you see he speakes of the First foundations of Faith and more things may be necessary than the First foundations Besides we deny not but all necessary points are contained in the Creed in some of those senses which I haue declared hertofore which being well cōsidered particularly that Article of the Catholick Church will demonstrate that the Creed togeather with those means which are affoarded vs by tradition c for the true vnderstanding therof and vndoubted supplying of what is not contained in it is of no lesse vse and profit then if all points had been exprest which indeed had been to little purpos yea would haue proved noxious by the malice of men without the declaration of the Church for the Orthodox sense and meaning of them 62. You doe not well in saying that Charity Maintayned denyes this consequence of Dr. Potter That as well nay better they might haue given no Article but that of the Church and sent vs to the Church for all the rest For in setting downe others besides that and not all they make vs belieue we haue all when we haue not all and neither gives reason against it nor satisfies his reason for it For Charity Maintayned performes both those things neither of which you say he performes as every one may see who reads his N. 29. to say nothing that in good Logick the defendent is not obliged to giue a reason why he denyes a consequence it being reason sufficiēt that the opponent or disputant proves it not though yet indeed Charity Maintayned doth shew the insufficiency of the Doctors inference by giving the like consequences which confessedly cannot be good and yourselfe endeavour to answer the reasons of Charity Maintayned which he brought against the sayd inference of Potter You say If our doctrine were true this short Creed I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible would haue been better that is more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresie and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we haue a proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your religion or indeed any sensible man can from his hart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope doe not rightly aprehende the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of those sever all supposed Creeds 63. Answer perhaps I shall say in the beginning that which will make your endeavour proue vaine You say If our doctrine were true this short Creed I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible would haue been botter that is more effectuall to keepe the believes of it from heresie and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we haue But this ground of yours is evidently false For the effect or Fruit or Goodnesse or Betternesse so to speake of the Creed is not sufficiently explicated by being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy and in the true Faith but it implies also som particular articles which are to be believed in the beliefe of which that we may not erre the infallibility of the Church directs ād secures vs which office she might and would haue performed although this Article I belieue the Catholick Church directs ād secures vs had not beene exprest in the Creed yea that article ād the whole Creed supposes the infallibility of the Church to haue been proved ād believed antecedēter to thē that so we may be assured all the contēts therof to be infallibly true Now by the precise beliefe of that Creed which you propose taken alone we could not belieue any particular article of Faith because this precise act I belieue the Church to be infallible terminates in that one object of the infallibility of the Church from which I grant the beliefe of other particular objects may be derived when the Church shall propose thē but thē ipso facto we should begin to beleeue other particular objects and so haue an other Creed and not that little one of which you speake and besides which we are obliged to belieue other particular revealed Truths and therfor we must still haue some other Creed or Catechisme or what you would haue it called besides that one article of the Catholick Church as Charity Maintayned observes Pag 144. and consequently though that article of the Church haue that great and necessary effect of keeping vs from heresy and in the true Faith yet it wants that other property of a Creed
of setting downe particular Truths Whence it followes that that article alone cannot be a Creed as men speake of Creeds and particular points may be a Creed though that article of the Church were not exprest but presupposed and proved independently both of the Creed and Scripture in manner declared heretofore And here Dr. Potter should remember his owne doctrine and the doctrine of most Protestants that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles of Faith and therfor according to your manner of arguing this short Creed I belieue the Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall points would haue been better that is more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresy and in the true Faith then this Creed which now we know and so either you must forsake the Doctor about the Churches infallibility in fundamētalls or he must reject your argument and both of you grant that you proue nothing against Ch Ma but only contradict one another You confesse that the Creed containes not Agenda why doe you not say It had been better to refer vs to the Church then to set downe in the Creed only Credenda which alone are not sufficient to bring any man to heaven and so make men thinke hey haue all in the Creede when the haue scharsly halfe Motrover If you respect only infallibility or being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy in your grounds neither the Articles of the Church nor the other articles as they are now in the Creed could haue so great commodity and no danger as you say speaking of the Churches infallibility as this one generall article belieue the Scripture to be infallible and therfor either you must take this one article as the best Creed which no man will ever grant or answer your owne argument by saying To belieue the Scripture is too generall an object and that a Creed or Catechisme must include some other particular objects or some such answer you must giue which will be easily turned vpon yourselfe Thus your N. 78. and 79. which goe vpon your first supposition that that Creed is the better that keepes the believer of it frō heresy c remaine confuted and the Syllogisme which you make proves a meere paralogisme For that petite Creed which you propose would be so farr from having greater commodities in order to the intent of Creeds then this other that it could be no Creed at all in that sense in which hitherto the ancient Fathers and all Divines haue spoken of Creeds and of summaries of Faith If you haue a minde to change the name and meaning of Creeds and to substitute some one proposition indeed I know no better in order to vse and safety then this The visible Church of Christ is infallible For this being once believed I may learne what is true Scripture what the sense therof what points be necessary in all occasions which commodity we cannot attaine by Scripture alone as hath been often sayd 64. You say N. 80. That having compared the inference of Ch. ma. and Dr. Potters togeather you cannot discover any shadow of resemblance betweene them nor any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some Body to deliver it Much lesse why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnderstand you might avouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creedcontaines all things necessary therfor there is no need to belieue in God Neither does it follow so well as Dr. Potters Argument follows That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherin are added diuers other particulars are superfluous For these other particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still containe all points of beliefe that are simply necessary These therfor are poore consequences but no more like Dr. Potters then an apple is likean Oister 65. Answer Dr. Potter argued that if the Apostles did not deliver in the Creed all necessary points they might as well haue given only that Article of the Church Which manner of arguing Ch. Ma. retorts and sayth we may rather inferr thus If the Apostles delivered in the Creed all necessary points what need we any Church to teach vs And consequently what need is there of the Atticle concerning the Church What need we the Creed of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Cathecismes wherin besides the articles of the Creed you haue divers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours Thus Ch. Ma. who as you see doth not approue these consequences but expresly saith they are poore ones Which consequences while you also labour to disproue you doe but take paines for your adversary to your owne cost But at least you will say ther is no shadow of resemblance betweene them and that of Dr. Potters Yes ther is this resemblance That as the Doctour argues all necessarie points are not contained in the Creed therfor it had been as good or better to haue no Article of the Creed but that of the Church least that as he saieth Pag. 226. in setting downe others besides that and yet not all they may make vs belieue we haue all when we haue not all So contrarily Ch Ma argues That if all other necessary points be contained in the Creed what need we the Church to teach vs or that Article of the Church which deduction might be made good by the Doctours feare least that if we haue that Article of the Church we may thinke that alone sufficient wherein he might be confirmed by the commodityes which you say are implied in the point of the Churches infallibility and so be carelesse in seeking any other particular object or article of Faith Which argument is like to that of the Doctours except only that indeed it is much better than his and may be made a kinde of demonstration by adding that in your grounds the article of the Church is not fundamentall or necessary to salvation and therfor whosoever believes all the articles of the Creed if it be supposed to containe all necessary points of Faith may be saved though he belieue not that of the Church of which you say expresly in this your fourth Chapter N. 34.45 that it is not a fundamentall article and consequently not necessary to salvation yea it is further infer'd from hence that D. Potters argument is of no force seing it cannot be better to haue one only vnnecessary article of Faith then to haue divers fundamentall articles which no man denyes the Creed to containe and want that one not necessary or vnfundamentall point You say that you cannot discover any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude
a necessity of some body to deliver it Neither can I discover how this argument is not against yourselfe who teach that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith and that the article which doth concerne the Church is none of those necessary points from whence it follow that the perfection of the Creed that is the beliefe of all necessary articles excludes a necessity of believing that article of the Church For it implyes contradiction that I should belieue all that is necessary to be believed and yet some other points should be necessary or that a point not necessary should be necessary Neither is this in your grounds to exclude a necessity of some body to deliver the Creed but only to exclude a necessity of believing that this must be done by a perpetuall visible Church which you say N. 34. is not a fundamentall article and the same you teach in divers other places of your Booke You add much lesse can I discover any shew of reason why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should mak the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary As well for ought I vnder stand you might auouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters The Apostles Creed containes all things necessary therfor their is no need to belieue in God But who makes any such generall or causall inference Because the whole Creed containes all things necessary therfor the beliefe of a part of it is vnnecessary rather we must say the contrary Because it containes divers necessary points therfore the beliefe of divers of them is necessary I hope you will not deny this to be a good consequence the Creed containes all necessary articles togeather with some not necessary Therfor the beliefe of some part of it is not necessary And I wonder you would paralell our beliefe in God with that of the Church since the one is the most necessary article of all others and the other in your opinion is not necessary The rest of your discourse in this Number serves only to confirme the argument of Ch. Ma. who never sayd absolutely that if the Apostles Creed containe all things necessary all other Creeds and Catechismes are superfluous but expresly called it a poore consequence and yet that it was as good as Potters which must be to this effect It is enough vpon the Doctours supposition not in truth or it is only necessary to belieue the article of the Church Therfor it is superfluous to belieue other articles contained in the Creed 66. In your N. 81. you are pleased to spend words in vaine D. Potter says As well nay better they might haue given vs no article but that and sent vs to the Church for all the rest Ch. Ma. having first proved this inference to be of no force by way of superrogation grants the thing inferred not absolutely but thus farr which words you leaue out and yet they overthrow all that you say here that de facto our B. Saviour hath sent vs to the Church by her to be taught and by her alone because she was before the Creed and Scriptures and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs had delivered vs the rCeed holy Scripture vnwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions Thus Ch. Ma. hath granted you all that he pretended to grant as might haue been apparent if you had not omitted his first words Thus farr and not farther nor so farr as you would needs make him to haue pretended 67. Your N. 82.83 haue been answered already For if Dr. Potter meant that the article of the Church might be sufficient as containing all things necessary to be believed and that therfor we needed not the Creed Ch. Ma. sayth truly it is no good argument The Creed containes not all things necessary and that article of the Church is in rigour sufficient Therfor the Creed is not profitable or if the Doctour meant that the article of the Church were enough because the Church afterward would teach all things by Creeds or Catechismes c. that were but to leaue the Creed and afterward to come to it and indeed to tell vs that the Church must doe that which had beene done already and therfor in what sense soever you take the Doctours argument it was confuted by Ch. Ma. But now while you pretend to stand for the sufficiency of the Creed in all necessary points of beliefe you doe indeed overthrow it while you speake to Ch. Ma. in this manner Supposing the Apostles had written â—hese Scriptures as they haue written wherin all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that doctrine which they did preach and done all other things as they haue done besides the compossng their simbol I say if your doctrine weretrue they had done a work infinitly more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never coÌ„posed their simbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Simbol should be betweene those that are true Christians and those that are not so but in steed therof had delivered this one proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the forsaid good inteÌ„ts aÌ„d purposes the RomaÌ„ Church shall be for ever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith who sees not that according to this discourse of yours the Apostles assuring vs that the scripture is infallible aÌ„d evideÌ„t in all necessary points de facto haue done as much service to the Church as you say they would haue done by that article I belieue the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible For this evidence of Scripture being supposed you teach that ther is no need of a guide or an infallible Church when the way is plaine of it selfe And if notwithstanding this your doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture alone the Creed is not vnprofitable and that the Apostles haue done better service to the Church by giving vs both the Creed and Scripture So I say that one article of the Church togeather with the Creed had been more profitable and of greater service then that Article alone yea the Church as I sayd must haue delivered some Creed and it was a great service to vs that the Apostles had done it to her hand If you deny this you must deny the Creed and Scripture to be de facto more profitable then the Scripture alone and so the Creed shall be of no profit For I suppose if either the Creed or Scripture be not profitable you will say it is the Creed rather then the Scripture If you say the articles of the Creed being clearly but diffusedly set downe in the Scripture as Potter speakes haue been afterwards summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed which therfor is of great vse I reply that by this answer you teach vs to confute your argumeÌ„t by saying that as Scripture is too large for a Creed or an abridgment so
Tradition Heere yourselfe expressly distinguish those who tooke their direction only from Scripture from others who tooke it from the Writings of the Fathers and the Decrees of Councells c. The truth is you vndertooke to defend Potter and Protestants only to haue the occasion of venting Socinianisme and covertly overthrowing Protestantisme and vpon grounds which indeed overthrow all Religion You say Let me tell you the difference between them especially in comparison of your Church and Religion is not the difference between good and bad but between good and better Answer in matters of Faith of two disagreeing the one must be in an errour against Divine Testimony and the other in the right I hope you will not say that the difference betweene an Assent of Faith and an errour against Faith is not between good and bad but between good and better as if errour against Faith were good but not so good as Faith Now those different capitall Principles of which you spoke cānot chuse but produce different and opposite conclusions and Doctrines of which one must be an errour 24. In your N. 83.84.85.86.87.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.96 you spend many words with much vnnecessary fervour against the answers which Ch. Ma. gives to two similitudes which D. Potter brings to excuse Protestants from the guilt of Schisme which similitudes you alledge in a cursiffe letter but add words of importance which the Doctour hath not His words faithfully alledged by Ch Ma. P. 194. N. 30 taken out of the Doctours P 81. 82. are these If a monastery should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline when others would not in this case could it in reason be charged with Schisme from others or with Apostasie from its rule and order Or as in a Society of men vniversally injected with soxie disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therfor sayd to separate from the Society so neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme from the Church seing all they did was to reforme themselves You say this argument is pressing and vnanswerable But Examples and similitudes are commonly sayed rather to illustrate then demonstrate and are often more captious then solid and convincing You haue no reason to accuse Ch Ma for perverting them for he first set downe the very words of Potter and then sets downe the case with application to our present purpose never affirming that the Doctour sets it downe in the manner and in those words but contrarily shewing that it should be so set downe which appeares by his express words N. 31. Before you make your finall resolution heare a word of advice And N. 32. Let me set before you these considerations All which words in both these places declare manifestly that Ch Ma did not pretend to set downe verbatim the Doctours case but to signify what he ought to haue considered and set downe and what de facto past in the division of Luther from the Church And lastly he shewes that the case being set downe as it ought to haue been made against the Doctour in favour of his adversary That all this is true will appeare by reading the discourse of Ch Ma N. 31.32.33.34 25. And it was easy for Ch. Ma. to retort the similitudes out of these grounds which he had proved That there is a most strict divine command not to forsake the communion of Gods Church Dr. Potter Pag 76. sayes Whosoever professeth himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole and therfor her the Roman Churches communion we forsake not no more then the Body of Christ And that externall communion is essentiall to make men members of the same Church which he Ch. Ma. shewes Pag 155. N. 5 and I haue proved heretofore For out of these two grounds it followes That it is de Jure Divino not to forsake the communion of the Church which according to Dr. Potter were to forsake the body of Christ and that to forsake the externall communion which is essentiall to the Church is to forsake the communion of the Church Now the similitudes of the Doctor to be of any force must suppose that ther is no divine command to remaine in that Monastery or company of those infected persons or else that to leaue their externall communion were not to leaue them and so in one word the parity must be absolutely denyed seing it is supposed that ther is no divine precept for remayning in that Monastery or Hospitall of sick people or else that to remaine in their company were not essentiall to be a member of such communities and therfor you say very irreligiously N. 84. That as it is possible to forsake other Societies that is their externall communion so also it may be Lawfull to forsake the communion of the Church for her pretended faults and corruptions But let vs see what you can object and I must here againe entreate the Reader to read Ch Ma. and not take his answers not only at a second but at an adversaries hand For here you practice an art first to divide the Reasons of Ch. Ma. and then to set vpon every single one a parte wheras there is such a connexion between his reasons that one receaves light and strength from another It seemes you haue a minde to cavill when you would seeme to make a difference between one Monasterie compared with other Monasteries of the same order and one or some few persons compared with the one Monasterie in which they liue Wheras you cannot but judge that there is the selfsame proportion and that the reason which may excuse or accuse in the one may doe the like in the other or rather indeed it is but one and the selfe same case for as much as belongs to our present purpose 26. You N. 85. in stead of āswering the case as C. Ma. puts it professe to alter it and to put it not just as Ch. Ma. would haue it Well even taking the case as you put it I say that if there were as ther is in our case a divine command not to part from such a community those observances which you suppose to be obliging would cease to oblige if they could not be kept without forsaking such a community yea though they did still oblige it were not Lawfull to leaue that community as I declared heretofore in case of minoris mali and perplexity But indeed Ch. Ma. speakes not of observances the omitting wherof did import sinne but in express termes of a case wherin a Monastery did confessedly obserue their substantiall vowes and all principiall Statutes or constitutions of the order though withsome neglect of lesser Monasticall Observances Neither is the streame of Casuists against Ch. Ma. in this nor S. Paul whome you cite while he sayes that we may not doe the least evill that we may doe the greatest good Seing in
his place and depending on him was not head of the Church while S. Peter did liue therefore he could not be his successor in that vniuersall power after S. Peters death Neither do you so much as offer to proue that S. Peter ever relinquished his being the particular Bishop of Rome and therefore how can you say the Bishop of Rome did succeed S. Peter while he was living seing no man can succeed a Bishop while that Bishop lives and is still Bishop of that particular Church in which an other is pretended to succeed him 42. Your Argument That as in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first is to giue it the right name a nothing or a meere equivocation in the Metaphor of a foundation whereas a Foundation in our case signifies a Head or chiefe and if you hold it incongruous that foundations in this sense should succeed foundations you must say that no King Prince or magistrate can without incongruity succeed one an other Besides The Apostles were Foundations of the Church by their Preaching and Teaching for not all of them wrote and they were foundations of the Church before any one of thē wrote and I hope you will not say it is incongruous that Preachers and Teachers should haue Successors Was not Judas an Apostle and was not S. Matthias chosen not only after him but expressly for him or in his place or to succeede him For so S. Peter Act 1. applies that place of Scripture Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter and the prayer of the Christiās was Ostende quem elegeris ex his duobus vnum accipere locum ministerij hujus Apostolatus de quo praevaricatus est Judas But what if your very ground or foundation That in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations be false as certainly it is For if you suppose the first foundation to faile or be taken away may an other be substituted and succeed it The Apostles were Foundations but being mortall they faild and needed successours to supply their absence and so your similitude returnes directly vpon yourself If you will follow the metaphor of a foundation in all respects how do you say S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the Church were to be the foundations of it seing you may saie in building it is incongruous that a foundation should laie a foundation Will you haue it laie itself Why do you not also say that as the foundation is vnder the building so the Apostles and all Pastors Prelats and Superiours are inferiour to the rest of the Church It seemes though the Scripture should be vnderstood as indeed it ought that Christ intended that S. Peters successours should haue jurisdiction over the whole Church you will controll God himself and say It is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation You say els where vntruly that Ch. Ma. trifles about the word foundation which you confess to be metaphoricall and ambiguous and yet heere you ground your whole Argument vpon that metaphor ill applied as beside what hath bene sayd not only the Apostles but Prophets also are called in Scripture foundations super fundamentum Apostolorum Prophetarum and will you except that in a building it is incongruous to haue more than one firme and perfect foundation as certainly the Apostles were But I spend too much tyme in confuting such toyes as these 43. Your N. 101.102 haue bene answered already The Donatists for the cause of their separation pretēded not only that the men frō whome they separared were defiled with the contagion of the Traditors as you say but also that they erred in Faith in believing that Baptisme might be conferred by Heretiques to omit other things Your calumnie about a picture hath beene confuted heretofore Your N. 104. containes no difficulty which may not be answered by former grounds 44. To your N. 105. I answer that seing Potter accounts the errours of the Roman Church to be damnable to such as are not excused by Ignorance Ch. Ma. had reason to say the Doctour condemnes all learned Catholiques who least of all men can plead Ignorance It is evidently true that as Ch. Ma. P. 205.206 saith these two Propositions cannot consist in the vnderstanding of any one who considers what he saies After due examination I judg the Roman errours not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable and yet I judg that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them For according to true reason one is to judg of things as indeed they are in themselves and therefore if in reason I judg them not to be fundamentall in themselves I must in reason conceyue that they are notfundamentall being held by mee neither doth there in this case intervene any lye seing one professeth that not to be damnable which he holds not to be damnable But where doth Ch. M. say as you cite him These Assertions the Roman errours are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errours to hold and confess them are absolutely inconsistent For it is impossible that any man can hold that which he knowes to be an errour because even by knowing it to be an error he holds it not but dissents from it He saieth only that it cannot be damnable to hold an error not damnable which is very true but saieth not that one can hold an errour which he knowes to be an errour 45. You make Ch. Ma. speak in this ridiculous manner to Protestants If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed ād deposed by judging those errors not damnable and then you triumph and spend many words in proving the very same thing which Ch. Ma. never denied but expressly affirmed namely that the errours of the Roman Church vpon a fals supposition that she had any were not damnable These be his words in the sayed N 206. If you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedie but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errors are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more charity then you dayly affoard to such other Protestants as you tearme brethren whome you cannot deny to be in some errours vnless you will hold that of contradictorie propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their communion because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall Is this to say If you erred in thinking that your Church holds errours this errour might be rectified by judging these errours not damnable Is it not directly the contrary and supposes errours though they be not damnable Or doe you thinke that Ch. Ma. holds Protestants not to
cause Now your selfe here N. 9. confesse that without credible reasons and inducements our choice even of the true Faith is not to be commeÌ„ded as prudent but to be condemned of rashness and levity I say an act of Faith must alwayes be prudent not that every one must be able to giue to others an account of his faith as you interpret the matter but that the capacity of the believer and all other circumstances considered the beliefe of such a man is indeed prudent I wonder what could moue you N. 10. to say to Charity Maintayned It is against Truth and Charity to say as you doe that they with cannot doe soe that is cannot giue a Reason and account of their Faith either are not at all or to no purpos true believers whereas Charity Maintayned hath no such matter 8. In your N. 11.12 you say It is not Heresy to oppose au Truth proposed by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ 9. Answer you haue no constancie in your doctrine Here you say Heresy cannot be without errour against some essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ And every errour against any Doctrine revealed by God is not a damnable Heresy vnless it be revealed publickly plainely with a command that all should belieue it By essentiall I suppose you meane Necessary and Fundamentall as contrarily Pag. 140. N. 26. you say not Fundamentall â— e. no essentiall point of Christianity But contrary to this your doctrine in other places you teach that whatsoever is opposit to Scripture is an Heresy as Pag 101. N. 127. you say If Scripture be sufficient to informe vs what is the Faith it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach vs what is Heresy seing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and opposition to the Faith But you will not deny that every text of Scripture is sufficient to make a thing a matter of faith therfore you caÌ„not deny but that errour against any such text being a deviation from and an opposition to Faith must necessarily be heresy which is more cleare in your groundes who teach that it is impossible to know what points in Scripture be fundamentall and consequently what is Heresy if you take it for a deviation only from fundameÌ„tall points And this you declare clearly in the same Number Pag 102. Saying If any man should obstinatly contradicÌ„t the truth of any thing plainely delivered in Scripture who doth not see that every one who believes the Scripture hath a sufficient meanes to discover and condemne and avoyd that Heresy without any need of an infallible guide You teach also that as things are ordered there is equall necessity of believing all things contained in Scripture whether they be Fundamentall or not Fundamentall and nothing is more frequent in your Booke than that it is a damnable sinne to disbelieue any one truth sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God and what sinne can it be but the sinne of Heresy which is opposit to the Theologicall vertue of Faith Potter also speakes clearly to this purpose saying Pag 98. He is justly esteemed an Heretick who yealds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded and yet it is cleare that in Scripture there are millions of truths not Fundamentall And Pag 128. An obstinate standing out against evident Scripture cleared vnto him makes an Heretick And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures be convinced of the truth this is a sufficient proposition to proue him thâ—t gainesayeth any such truth to be an Heretick and obstinate opposer of the Faith And Pag 212. It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall in regard of the Diuine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that is such as may not be denyed or contradicted without in fidelity Such as every Christian is bound with humility and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him And further Pag 250. Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is convinced of errour and he who is thus convinced is an Heretique and Heresy is a worke of the flesh which excludeth from heaven Gal 5.20.21 And hence it followeth that it is Fundament all to a Christians Faith and necessary for his salvation that he belieue all revealed truths of God whereof he may be convinced that they are of God And Pag 57. Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholick verity maintayned by this Church the fellowship of the Saints or the Catholick visible Church as doe Heretiks 〈◊〉 perversly divides himselfe fromthe Catholik communion as doe Schismatiks the condition of both these is damnable And Field L. 2. C. 3 speakes plainely Freedom from Fundamentall errour may be found among Heretiks Therefore errour against points not fundameÌ„ntall is Heresy seing they be may Heretiks aÌ„d yet be free froÌ„ fundameÌ„tall error Fulk in his Rejoinder to Bristow P. 82. The parliament determined Heresy by contrariety to the Canonicall Scripture Can you expect a greater authority then that of the Parliament But no wonder if Heresies be familiar and ripe among you if they consist only in fundamentall errours and that you are not able to determine what errours be fundamentall and theÌ„ who will be carefull to avoyd they know not what For the rest of this number I need only say that it is vnreasonable in you to desire a proofe of that which here you expresly grant to be true and is cleare of itselfe that either the Protestant or Roman Church must erre against the word and testimony of God seing they hold contradictories in matters belonging to faith and it is a fond thing in you to say that Ch Ma hath for his reason their contradiction only seing we alwayes speake of contradiction in matter of Faith Your N. 13. containes no difficulty supposing we haue already proved the infallibility of the Church as we haue done in divers places 10. To your N. 14. I answer that if Luther were an Heretick who can deny but that they who followed and persist in the same Doctrine must also be such seing it is a foolery to thinke that all of them can be excused by ignorance Besides we speake per se loquendo that the Doctrine of it selfe being Hereticall the defenders of it must also be Heretiks abstâ—acting from ignorance c. And so your distinction out of S. Austin of Haeretici and Heraeticorum sequace is not pertinent neither did Charity Maintayned ever affirme that all 's Arians who followed their teachers were excused from formall Heresy by Salvianus and I am sure Ch Ma himselfe is far from any such opinion yea even Dr. Potter who Pag 119. alleadgeth the words of Salvianus sayth he speakes of some Arian Hereticks from whence it doth not follow that he spoke of all those who followed their teachers and those of whome he spoke he
In your N. 21. you endeavour to answer some Fathers alledged by Ch. Ma. N. 18. to proue that separation from the visible Church is a mark of Heresie namely Uincentius Lirinensis saying Lib. Advers Her Chap. 34. who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church And S. Prosper Dimid Temp. Chap. 5. A Christian communicating with the Catholique Church is a Catholique and he who is divided froâ—â— her is an Heretique and Antichrist S. Cyprian Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make themselves divers conventicles they haue forsaken the head and Origen of truth 20. To these Authorityes you answer That the first and last are meerely impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from vniversality Consent and Antiquity And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your owne grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church vpon mâ—ere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an vnjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 21. Answer I haue often put you in minde and the thing is evident of it self and still to be repeated that Luther separated not only from the Roman Church but from all true Churches of the whole world who all agreed with the Roman as also from all true Churches of many precedent Ages which if you once suppose to haue erred against the Word of God the Rule of those Fathers That separation from the Church is a mark of Heresy had bene plainly impertinent and of no vse at all For still the Question would haue remayned whether the Church of all Ages had erred as well as the present Church since we cannot know what the Ancient Church taught except vpon the credit and Tradition of middle ages till our tyme which passage if it be stopt and bridge broken we must liue in ignorance and not be able irregularly and per saltum to reach immediatly from the last to the first Besides you hold all Churches of all Ages to be fallible and not to deliver vniversally any other point except that Scripture is the Word of God and therefore it is a meere evasion in you to make a difference for matters of doctrine betweene the whole present visible Church and the Churches of all Ages and if separation from these be a mark of Heresy separation from that must also be such Yea S. Cyprian speakes expressly of the then present Church Not we departed from them but they from vs and since Heresies and Schismes are bred aftherwards while they make themselves divers Conventicles they haue forsaken the head and origen of Truth As for S. Prosper you do not defend but impugne him But I wonder you will offer your Reader such toyes as you produce for good Arguments against the words of that Saint which are both evidently true and coherent with themselves For as whosoever communicates with the vniversall Church in Faith and externall communion is a Catholique which was the first part of S. Prospers sentence so it is vniversally true that whosoever is divided from the Church in Faith and externall communion is an Heretique as S. Prosper affirmes in the latter parte of his speach and which you know is the thing which Charity Maintayned intends to proue and which makes your talking of meere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy to be wholy impertinent seing we treate of division both in Faith and externall communion though it be also true that Schisme is wont to end in Heresy as Cha. Ma. Part. 1. Chap. 5. N 3. declares out of S. Hierom and others No less impertinent is your objection taken from persons divided from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication which is a kind of Division in many respects far different from separation by Schisme or Heresy as hath bene declared heretofore at large and which is not incurred at all in the sight of God if the Excommunication be vnjust Agreable to this doctrine of these Fathers is that excellent document of S. Optatus Lib. 1. contra Parm. how to judg who be Schismatiques and Heretiques Uidendum est quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit quis foras exierit quis cathedram sederit alteram quaeante non fuerit quis altare contra altare erexerit quis ordinationem fecerit salvoaltero ordinato were there not Protestant Bishops set vp in the place of Catholique Bishops yet living in England quis jaceat sub sententia Joannis Apostoli qui dixit multos Antichristos foras exituros quia non erant inquit nostri nam si nostri essent mansissent nobiscum If you examine the proceeding of your first Protestants by the Rule of this holy and ancient Father you cannot but condemne them of Schisme and Heresy 22. Your N 22. being but a passage to the next Section I neede only saie that there is great difference between Catholiques and Protestants in order to the admitting or rejecting some doctrine of some particular Fathers seing we for interpreting Scripture and all Points of Faith acknowledg an infallible guide to whom even the Fathers themselves humbly submit but when you forsake the Fathers be they never so many the comparison runnes not betwene them and Gods Church but betwene them and every single Protestant and who will not sooner belieue the Holy Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture than such men as can neither agree amongst themselves nor with the whole Church of God And if you will but heare what your owne knowledg and conscience tells you you will confess that you acknowledged the ancient Fathers to stand for vs. 23. Your N. 23. is employed in answering some Authorityes alledged by Ch. Ma. out of S. Hierom wherein you shew the litle reckon you make of the holy Fathers since you do covertly or rather expressly tax this blessed Saint of writing over-truths and you know what it is to write beyond truth which in true Philosophy consist in indivisibili and what is beyond it must be against it The words of S. Hierom Ep 57. ad Damas. are these I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter I know the Church is built vpon that Rock Whosoever shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is profane If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And Lib. 1. Apolog. which doth
as if the certainty of attayning an end did exclude Meanes of Exhortations Praier and the like or as if God could not effectually moue vs to what he best pleases vnless he also make vs belieue that we may tempt him by omitting all diligence of our owne towards the attaining of that to which he moves vs or interposes a Promise that he will grant it vs. You say if we belieue the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon the Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome of being the principall Church was grounded vpon this reason because the City was the principall and imperiall Citie But I conceiue yourself cannot belieue that the Greek Church would or could yeald such a spirituall Prerogatiue to the Latine Church vpoÌ„ so slight a ground though that might be a kind of congruence supposing an other higher and stronger Reason to wit that S. Peter had lived and died Bishop of that Citie which was as I may saie the Primate of Cities Yet I am not sorie to heare you say We do not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the chaire of Peter in regard he is sayd to haue preached the Gospell there For to omit that you dare not deny that S. Peter was at Rome which some Protestants impudently deny you giue so poore a reason why the Church of Rome hath bene particularlie by the Fathers called the chaire of Peter that every one may see there must be some better ground for it than that which you alledge of his preaching in that Citie as it is graÌ„ted that he not only preached in but was Bishop of the Citie of Antioch and he preached in many other places which yet are not wont to be called the Chaire of Peter I beseech the Reader to peruse that learned Book called Anti-Mortonus against the GraÌ„d imposture of D. Morton § 4. about the Councell of Chalcedon aÌ„d he will find what Power was acknowledged to be in the Bishop of Rome aboue all Bishops through the whole world to say nothing for the present that no Councell without the confirmatioÌ„ of the Pope is of validity 26. Your N. 28. 29. 30. containe long discourses vpon occasion of a place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Irenaeus who Lib. 3. Cont. Hoeres Chap 36. saieth Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great most ancient and most knowne Church founded by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles comming to vs by succession of Bishops confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of themselves or vaine glory or by blindness or ill opinion do gather conventicles otherwise then they ought For to this Church for a more powerfull principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithfull people of what place soever in which Roman Church the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes beene conserved from those who are every where 27. To this authority of S. Irenaeus you giue divers answers which vpon examination will be found insufficient and contrary to yourself You say the words set downe by Ch Ma shew that what Authority in the matter S. Irenaeus attributed to the Roman Church in particular the same for the kind though pâ—rhaps not in the same degree he attributed to all other Apostolique Churches Answer S. Irenaeus is so farre from affirming an equality betwene the Roman and other Churches that he expresly prefers her before the rest in such manner as though the rest had then had no Being yet all Heretiques might haue bene confuted by her sole authority For seing he acknowledges it needless to number the successions of other Churches in order to the force of his Argument he might as well haue supposed them not to exist as not to be necessarily taken notice of which he never saied of any other Apostolique Church Beside since he takes the Roman for as good as all other Apostolique Churches and for the same reason of all other Churches of that tyme whose successours he held it needless to reckon it being impossible that all Churches should faile in Faith we must conclude even out of S. Irenaeus his Reason that the Roman Church cannot faile in points of Belief And as for you I wonder how you would end your N. 28. in these words If v. Irenaeus thought the Testimony of the Roman Church in this point only humane and fallible then surely he could never think either adhering to it a certain marke of a Catholique or separation from it a certain marke of a Heretique For seing Cyou hold hristian Faith te be no more than probable and that the Tradition for which you receyue Scripture is humane and fallible how can you these your assertions supposed affirme that a testimony humane and fallible may not be sufficient to proue one a Catholique or Heretique Vnless you will say he is no Heretique who rejects Scripture and all Christianity nor that he is a Catholique who believes them because you profess that the motives for which you belieue them are fallible 28. You find fault with the noble Translatresse of Cardinall Perron for rendring Ad hane Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam To this Church it is necessary that every Church should agree But if you will but consult Cowpers Dictionary you will find that you haue no reason against that noble Translatresse See I say the word Conveni and you will finde Convenit in eum haec Contumelia Cic. This reproach toucheth him justly Conveniunt hae vites ad quemvis agrum Cato Uarro These vines proue well in all grounds Conveniebat in tuam vaginam machaera militis Plautus The solidours sword was meete for thy Scabbard Convenit optime ad pedem cothurnus Cic. The slippar is as meete for the foote as may be Will you say This reproach resorts to him vines resort to the field the sword resorts to the scabbard the slippar resorts to the foote Neither is that Translation either contrary or different from the Translation of Ch Ma for as much as concernes the matter and meaning of S. Irenaeus To this Church it is necessary that all Churches resort For why should all Churches resort to this Roman Church but that they may be instructed by her and agree with her in matters concerning Faith not that they may correct controll and disagree from her Otherwise it had bene a strang Argument to convince Heretiques by the Roman Church if he had not taken that Church as a modell and Rule with which they ought to agree Neither doth resort signify a corporall going to Rome but a recourse for instruction either by going thither themselves or by other meanes as you must say of those who are round about But you say if S. Irenaeus had saied By shewing the tradition of the Roman Church we confound all Heretiques For to this Church all Churches must agree what had
not perswaded that he hath vsed those means which are prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture you will not be able to defend that the first part of the supposition must needs be true to wit that every Protestant is perswaded that his opinions are true For if he be not perswaded that he hath vsed such meanes he cannot pretend to be sure that his opinions are true and then it is cleare that he who professes not to be sure that Protastant Religion is true is no Protestant nor of any Religion if he doubt of all or be not certaine of any And that which Ch Ma collects from those suppositions to be cleerely consequent appeares even by your instances to the contrarie which are retorted thus If you suppose men to follow the Rules and Principles of Logick and Geometry and yet disagree and consequently some of them to be deceyved you must conclude that Logick and Geometry stand vpon no certaine grounds Now our supposition for the present is that Protestants make vse of those meanes which they prescribe for vnderstanding Scripture and yet disagree among themselves and consequently some of them must be deceived Therefore we must conclude that those meanes are not certaine nor that they haue any certaine ground whereon to relie for vnderstanding Scripture which is the Conclusion of Ch Ma In the same manner I answer and retort your other instances That if Christians were supposed to vse aright all the meanes they haue for finding the truth in matters of Faith ād men be supposed to procede according to the true Rules of Reason and men did disagree we might well inferr that neither Christian Religion nor Reason stand vpon certaine grounds and the same retortion may be applied to your other instances But Sr. though you say it is fals that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath vsed those meanes which are prescribed for vnderstanding Scripture yet it might seeme a hard censure in you who pretend so much charity the property whereof you say is to judge the best to judg that of so very many disagreeing Protestants some haue not vsed the meanes which they prescribe to themselves for vnderstanding Scripture and if they haue it being cleare by their disagreeing that some are in an errour it followes that the meanes are in themselves defectiue vncertaine and insufficient 41. And in this occasion I must not omitt to declare the Reason why Almighty God doth not concurre with Heretiques to the converting of Nations to Christian Religion because indeed they might afterward vpon examination discover that the grounds of those by whom they were converted cannot support a certainty in Faith as they expected and so they would judge themselves rather to haue bene deluded or to vse your owne word tantalized than converted and might be tempted to revolt from Christ till they could find some Rock to which God himself hath promised eternall stability Besides seing Protestant Religion cannot be wholy true as consisting of contrary Sects if God did ordinarily cooperate with them in order to so supernaturall a work he might seeme to giue them the credit of true Teachers and to countenance and confirme a falshood which is impossible for him to doe And even from hence we may gather à posteriori that Protestant Religion is not true seing God doth not take them for his instruments to convert Nations or work Miracles 42. All that you say N. 48. hath bene answered heretofore at large To your N. 49. whether he who erres against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith as Ch Ma saied N. 29. Catholique Divines generally reach I answer First That in reason Protestants ought to make greater account of the Authority of Catholique Divines besides whom there were no Orthodox Doctors before Luther and so to depriue them of estimation and authority cannot be donne without prejuduce to the vniversall and Catholique Church and all Christianity than any Catholique or any prudent man can make of learned Protestants who in their opposition to Catholiques are contrary to all Christian Churches before Luther and write to maintayne such their opposition whereas Catholique Divines who wrote before Luther could not haue any purpose to impugne Protestants yea the disagreement of Protestants among themselves and agreement with vs against their pretended Brethren must needs very much diminish their authority and if they remaine with any estimation or authority it makes for vs with whom the chiefest among them agree in many and great points of Faith You say D. Potter alledged not the meere Authority of Pappus and Flacius to proue this disagreement of Catholiques among thēselves but proved it with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus But I pray you that this collection was faithfull or to the purpose how doth Dr. Potter proue otherwise than by taking it vpon the credit and Authority of Pappus seing the Doctor doth not alledg so much as any one instance in particular As for the pretended disagreements among Catholiques they can be only in matters disputable or not defined by the Church frō which definition if any should swarue he were no Catholique and for other matters we are content that Pappus muster not only 237. but as many more points as he pleases For by such a multiplication he will onlie make an Addition to his owne manifest Impertinences as your alledging the Example of Brereley is a meere impertinence it being cleare that he alledges the disagreeing of Protestants among themselves not only in by-matters or in the manner or reason of their Assertions but even in the conclusions themselves and not only as disagreeing among thēselves but as directly agreeing with vs against other Protestants in the very conclusions whereof I desire the Reader for his owne good and full satisfaction to peruse Brereley in his Advertisment to him that shall answer his treatise and his preface to the Christian Reader Catholick or Protestant 43. Secondly Though you are pleased to call it weakness in Ch Ma to vrge Protestants with the authority of Catholique Divines yet you can haue no pretence to slight men of their fame and learning when they are considered not as disagreeing from Protestants nor in a Question controverted betwene them and vs but are seconded by the chiefest and learnedst of them Protestants For what doth it import Protestants that Heresie or infidelity destroies all Divine Faith vnless they will tacitely confess or feare that they are guilty of those crimes Let vs heare the verdit of some principall Protestants Luther in Capit 7. Matth. saieth Heretiques are not Christians And Faith must be round that is in all Articles believing howsoever little matters And in tria Symbola Christian Faith must be entire and perfect every waie For albeit it may be weak and faint yet it must needs be entire and true And Epist. ad Albertum He doth not satisfie if in other things he confess Christ and his word For who denieth Christ in one Article or word
and say to you if nothing were revealed nothing could be necessary to be believed would you not say he did but cavill The rest of this Number tasts of nothing but gall and bitterness and is such as if you were now aliue you would haue wished vnwritten Seing our salvation is either endangered or secured according to the proportion that we are in danger of sinne or secured from it with what consequence can you so hypocrytically talk of taking alwaies the absolutely safest way for avoiding all sinne and yet teach that men are not alwaies obliged to take the safest meanes for salvation especially since you also teach that to avoide sinne to the vttermost of our power is a necessary meanes of salvation Neither do you consider that while you pretend to teach that for avoiding sinne it is not sufficient to follow a truly probable and prudent opinion you do much more confirme the chiefe Purpose and Intent of Cha Ma which was to proue that in things absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvation men are obliged to seek and embrace the safer patte and in the meane tyme I pray you see if by your Divinity you can perswade all litigants to parte with theyr goods though they prudently and probably Judge they maintayne a just cause because forsooth it is safer to yeald than overcome seing it is not impossible but the Adversarie may be in the right And though heere you talk magnificently of the necessity men haue to avoide sinne to the vttermost of their power as a necessary meanes of salvation yet Pag 19. N. 26. you were content to say I am verily perswaded that God will not impute errours to them as sinnes who vse such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion their abilities and oportunities their distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise them in a matter of such consequence Lastly who will not wonder to see you so much depress Probability in morall cases seing you teach that even Christian Faith vpon which salvation depends doth not excede Probability 17. Your N. 9.10.11.12.13.14.15 are answered out of grounds laied heretofore And in particular that Cha Ma N. 5. saied very truly that seing all Protestants pretend the like certainty and goe vpon the same grounds and haue the same Rules for interpreting Scripture and yet cannot agree it is a signe that their very Rules and grounds are vncertaine and insufficient to settle an Act of Faith as I declared aboue and if this could truly be saied of Protestants and Papists of all Christians of all Religions of all Reason it is cleare that they could not truly pretend to any certainty But God be ever blessed for it we Catholiques haue Rules and an infallible Authority the Church most able to erect a certaine infallible belief With what conscience can you say that Arcudius acknowledges that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to infants and esteemed necessary or at least profitable for them For this disjunctiue necessary or at least profitable may signifie that Arcudius doubts whether it were not esteemed necessary which never came to his thoughts Yea he proves expresly and largelie that it is not necessary We grant that it might be profitable to infants by producing Grace in their soules but it being not necessary the Church for just causes may think fitt not to administer it to them Your talking of an humane Law obliging men to confess their secret sinnes and even sinfull thoughts will I belieue rather cause laughter than any belief that such a Law could oblige and therfore seing you do not denie but that the Protestant Centurie Writers alledged by Cha Ma N. 5. acknowledg that in the tymes of Cyprian and Tertullian priuate confession even of Thought was vsed and commanded and thought necessary we must infer that it was held necessary as commanded by God yea seing you say it might be then commanded and being commanded be thought necessary shewes that you dare not deny but that private or auricular Confession was vsed as a thing commanded even in those primitiue Ages You know the story of the Protestants in Germanie who finding by experience the huge inconveniences that accompanied the want of Confession supplicated the Emperour that he would command it by some Law but were deservedly rejected with scorne as if men would think themselves obliged to obey his Law who had rejected the Law of God in that matter To all which if we add that you belieue not that true Priests haue power to absolue from sinne and if they had yet Protestants not being true Priests what Law of man can be of force to oblige men to confess even their thoughts 18. Your N. 16.17.18 touch only vpon what hath bene handled in other places and need no Answer heere How litle hope of salvation Protestants can conceyue from the Doctrine of Cha Ma and how impossible it is for them to repent and not relinquish their errours hath bene shewed at large heretofore 19. Though your N. 19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29 containe no new difficulty yet I answer them briefly by these considerations that S. Austine and other Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had true Divine Faith but only that they believing divers or most of the Truths which Catholiques believed had the same Faith or Belief materially as the Jewes belieue many Truths contayned in the Old Testament which Christians belieue and yet cannot be saied to haue true supernaturall saving Faith that you are very ignorant of Catholique Divinity if you conceiue as by your words it seems you do that we hold an Hereticall or Schismaticall Bishop not to administer validè though illicitè such Sacraments as depend only vpon Potestas Ordinis and therefore you say vainely to Char Ma Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo That Dr Potter citing the doctrine or saying of the Donatists in a different letter ought not to haue saied more than the words of S. Austine in the margent vpon which the Doctor grounds himself did express which was only Baptisme not salvation whatsoever otherwise the Donatists held against the salvation of Catholiques That Dr Potters words that Protestants cut vs not of from the hope of salvation and therefore are excused from Schisme haue beene considered heretofore and your defense of them confuted That whosoever reads the N. 8. and 9. of Cha Ma will finde that your answer is in no wise satisfactorie consisting meerely of Points which you know we deny our Argument being grounded vpon the Confession of the most and best learned Protestants who deny not salvation to vs which we cannot yeald to them and so in the judgement of both parts we are safe but you are not That the Act of Rebaptization was sacrilegious and the error that it was lawfull an Heresie after the matter was declared by the Church And concerning S. Cyprian see
with Pelagius and free-will with Calvin c. 1 n. 65 p. 82 seq Many hideous Tenets of his concerninge Faith discovered in all the first Chap He holds that Charity may stand with deadly sinne I. n. â—1 p. 35 c 15 n. 45 p. 925 That the contents of Scripture are not more certaine then humane Histories I. n. 18 p. 13 14 That we are not bound to belieue Scripture to be of Divine authority c. 2 n. 58 p. 159 alibi And it is evident in his grounds that God is no more to be believed then man if God give no better reason for what he sayes then man doth c. 1 n. 101 p. 108 That it is no matter if controversies concerning truths only profitable be continued and increased c. 2 n. 78 p. 182 That Scripture is no materiall object of Taith and that there is no obligation to beleeue it c. 3 n. 4 p. 281 and in other numb before and after Also c. 13 n. 39 p 818 That the Apostles after the cominge of the Holy Ghost erred in a point clearly revealed c. 7 n. 24 p. 472. 473 c. 3 n. 28 p. 298 He brings all Christian Faith to a humane invention c. 3 n. 83 p. 344 seq He puts such a contrition for salvation which a sinner cannot possbly haue at the hower of death c. 4 n. 50 p. 384 That all Scripture is not divinely inspired c. 12 n. 38 p. 735 That our Saviours promise that the Holy Ghost should remaine with the Apostles was not for their successoâ—s but only for the terme of their lives nor that but conditionally c. 12 n. 83 p. 771 He revives VViclifs Heresie n. 85 p. 774. That contradictoryes may both be true with many horrid impietyes which strike at the roote of Christian Religion c. 13 n. 20 p. 802 seq His insolent treatie of S. Tho of Aqui c. 15 n. 45 46 47 p. 925 926 His little considence in his owne Religion c. 16 n. 11 p. 939 His absurdity in contending that it is all one to say Though such a thing be so and though it were so n. 21 p. 945 946 His impudent callinge God to witnesse of his sincerity in writing his Booke to confirme the infallible Religion of our Saviour which he strives in his whole Booke to prooue fallible c. 16 n. 23 p. 948 Many other of his pernitious Tenets appeare in this whole Booke and his errours against Scripture toto c. 3. His contradictions are so frequently shewed that no particular place needs be cited The like is of his continuall begging the question or asking impertinently in place of proofe why may not such athing be with out any proofe Church To follow the Church is to follow Scripture which recommends the Church vnto vs c. 2 n. 201 p. 270 To her recourse must be had not to be deceaved in interpreting Scripture Ibid Her vniversall practice is to be held an Apostolicall Tradition Ibid Many things are to be done for her authority without expresse Scripture n. 209 p. 274 She ceases not to be a Church for sinnes of Manners but of Faith c. 7 n. 85 p. 517 seq Vnity necessary to be members of one Church must be in all points sufficieÌ„tly proposed sundamentall or not fundamentall n. 74 p. 505 seq And in externall Communion Ibid which in divine service is vnlawfull with those of a different Faith n. 82 p. 511 It is all one to leaue the Church and to Ieaue her externall Communion nor can any separate from her and remaine a part of her n. 73 p. 503 sequen He not only separates from the Church who separates from her externall Communion but alsomorally from himselfe n. 110 p. 532 seq No Church no Schisme n. 93.94 p. 523 If the Church be infallible in fundamentalls she must also be so in vnfundamentalls n. 126 p. 547 548 He can be no member of the Church who disbeleeves any poynt sufficiently proposed as revealed by God c. 10 n. 5 p. 635 Nor can the Church remaine a Church with any such errour n. 6 p. 635 seq She beinge infallible it is damnable to oppose her n. 9 p. 637 638 She determines controversies as emergent occasions require and is for them eudued with infallibility n. 11 p. 639 640 Her fallibility for one age discredits her for all c. 11 n. 26 p. 667 The true Church easy to be found by her notes in every age n. 31 p. 670 seq Many disparityes between the Church and the Synagogue n. 38 p. 674 The Church having approved Scripture for Canonicall proves out of it particular truths concerning her selfe n. 67 p. 697 In what sense she is an infallible keeper of Scripture c. 3 n. 52 p. 320 seq She never questioned or rejected any thing of Scripture which the had once defined for Canonicall n. 54 p. 322 The true Church wanted not evident notes and proofes before Scripture was c. 4 n. 24 p. 365 toto c. 5 She is viâ ordinariâ the meanes for matter of Religion c. 4 n. 67 p. 396 seq The Church was before Scripture Ibid passim alibi She was never devested of infallibility c. 4 n. 72 p. 399 sequen She cannot perish nor be invisible nor deceaved in points belonging to Salvation She is the ordinary meanes to teach and therefore to be sought n. 79. p. 403 sequen Infallibility granted her for all points belonging to Religion but nor for curiosityes n. 95 p. 418 sequen She vsed disputations and discourse for her definitions n. 99 p. 424 42â— She essentially requires vnity in Faith and in in the externall worship of God Divivision from her in Faith is heresie in externall communion is Schisme c. 7 n. 2. 3 p. 458 459 460 If she be not infallible but falls into errour all must shun her communion n. 22 p. 471 472 She is indued by Christ with all requisits for the whole mysticall body for every degree for every particular person c. 2 n. 2 p. 122 seq She is recommended by him for the interpretation of Scripture and who refuses it resists him n. 28 p. 124 She must haue infallible meanes to declare with certainty things though only profitable n. 73 p. 176 seq It would be damnable in her to neglect truths only profitable n. 77 p. 181 If she should out of negligence mistake or be ignorant her errour would be damnable c. 14 n. 17 p. 724 seq She is extensiuè of equall infallibility with the Apostles but not intensiuè i.e. in the manner num 35 p. 731 seq If her authority be câ—â—taine for Scripture it must be the like for whatsoevet she proposes n. 52 p. 746 She being once prooved to be infallible may giue irrefragable testimony of her owne infallibility n. 107 p. 787 How the Church is alwayes visible c. 14 n. 4 p. 848. 849 VVhat right and power she had and for many ages had bene peaceable possessed of at Luthers cominge n.
c. 15 n. 24 p. 903 Luthers Tenet that to hold an obligation of keeping the commandements is to deny Christ and abolim Faith J. n. 25 p. 19 That lawes and good workes are more to be shunned then sinnes Jbid His desperate remorse for leaving the church c. 7. n. 14. p. 468. and c. 14. n. 50. p. 882. His division from the whose church proved out of Protestants c. 7. n. 116. p. 537. His shamless falsification of Rom 3.28 and I hill conscienceless endeavour to make it good c. 11. n. 16. p. 6â—9 M Maximinianus Patriarche of Constantinople his testimony for the Principality of the Romane Church c. 15. n. 33. p. 914. 915. Merit by good workes excludes not grace c. 15. n 17. p. 800. Milenaryes Doctrine never decreed nor delivered by the church c. 9. n. 5. p. 626. and c. 15. n 31. p. 911. c. I hill imposture vpon S. Justine Martyr concerning it confuted by testimonyes of Protestants Ibi. Miracles perpetually wrought by the church doe not only confirme some particular point but all her Doctrine and to say the contrary is injurious â—s God and makes the Doctrine of the Apostles and of all the church vnfitt to convert people c. 5. n. 7. p. 433. 434. Shewed by Scripture to be proofes of true Faith n. 9. p. 435. To deny theÌ„ is to oppose our Saviour and his Apostles and to vndermine all Christianity n. 8. p. 434. VVrought before Protestants were dreamt of in confirmation of particular points in which they disagree from Catholiques Ibid Yet they are not necessary for every point of christian doctrine c. 3. n. 33. p. 301. Acknowledged by Luther to haue been in the church through all ages for these 1500. yeares c 5. n. 4. p. 429. By them haue been converted Jewes and Gentles yet cannot move Protestants c. 3. n. 76. p. 338. Chill holds that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men n 76. p. 337 and c. 2 n. 186 p. 261. N Nature to conserue itselfe embraceth by instinct great naturall difficultyes as less evills then its owne destruction c. 1 n. 114. p. 119. To affirme that it is as easy to obey the Ghospell as to performe what the common instinct of nature commands is iniurious to our Saviours merits Ibid. As natuâ—â—â— instinct for its naturall conservatioÌ„ is cerâ—â—â—â—â— aÌ„d invariable so must the light of Faith be for supernaturall conservation Ibid. Divers vnderstandings of things Necessary to salvation c. 2. n. 1. p. 122. seq Notes of credibility authorize the writers before their writings c. 5. n. 1. p. 426. seq and n. 5. p. 431. 432. They authorize the church independently of Scripture and fall primarily vpon her not vpon Scripture Jbid. VVhat church they authorize is to be infallibly beleeved in all points n. 6. p. 433. God of his goodness could not permitt them be found as they are in the catholique Romane church if her Faith could be false n. 7. p. 433. and n. 10. 11. 12. p. 436. 437. These notes cannot be pretended by Protestantâ— and other Sectaryes n. 4. p. 429. 430. O Objects are not obsure evident certainâ— probable c. in theÌ„selves but only so denominated extrinsecally by the acts to which those affections are proper c. 15. n. 6. p. 888. 889. Observations to aÌ„swear many of Chil. objections about the creed c. 13. n. 8 p. 793. 794. Aprobable Opinion may be safely followed in things necessary for salvation only necessitate Praecepti but not in such as are necessitane Medij c. 16. n. 1. p. 933. and n. 16. p. 941. P In case of perplexity what is to be done c. 7. n. 132. p. 551 seq and c. 12. n 57. p. 751. and n 59. p 753. A speculatiue Perswasion differs much from a practicall c. 14. n. 46. p. 879. S. Peter and the Apostles vindicated from the errour imputed to them by Chill c. 3. n. 34. 35. p. 303. 304. S Peters Primacie over all the Apostles c. 14. n. 35 p. 871. seq He was not preseÌ„t wheÌ„ the Apostles contended who was the greater n. 36. p. 873. His name Peter is a title of great honour n. 39. p. 874. his power over all the church descended to his successors n. 41. p 875. seq Points necessary and principall rightly declared c. 2. n. 128 p. 218. 219. the most points of catholique Religion held by some Protestants or other n. 91. 92. p. 193 194. 195. alibi Those by which catholiques are made most odious to the vulgar held by chiefest Protestant Doctours n. 92. p. 195. The Pope held infallible by Potter if he hath but the assistance which the high Priest of the Jewes had c. 11. n. 36. p. 673. This saying of Potter falsly and foolishly interpred by Chill n. 39. 40. p. 675. many disparities betwixt the Church and the Synagogue n. 38. p. 674. seq The Primacie of the Church of Rome is de Jure Divino c. 14. n. 31. p. 868. It is acknowledged by Protestants to be accordinge to order wisely appointed and necessary to be retained yea that no common government can be hoped for without it c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. falsly put 167. aÌ„d n. 60. p. 496. Profession of an errour if it it be meerly exexternall is a less sinne then internall Heresie n. 133. falsly put 123. p. 554. By Prophesye is not only vnderstood the fortellinge of things but also the interpretation of Scripture and in both senses is found in the Church c. 12. n. 81. p. 769. 770. which hath alwayes had such Prophets n. 100. p. 783 An indefinite Proposition in matters of Faith is equivalent to an vniversall c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. Protestants were not first forced by excomunication to separate from the Church but their precedeÌ„t obstinat separation forced the Church to excommunicate them c. 7 n. 62. p. 497. seq For this separation they could haue no grownd n. 169. p. 584. the learned of them taxing of ignoâ—ance and absurdity those that deny salvation to Romane Catholiques n. 151. p. 573. Nor can they haue any evidence against Catholique Doctrine n. 52. p. 490. seq Whose objections were answeared longe before Protestants appeared in the world n. 59. p. 495. Their arguments to proue that by Scripture alone the Articles of Faith are to be knowne fully answeared c. 2. n. 57. p. 159. seq alibi Learned Protestants confesse that the Fathers agree with vs against them c. 2. n. 90. p. 192. They make their owne reason not Scripture as they pretend the Rule of Faith and judge of controversies c. 11. n. 61. p. 692. Whence they must needs haue a Chimericall Church patched vp of as many members repugnant in Faith as are their fancies concerning all sorts of Articles c. 13. n. 35. p. 815. seq Hence Grotius one of the learnedest of them despaired of their vnion except vnder the Pope c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. For once devided from the Roman Church they must
Church acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamentall Points rather than forsake her communion for Points not necessary to salvation especially with danger of forsaking her in some necessary Point Or if you say It is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as revealed by God as Dr. Potter grants and the thingh it selfe is evidently true then you must either affirme that the Church did not erre in any Point of Faith or els that she erred Fundamentally and ceased to be a Church which is against your present supposition and against Potter who P. 126. teaches that to say the church remayned only in the part of Donatus was an errour in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall And much worse must it be to say she remayned no where and so while you pretend to fly the fained errours of the Church you fall into a formall and proper heresy 131. If we consider what may be inferred not absolutely but vpon some impossible supposition That the Church erres in Points of Faith not Fundamentall we must inferr that she may be forsaken because she erres in matters of Faith and yet may not be forsaken because as we have seene out of the Holy Fathers it is never lawfull to forsake the Church What then is to be concluded but that as I haue sayd hertofore she cannot erre and therfore cannot be forsaken vpon any termes Divines teach that at least per se loquendo non potest dari perplexitas that is there cannot happen a case wherin a man whatsoever he doth is sure to commit some sinfull thing because it is a first principle in nature that nothing is is more in our freedome than to sin or not to sin And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen if the Church could erre that is one must judge that she were to be forsaken and not to be forsaken and so remaine miserably perplexed We must therefore for avoyding this absurdity conclude that the Church cannot erre in any matter of Faith 132. But yet to come to the last part of my Advertisement If we persist in the supposition That one is perswaded the Church doth erre must he therfore forsake her communion as Luther and his fellowes did In no case For then we must call to mynd the Doctrine of Divines in case of perplexity that if one be in a vincible or culpable errour for one of the contradictory parts it is in his power and he is obliged to depose that errour which if he do not he shall not be excused from sin notwithstanding his perplexity and seeming excuse of a necessity to sin whatsoever he does If we suppose his errour to be invincible for example he beleeves the Church may not in any case be forsaken and yet that she erres and that he should sin in pro fessing those supposed errours this supposition I say being once made I dispute not whether such a perplexity be possible in this particular matter or no then enters the Doctrine of all Divines that he is obliged to embrace the lesser evill and to follow the generall Axiome exduobus malis minus est eligendum as we see nature exposes the arme to defend the head And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda And therfore your saying Pag 283. N. 72. We must not do evill to avoide evill taken vniversally and in all cases is manifestly false against the light of Reason and your allegation of Scripture Pag 168. N. 63. you must not do evill that good may come theron is not to the purpose For we speake not of attaining a voluntary greater good but of avoiding a greater evill necessary to be committed vnless a lesser evill be embraced This then being certaine that in case of perplexity one is obliged to embrace the lesser evill the Question may remaine whether by doing so he is excused from all fault or only from being guilty of that greater sin which he avoides by choosing the lesser Certaine it is that he committs not so grievous a sin as if he had betaken himselfe to the other part But diverse great Divines as Amicus Tom 3. D. 15. Sect 3. N. 43. Tho Sanch Tom 1. in Decalog Cap 11. N. 14. alij are of opinion that he commits no sin at all because in that case of invincible Perplexity it is not in his power to avoide that which otherwise were a sin and can be none in him because every sinne essentially requires freedome of will He harh say they freedom to chuse either of those two parts taken as it were materially or considered per modum naturae but not formally and morally so to chuse them as to avoide sin absolutely seing he must of necessity chuse one side and therfore by embracing the lesser evill he does as much as lyes in his power to doe for avoiding sin and consequently is not culpable or blameworthy Now according to these Doctrines whosoever leaves the Church vpon pretence of errours not Fundamentall cannot be excused from Schisme because to profess such errours had been either a lesse sin than to leaue the Church and so in the opinion of all Divines he was obliged to embrace that less evill and not leaue the Church or it had been no sin at all in the opinion of diverse good Divines and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church without any necessity at all Yea seing this last opinion is probable he might prudently conforme his conscience to it and by that meanes free himselfe from not only sin but also from danger therof by following a probable and prudent dictamen that to profess errours not Fundamentall were no sin at all in that case and vpon that supposition of insuperable perplexity Nay I say more that if this latter opinion of Divines be true a man shall not sin though he be of a contrary mynd and thinke in his conscience that he sins by choosing the lesser evill though not so grievously as he had done by adhering to the other part My reason is because this latter opinion is grounded vpon the impossibility which the perplexed person hath to avoide sin and one cannot sin in doing that which he cannot avoide though by an erronious conscience he judge that he sins as if one cannot heare Masse vpon a holy day or kills a man with a weapon violently put into his hand and with his hand by like violence carryed to that fact in those or the like cases no sin is committed though the partyes should thinke they sin And this is true though that part or less ill which is embraced be intrinsecè malum evill of it self or of its nature which is well to be observed for our case of professing knowne errours which of it selfe is evill because no sin of any kind can be committed when it is impossible to avoid it According to which considerations to elect the profession of errours rather then the desertion of the
Church and your labour and paines taken therin are lost in order to any other effect except contrary to your desires to stregthen the saying of Charity Maintayned which was That our very difference about the meaning of these Texts shewes the impossibility of agreement in matters of Faith by Scripture alone To which purpose He setts downe what sense Catholiques giue them and the different interpretation of Protestants from Catholikes and from one and other While therfore you profess to confute the interpretation of Catholikes but indeed impugne also that of most Protestants and of Dr. Potter in particular what doe you els but make good the saied Affirmation and intention and proofe of Cha Ma that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret it self And you could not but see that Charity Maintayned did not alledg any Text to proue the Churches infallibility but only to shew the difficulty of Scripture taken alone by those examples which he alledges and Protestants interpret in a different sense from Catholiques and in which you differ from both So that even by your disagreeing from Catholiques in the meaning of those places you in fact and Deeds proue the truth of that which your adversary affirmed and the more you object against Charity Maintayned the more you prejudice yourself and make good these his words If words cannot perswade you that in all controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church at least yeald your assent to Deeds Which thing considered I haue no obligation at all to examine your Objections against the interpretation of those Texts in favour of the Churches infallibility for which purpose they were not produced by Charity Maintayned but only to proue by an Argument drawen from Experience and Deeds or matter of fact that there must be some Living Guide to interpret Scripture and you were wise enough not to take notice of this Argument which was evident by experience but dissemble the matter and divert the Reader with discourses no less repugnant to Protestants than Catholiks and therefore your interpretations proue nothing because they proue too much even in the common grounds and tenets of Protestants Nevertheless by way of supererogation I will examine all that you can object 72. N. 69. you bring certaine objections in a different letter as if they were made eypressly by Ch Ma and yet I finde them not in him whatsoever they be in themselves Then N. 70. you say The Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not privaile against her 73. Answer you know we deny this and in diverse occasions haue given good reasōsfor our denyall And what cā be more incōsistēt with being of a true Church than errour against Faith which Faith is the most essentiall constitutiue of the Church or congregation of Faithfull people Yourself teach that every errour repugnant to Divine Revelation is damnable of itself and what can set the gates of Hell more open than damnable sinnes Neither can you flie to ignorance whereof you cā haue no certainty especially for the whole vniversall Church and yet we are certaine by our Saviours Promise that the gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her whereof we could not be certaine if the Church may erre damnably and be excused only by ignorance which as I saied is an vncertaine hidden thing Beside The Church being appointed by our Saviour Christ to be the teacher of all Christians it is essentially necessary that she cannot erre even by ignorance but must be believed to be infallible in all matters belonging to Faith seing otherwise we cannot belieue her with certainty in any point fundamentall or not fundamentall as you confess in this Chapt. N. 36. that vnless the Church be infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing Now that the office of the Church is to teach all Christians you teach Pag. 119. N. 164. in these words Though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation as is sufficient to bring men to heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes ad to this Revelation things superfluous nay gurtfull nay in themselves damnable And in this Chapter N. 78. you say That the true Church alwaies shall be the maintainer and Teacher of all necessary truths you know we grant and must grant for it is the Essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it then any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defectiue in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that has some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it haue many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice Out of these sayings of yours this argument offers it self The Church is essentially a Teacher of all necessary truths And consequently we are to belieue her in such points But the Church cannot be believed in necessary points vnless we belieue her to be infallible in all that she proposes as matter of Faith This also is our Doctrine Therefore we must belieue her to be infallible in all points So that in denying the vniversall infallibility of the Church you contradict both truth and your owne Assertions 74. And heere I must put you in minde of your saying that there is difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infalllible Guide in Fundamentalls and yet we haue heard you say that the Church is an infallible Teacher of so much as is necessary for salvation and what is to be an infallible Teacher or Proposer but to be an infallible Guide And then further seing you say P. 105. N. 139. To make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed we must necessarily infer that de facto the Church which is an infallible Teacher and Guide is infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed 75. This is not all that I am to deduce from your saied Assertions You say in this same Page and Number No Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certaine Denomination To which Proposition I subsume But we haue heard you say that it is of the essence of the Church to be a Teacher of all necessary Truths and that she shall alwayes without faile propose so much as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven Therfore you must grant that there is some infallible Church of one denomination which is the direct contradictory of your Title to this
with in and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeedes Fabianus by Lawfull ordination Novatianus is not in the Church If then the milder Protestants will pretend to be in the true Church they cannot be with those other who by teaching an heresy against the Article of the Church in our Creed put themselves out of the Church otherwise those milder Protestants should come to be both within and without the Church You tell vs that the saying of S. Cypriā hath no more to doe with our present businesse of proving it vnlawfull to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwayes visible then In nova fert animus But I am sure In nova fert animus agrees as fitly to your frequent changes of Religion as it is impertinently applyed against Ch Ma. Your last words That S. Cyprians words are by neither of the parts litigants esteemed any rule of Faith and therfor the vrging of them and such like authorityes serves only to make bookes great and Controversies endles shew what esteeme you haue of Antiquity and the holy Fathers how diffident you are of your cause if their authority might prevaile and how vnjustly you proceed in alledging against vs the authority of Fathers of whom you make so small and so ill account as to say the vrging of them serves only to make bookes great and which is worse controversies endles 13. For answer to your N. 45. I must still entreate the Reader to peruse N. 17. of Ch. Ma. and withall to remember what I haue proved heretofore that it is impossible to leaue the externall communion of the Church and not to leaue the Church externall communion being of the essence of the Church And therfor your example that a man may leaue any fashion or custome of a Colledge and yet still remaine a member of the College is not to the purpose seing a fashion or custome of the Colledge may be meerely accidentall to the constituting one a member therof or if you suppose any custome to be of the essence and a Signum distinctivum of that Colledge from all other communities then the example makes against you for in that case to leaue that fashion or custome were to leaue the Colledge 14. Vpon this errour that externall communion in profession of Faith Liturgie Sacraments c is not essentiall to the Church is grounded all that you haue N. 47. Neither is C. Ma. deceaved in not distinguishing betweene a local ād morall forsaking any thing But he sayth and hath proved that externall communion being essentiall to the Church it is impossible that they can be of one Church who are divided in that communion but doe forsake one another morally and locally also refusing to be present at their publik worship of God nor doth he C. Ma. vse any pretty Sophisme and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any errour they hold or any vice they are subject to Because forsooth they cannot forfake themselves and vices and errours are things inherent in themselves For to turne your owne Instance against your selfe if vices and errours were essentiall to a man it were impossible to forsake them and not forsake ones selfe so vnion in externall communion being essentiall to the true Church which is one it is impossible to forsake her externall communion and not forsake her as it is impossible to forsake the company of Dr. Potter and keepe company with the Provost of Queens colledge which is the example of Ch. Ma. otherwise he should be with and not be with himselfe according to the forsayd words of S. Ciprian the Church being one cannot be within and without It is not therfor Charity Maintayned who distinguishes not between a locall and morall forsaking any thing but it is you who doe not distinguish between a reall physicall and a morall forsaking of a mans selfe as if one could not cease to be a member of the Church by heresy or Schisme because he cannot cease to be physically himselfe Thus your N. 48. is answered and as you are pleased to repeate here againe In nova fert animus so I not to be too bold with the Reader by a vaine repeating of the selfe same words may well add as fitly agreeing to you the witty saying of Tertullian adver valent Cap 12. Ovidivs metamorphoseis suas delevisset si hodie majorem cognovisset Certaine it is that your changes of religion ought in reason to be esteemed more strange and I am sure more vnreasonable then all the metamorphosies in Ovid. 15. Your N. 49.50.51.52.53.54.55.56 giue no occasion of matter to be particularly confuted Only to say to your N. 50. that it is certainly true that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholik Church if indeed their division be culpable and Schismaticall For in that case the innocent part only remaines a true member of the Catholick Church because if both remained vnited to the Catholike Church they should also be vnited among themselves Quae sunt vnita vni tertio sunt vnita interse And Potter Pag 76. saith Whosoever professeth himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ must confesse himselfe consequētly to forsake the whole How then doe you say it is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholick Church Seing to be divided Schismatically from any one member of the Church induces necessarily a division from the whole as the Doctour confesses As for your N. 55. wherin you say to Charity Maintayned the reason of this consequence which you say is so cleare truly I cannot possibly discerne But the consequence which Ch. Ma. makes N. 17. Pag 172. of which you speake seemes so cleare that I belieue every Body will see it if his words be set downe as they are delivered by him and not abbreviated and obscured by you Thus he sayth I obserue that according to Dr. Potter the selfe same Church which is the vniversall Church remaining the vniversall true Church of Christ may fall into errours and corruptions from whence it clearly followes that it is impossible to leaue the externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retaine externall communion with the Catholick Church since the Church Catholick and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church What consequence can ther be more clear The Church Catholick and the Church corrupted is the same Church therfor it is impossible to forsake the externall communion of the Church corrupted and not forsake but retaine externall communion with the Church Catholick 16. To your N. 56 I will only say That you conceale the words of Ch. Ma. so to impugne them more freely His words are When Luther appeared ther were not two distinct visible true Catholick Churches holding contrary Doctrine and