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
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
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
our Sauiour hath merited any thing for mankind and so we receive no Grace by Christ which was that which the Holy Fathers and Generall Councelles did detest and condemne in wicked Pelagians Wherby it appeares that your Faith is indeed naturall and yet being pretended to be supernaturall comes to be naturall and supernaturall And further I pray you remember what I observed above concerning an imaginary Faith of yours Pag 329 and 330. N. 7. acquired and infused which is in effect naturall and supernaturall I must therfor conclude that not our but your Faith is a free necessitated certain vncertaine evident obscure prudent and folish naturall and supernaturall assent 94. Object 6. Pag 37. N. 9. As nothing availes with God but faith which worketh by loue so any faith if it be but as a graine of must araseed if it worke by love shall certainâ—y availe with him and be accepted of him Therfor a faith absolutely certaine is not necessary to salvation 95. Answer First To worke by love is to keepe Gods Commandements of which one is that we believe as we ought And for you to suppose that we believe as we ought by a faith only probable is a meer begging of the Question which you should prove For although we should suppose that God had commanded no works at all as we distinguish works from Faith yet there would remayne a most strict command vnder payne of damnation to believe whatsoever is sufficiently proposed as a truth revealed by God with an Assent proportionable to the Supreme Authority and above all other Assents that is with an infallible and immoveable Assent And indeed of this Precept of Faith we may truly say This is the first Commandement the performance wherof is the first step to all merit Obedience Salvation And as in the eating of the forbidden Apple though the matter in it self might seeme small yet the transgression was a grievous sinne because that command was imposed by God to testify his Supreme Dominion over man so this Precept of Faith exacting the Obedience of our vnderstanding which is the first Power of our soule doth of it selfe oblige in a most severe manner even abstracting from all further works proceeding from the will by direction of the vnderstanding by Faith For God is Lord of our vnderstanding and exacts obedience of it no less than of our will 96. Secondly what you say of faith if it be but as a grain of mustardseed is both impertinent and against yourself For as I noted already those Texts of Holy Scripture clearly speake of Faith of Miracles as of removing a mountaine into the sea and not of Christian Faith necessary to salvation Neither by a faith like to a graine of mustardseed is vnderstood a weake probable and fallible faith like yours but rather a very great and effectuall belief able to remove mountaynes and trees as appeares Matt 17.20 Luc 17.6 And S. Paule 1. Cor 13. shewes that this faith of Miracles is very perfect saying If I should have all faith so that I could remove mountaines c And our Saviour declares that it is firme and certaine Matth 21. V. 21. If you shall have faith and stagger not not only that of the figtree shall you doe but and if you shall say to this mountaine Take vp and throw thy self into the sea it shall be done And Matt 13. V. 31.32 The Kingdome of Heaven is like to a mustardseed which a man tooke and sowed in his field Which is the least surely of all seeds but when it is growen it is greater then all hearbs and is made a tree so that the foules of the aire come and dwell in the branches therof Where learned interpreters say that A mustard seed especially in Syria growes to be a tree so that the birds of the ayre do dwell in the branches therof This shewes that as faith is compared to a graine of mustardseed because it is little to sight so also it is compared to it for Vigour Vertue Acrimony and Strength and in no wise for Weakness or any similitude with your fallible belief Which yet appeares more cleare by the demand of the Apostles Matth 17. V. 8. Why could we not cast him out And our Saviours answer N. 19. by reason of your incredulity and then brings that similitude of a mustardseed as contraposed to their faith which was but little and so the Arabicus hath propter parvitatem sidei vestrae by reason of the littleness of your faith But it cannot be doubted that the Apostles had some faith as you pretend to have otherwise they would not have attempted to cast out the Divel Therfor the Faith which our Saviour compareth to a mustardseed and opposes to theirs must be great and strong in it selfe though small in appearance or litle in comparison of some higher degree of Faith All which confutes your fallible faith and shews not only that you bring this example of a graine of mustardseed impertinently but also that it makes clearly against yourself even though it were vnderstood of Faith necessary to salvation in as much as it signifyes a great strength of Faith as farr different from your Faith as Certainty is distinguished from meer Probability Besides I pray you consider that Faith of Mirakles is not that Faith which workes by love and so according to your owne words cannot avayle with God and can avayle with Men only to shew how weake impertinent and contradictorious to yourself your Arguments are wherby you would proue that a weake Faith is sufficient for salvation when a strong Faith of the same kind that is of Miracles is insufficient This Answer serves for your other instance of Him that cryed Lord I believe help my incredulity Mar. 9.24 Where it is manifest that He spoke of Faith of Miracles namely of having his son dispossessed of the Divell 97. Now if your probable Faith be not sufficient to worke by Loue and fulfill other commandements which you cannot deny who measure Charity by Faith as the effect is measured by the cause and as you say Pag. 326. Nê° 4. Seing as S. Iohn assures vs our Faith is the victory which overcomes the world if the Faith of all true believers were perfect then their victory over the world and over sinne must of necessity be perfect Much more we must say according to your ground seing Faith is the victory which overcomes the world if your Faith be not sufficient for salvation your victory over the world and sinne cannot be sufficient for that end This according to your principles 98. But in true Divinity I say seing God hath so ordained that Faith should be the roote and beginning of all Obedience and Merit if it self be not a Faith sufficient for salvation how shall it be the beginning of Obedience or keeping all the other Commandements God proceeds with order and gives not Charity where he finds not Faith I proved in the Introduction that the Commandements are not
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
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
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
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
places And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to say that in this particular he never touched the Point really seing he himselfe destroyes what himselfe might seeme once to haue builded 5. All that you haue N. 10. is answered by saying that it is damnable not to belieue any least Point which the Church proposes to be a Divine trurh that is as revealed by God till which tyme one may erre without Heresy Now to determine what Points in particular be so proposed were to run overall particular Articles of Faith Yet to your instances I answer briefly The Quarta decimani who held that Easter was to be kept according to the Rite of the Jewes were justly condemned of Heresy not precisely for the Circumstance of Tyme but for the ground of that Assertion that it was necessary to doe so which would haue brought with it a necessity of keeping all the Rites of the Jewes And therfore you say vntruly that God had not then declared himselfe about Easter But the keeping of Chrismass day ten dayes sooner or later goes vpon no such ground For I never heard that the Jewes kept our Saviours Nativity either according to the new or old Calendar As for believing that there are Antipodes if you can produce any Text of Scripture or definition of Gods Church I will hold it a matter of Faith Sure I am it is a matter of reason not to produce such impertinent examples as you doe The same I say of Predetermination that what the Church shall determine will become a matter of Faith The example of Millenaryes and necessity of Eucharist for Infants which last you vntruly Father vpon S. Augustine you are still obtruding vpon vs without proving what you say as also that S. Austine did not hold it as a matter of Faith that the Bishops of Rome had Right and Power to judge of all appeales from all parts of the world and it is manifestly false that the Church ever determined the Doctrine of the Millenaryes or that S. Austine did deny the Pope had Right to judge of all appeales though for the Practise therof there might be just cause not to vse it promiscuously in all occasions You say Justine Martyr denyes that some good Christians held the contrary to the Millenaryes But even learned Protestants and more skillfull in the Greeke toung than you are interpret S. Justine Martyr in a direct contrary sense as I shew hereafter And in fine our Question is only concerning matters defined by the Church and not what any particular Doctour might hold It seemes you hold it not to be a matter of Faith that Heretikes may giue true Baptisme but S. Austine held and Gods Church believes it to be such and by this example we proue that some Points are matter of Faith which are not evidently contained in Scripture 6. To your N. 13. I answer Charity Maintayned N. 6. said not that a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved is Atheisme but a ground of Atheisme yea he sayd not this absolutely but thus there is not a more pernicious Heresy or rather marke this modification a ground of Atheisme than a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved Where you see such a Doctrine is not absolutely called Atheisme but only that it may be rather called a ground of Atheisme than a pure or ordinary kind of Heresy And I pray is not a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved without repentance a ground and disposition either to deny the Deity which is to be worshipped ōly by a true Religion or not to care much for God or Religion And who would dislike this saying of Charity Maintayned pronounced in generall except a Socinian or some such creature Yourselfe say N. 8. That to deny a thing sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God is to giue God the lye and to say that men may be saved who giue God the lye is it not a ground and disposition to end in Atheisme Potter saith Pag 212. Whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture is in some sense fundamentall in regard of the Divine Authority of God and his word by which it is recommended that as such is may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity Why do you not question the Doctor and aske how he can be an infidell who believes the true God Remember your owne saying that the naturall fecundity of errour is to beget Errour And so what will follow of freedom and indifferency for all beliefes of which one only can be true but a flitting from one Errour to another till they hold no Religion at all But the truth is you could not impugne Charity Maintayned but by changing or rather falsifying the Question which was whether men of different Religions may be saved without repentance and you say they may be saved by repentance wherby it may seeme you do not deny but it were a ground of Atheisme to assirme that men of different Religions may be saved without any repentance though they liue and dy in their errour 7. The rest of your Answer being only an Answer to such Demands as Charity Maintayned proposed which haue been handled at large in other places I will only briefly note First what you say Pag 18. N. 26. in these words why an implicite Faith in Christ and his word should not suffice as well as an implicite Faith in your Church I haue desired to be resolved by many of your side but never could hath been expressly answered Chap 2. where I haue shewed that Scripture alone neither extensiue containes all necessary Points of Faith nor as I may say intensiue seing euen those Articles which it containes for the true and certaine vnderstāding of them require the authority of the church to say nothing that we cannot haue an implicite Faith in the Scripture vnless it be resolved into our beliefe of the Church for whose authority we receaue Scripture it selfe Secondly That N. 19. you answer not directly to the Question of Charity Maintayned Part 1. P. 15. N. 12. What visible Church was there before Luther disagreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants But transferr it from a Church to particular men as if it were necessary for vs to shew that every man agreed with the Roman Church seing we know many particular men haue fallen into errours but we affirme that before Luther there was no visible true Orthodox Church which disagreed from the Roman and particularly in those Points wherin Protestants disagree from vs. Thirdly that Pag 23. N 27. as it should be you accuse vs of want of Charity even while you are in the act of giving the same ill measure to vs saying that for want of Charity to Protesiants we alwayes suspect the worst of them and what greater want of Charity can there be in you than not only to suspect but to pronounce and proclaime in print that we want Charity which is
is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose Belike if it had been to the purpose that is against you you would not haue let me say even so much Truth togeather 9. In your N. 48. you speake to Charity Maintayned in these words Out of liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our vnderstanding to assent Yet not withstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes So the Scripture only to those that haue the eye of Faith Thus you But it is reason that the words of Charity Maintayned should be set downe as they are and not lamely and imperfectly as you giue them These are his words Part 1. Chap 1. N. 12. Pag 52. Let us suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our vnder standing to assent yet the similitude proves against themselves Protestants for light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therfore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare only to those who are endued with the eye of Faith or as Potter sayth Pag 141. To all that haue eyes to discerne the shinning beames therof that is To the believer as immediatly after he speakes Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but is to be presupposed before we can see the light therof and consequently there must be some other-meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith which can be no other than the Church 10 This is the discourse of Charity Maintayned and you must not contradict it vnless you will proclaime your selfe a Pelagian that we are able by our naturall forces or vnderstanding to belieue as we ought in order to Eternall Happynesse as the Eye of our Body can by the naturall abilitie thereof see colours For as I shewed in the Introduction we being not able of our selves to produce any one Act of supernaturall Divine Faith need the Assistance of the infused Habit of Faith which is a Theologicall Vertue or somthing equivalent to it to enable our vnderstanding for the exercise of every such Act and therfore the aggregatum of our vnderstanding and that Helpe is for the believing of Scripture as our corporall eye is for seeing of light or colours And then Scripture will correspond to light our vnderstanding with that supernaturall Helpe to our eye and the Act of believing to the Act of Seeing This being premised it will be found that either your Objections vanish into nothing or that you must be guilty of Pelagianisme as Christianity Maintayned sayd Pag 70. You say If Scripture do moue and determine our vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its owne effect now this very assent is nothing els but Faith and Faith nothing els than the vnderstandings assent And therfore vpon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith vnto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture itselfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the vnderstanding to assent that is to belieue them and the verityes contained in them 11. This is your Objection which goes vpon a false ground and doth not distinguish between the Act and Habit of Faith or somthing eqvivalent to it in actu primo enabling our vnderstanding to exercise supernaturall Acts of believing For Scripture doth moue and determine our vnderstanding only to the Actus secundus or an Act of Faith but not to the Habit of Faith or somewhat equivalent to it which must answer to our corporall eye which cannot be produced by Scripture If you had considered this Truth you would not haue gone forward and sayd neither is this to say that the Eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison faith Answers to the Eye But if you will not peruert it the Analogy must stand thus Scripture must Answer to light The eye of the soule that is the vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye and lastly assenting or believing to the Act of seeing For I haue told you that our vnderstanding in order to Acts of Faith alone cannot be compared to our corporall eye which by its owne naturall force can see a proportionate object and so your whole Analogy is made voide and all that you ground vpon it Thus we haue heard even Potter saying That Scripture is of Divine Authority the Believer sees by that glorious beame of light that shines in Scripture I would know of what Beliefe the Doctour speakes Of Faith in Act or in Habit If of beliefe in Habit then they are Believers before they see that glorious beame of light which shines in Scripture If he meane the Act of Faith then by that Act he sees that glorious beame which Act must therfore be the Eye wherby he saith the Believer is sayd to see And he speakes yet more clearly in these words following The Church is the watchman that holdeth out the light in open View and presenteth the shining beames therof to all that haue eyes to discerne it Therfore he supposes eyes to which the Scripture is represented which eyes being not only the naturall Power of our vnderstanding must be somthing els And the Protestant Amesius de Circulo after he had spoken much of the light of Scripture comes to say Tantùm fide vt oculo opus esse statuimus quae in spiritum resolvitur tanquam in causam Where you see he compares Faith to an Eye and we may aske him whether he meane of habituall or Actuall Faith and apply to his Answer whatsoever it be the same reflection which I made even now concerning Potters words The like difficulty and Argument may be made against the private spirit which if it be a particular Revelation that Scripture is the word of God distinct from the Revelations contained in Scripture it followes that Scripture doth not containe all Divine Revelations and that our vnderstanding with that Revelation must be the eye wherby Scripture is seene and not be produced by Scripture If it be not a Divine Revelation it must be tryed by the Beliefe of Scripture and so that Beliefe must be an eye precedent to the private spirit and consequently be an eye to itselfe and both come before and follow itselfe yea whatsoever that spirit be certaine or vncertaine a Revelation or not a Revelation yet it must serue for
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
which is not vniversally or necessarily true it being in rigor sufficient that they be not disbelieved This was the scope of Charity Maintayned to shew that to alledg the Creed as containing all Fundamentall Points was nothing to the purPose for relief of Protestants who differ in such manner as what one believes to be revealed by God an other rejects and disbelieves and therfore though it were granted that Protestants did agree in all the articles of the Creed which thing I haue demonstrated not to be true nevertheless they could not all pretēd to be saved because some of them must be convinced to reject Divine Revelations But now for the Point in hand you know all Christians belieue Every Text of Scripture to be revealed by God are they therfore obliged to be still exercising an explicite act of Faith concerning them Rather of the two and speaking in generall and perse loquendo or ex natura rei if they be not Fundamentall articles it may so fall out that you are never obliged to affoard them any such positiue Assent and so you remaine obliged never to dis belieue them and yet never obliged explicitely to belieue them which is a true proposition against your vniversall contradictory Doctrine that No point to any man at any time can be necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same tyme necessary to be believed 5. The rest of this Number as also your N. 12.13.13 for this Number is put twice 14.15.16 there is no N. 17. haue bene answered already C. Mist with all Divines supposes that no man can be obliged to belieue any point not sufficiently propounded as Dr. Potter also teaches and is evident to the very light of naturall Reason I beseech the Reader for confuting your N. 15. to peruse Ch. Ma. N. 3. And how do you tell vs in this N. 15. that the certainty you haue of the Cteed is from constant Tradition seing you profess that we haue no vniversall Tradition except that which delivers to vs the Scripture If you belief the Creed that it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith as you say for vniversall Tradition and not for Scripture as you expresly confess you free men from obligation of reading or knowing the Scripture for all necessary points of belief which by this meanes they may find independently of Scripture and with as much certainty as you belieue Scripture which you profess to receiue from vniversall Tradition for which you also belieue the Creed And so you overthrow the most vniversall Doctrine of Protestants that Scripture is necessary and that not from Tradition but from it alone we must learne all things belonging to salvation And how did we heare you say Pag. 178. N. 80. that the Apostles did by their preaching while they lived and by their writings or Scripture after their death doe keepe men in vnity seing now you acknowledg a Tradition distinct from and independent of Scripture whereby we may be kept in vnity Now if we receiue the Creed from the Church we must belieue her to be infallible and that to oppose any proposall of hers is damnable though one belieue the whole Creed and therfore it is impertinent to alledg the Creed to assert vnity of Faith among Protestants while they differ in other points of Faith not contayned in the Creed and so Ch. Ma. saied truly that it was both fals and impertinent to say The Creed containes all necessary points of Faith But heere I must intreate you to consider how you can say as you doe in this place 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 Seing Pag. 149. N. 37. you say expresly Protestants ground their beliefe that such and such things only are fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and goe about to proue their assertion true only by Scripture Can Protestants ground their belief that such and such things only are fundamentalls only vpon Scripture and yet not ground vpon Scripture the certainty which they haue that the Creed containes all fundamentalls and so know all fundamentalls independently of Scripture 6. You say N. 18. That the last objection of Ch. Ma. stands vpon a false and dangerous supposition That new heresies may arise But with what conscience do you object this to Ch. Ma. who only repeats what Dr. Porter affirmed Pag. 126. about the arising of new Heresies which is so manifest that you expresly take notice of it and reject the Doctrine of the Doctor in that behalf I beseech the Reader to see Ch. Ma. where he demonstrates that seing the Doctor confesses that new Heresies may arise and that therefore the Creed was necessarily explained by other Creeds of Nyce c. so it will need particular explanation against other emergent Heresies and so is not nor ever will be of itself alone a sufficient Catalogue of all Points of Faith which deduction of Ch. Ma. is so cleare that you giue only this answer This explication of Dr. Potter and restriction of this doctrine that the Creed containes a Catalogue of all necessary Points of Faith whereof you make your advantage was to my vnderstanding vnnecessary And so you leaue your client and acknowledg the Argument of Ch. Ma. to be convincing As for the thing itself All that you object against D. Potter whom I now defend against you can receiue strength only from equivocation the thing itself being cleare That we admit no new Revelation but only new application or declaration of that which was revealed which application is certainly necessary before one can be obliged to belieue vnless you will haue men belieue they know not what Now whether you will call this application or declaration only a necessary condition sine qua not or parte of the formall object of Faith makes nothing to our present purpose but is learnedly handled by Catholique Divines Certaine we are that it is not the totall or principall but only a partiall and secondary object if it belong at all to the formall object of our Belief neither can any man imagine that the application to vs of Divine Revelations is the essentiall forme and last complement of an Article of Faith if by last complement and essentiall forme you meane that which is the chiefest and most principall which is only the Divine Testimony or Revelation and therefore you shew either ignorance or some worse thing in supposing that we make Divine Revelation to be the matter and sufficient declaration to be the forme of an Article of Faith No doubt but the Apostles declared what our Saviour had revealed to them but when inimicus homo superseminavit zizania and some began to doubt or broach errours against those revealed Truths a declaration was necessary to be made by that Meanes which God hath left to decide Controversyes in Religion as we saied hertofore about Canonicall Books of
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
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
Nonne Deo subjecta erit anima mea which entire submission and subjection is evidently more necessary in Faith than in Charity against which some sinnes may be veniall whereas every errour against any truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God is a deadly sinne nor can be excused ob parvitatem materiae 50. You conclude and say to Ch. Ma. Your Corollaries drawen from it the Doctrine of S. Thomas That every errour against Faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants haue no Faith no certainty and that you haue all Faith must together with it fall to the ground Which words are either non-sense or evidently false For who ever denied not your self excepted that every errour against Faith involves an opposition against Gods testimony which is the very essence of errour against Faith that is of Heresy 51. Your N. 50.51.52 haue bene answered heretofore and are answered by this one consideration That your Faith is not raised aboue the probable motives or Arguments of Credibility which being evident your kind of Faith must be evident but our Catholique Faith is an assent aboue the saied motives and is certaine though not evident as I haue declared els where and by this meanes your imitation of the Argument of Ch Ma to proue that the pretended faith of Protestants implied not obscurity falls to the ground because we belieue with a greater certainty than is derived from the sole motives of credibility so that your Faith must haue evidence but cannot haue certainty The Faith of Protestants who pretended to be assured what Bookes be Canonicall by the private spirit must be certaine and evident and consequently not obscure and therefor Calvin Lib Institut Cap 7. Sect 2. saieth that by the spirit men may discerne true Scripture as we discerne lucem à tenebris album à nigro suaue ab amaro light from darkness white from black sweete from sower And so the Faith of Catholiques only remaines both certaine and obscure as Christian Faith ought to be 52. Your N. 53.54.55 haue bene either answered already or els containe meere sayings without any proofe That the Jewes before our Saviours tyme conserved the Scripture is no wonder since at that tyme they were the true Church and afterward it was not in their power to corrupt it at their pleasure in regard the Apostles and other converted to Christian Religion could manifestly haue convinced them as shameless falsaries But what hath this to doe with that Church which was the vniversall Church of Christ before Luther and if it be fallible and so could haue bene permitted to corrupt Scripture you can at this tyme haue no certainty of the Bible That Luther opposed the Roman Church appeares by what I sayd heretofore and is demonstrated by Ch Ma Part 1. Chap 5. N. 29. and yourself N. 73. describe the man in such manner as makes the matter credible of it self 53. You tell vs N. 56. that the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Of this we haue saied enough heretofore Now I will only put you in minde First that this cannot agree with your Doctrine that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith nor which men are obliged to belieue For if it only be the Religion and Faith of Protestants and yet be not a point or object of Faith which you are bound to belieue it followes that Protestants haue no Religion or Point of Faith at all Secondly We haue heard you say Pag 287. N. 82. that some Protestants tooke for the model or Idaea of their Reformation not Scripture only but also the Decrees of Councells and the Writings of the Fathers of the first fiue Ages Thirdly you say Whatsoever els they Protestants belieue besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their owne grounds belieue it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption It is strang that the Approbators of your Book and other Protestants did not see a thing verie evident That in these words you declare Protestant pretended Bishops and the Church of England to haue bene guilty of most high and most Schismaticall presumption for requiring the belief of the 39. Articles some of which you belieue neither to be contained in Scripture nor to be the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it but to be fals and repugnant to it So that we haue reason more and more to be even amazed that such a Book could at such a tyme be published 54. Your N. 57 and the rest till your N. 72. inclusiuè haue bene answered in different occasions respectiuè Vnfortunate man Who will not compassionate your disorder of minde and pen when N. 66. you are not ashamed to say of Catholiques It is too too apparent that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences by counterfeiting false stories by obtruding on the world supposititious writings by corrupting the monuments of former times and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you by warres by perfecutions by Massacres by Treasons by Rebellions in short by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent If Luther found the Roman Church and such as were vnited with her that is all Orthodox Christian Churches in such a state as you describe what a scandall must it needs haue bene to Jewes Turks Pagans and all the enemies of Christian Religion 55. Whosoever reads your N 73. will find that you abandon Luther and that you grant very much in favour of the Roman Church as will appeare by reading Ch Ma heere N. 32. and I obserue that you confess with Luther that in the Papacy are many good things that haue come from them to vs and then why do you alwaies deny that you receiue Scripture from vs which is one of those many good things that haue come from vs to you as Luther expressly confesses 56. In your N. 74. you involue and make things seeme obscure which are very cleare You cite Ch. Ma. as if he saied in generall certainty and prudence are certaine grounds of supernaturality which is evidently fals it being manifest that some naturall knowledg may be certaine and prudent You say also that Ch Ma makes perswasion and opinion all one And why because he saieth the Faith of Protestants is but an human perswasion or opinion as if you should haue saied when you say this or that we make this and that all one or in saying such a one studied in Oxford or Cambridg we make Oxford or Cambridg all one The truth is Ch. Ma. neither intended to make them all one or different it being sufficient for his purpose that the Faith of Protestants was not a certaine divine assent call it otherwise what you please You ask how we can assure you that our Faith is not our
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
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
his fourth Chapter Pag 788. Chap 14. The answer to his fifth Chapter about Schisme Pag 846. Chap 15. The answer to his sixth Chapter about Heresy Pag 884. Chap 16. The answer to his seaventh Chapter that Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to reunite themselves to the Roman Church Pag 932. Touching the necessity of diuine Grace for all vvorkes of Christian Piety I. THe necessity I find of premisinge this Introduction giues me iust cause to begin with those sad passages of the Prophet Ieremy c. 9.1 VVho will giue water to my head and to myne eyes a fountayne of teares and v. 18. Let our eyes shed teares and our eye liddes runne downe with waters And c. 13. v. 17. My soule shall weepe because of the pride a S. Aug. l. 2. de peccatorum meritis remiss cap. 18. saieth Ipsa ratio quemlibet nostrum quaetentem vehementer angustat ne â—ic defendamus gratiam vt liberum arbitrium auferre videamur rurlus ne liberum sic asseramus arbittium vt SVPERBA IMPIETATE ingrati Dei gratiae indicemur O England what greater pride then to make humane reason the measure of Christian faith and to beleeue Faith to be only a probable assent because Reason cannot with euidency comprehend how it should be infallibly true O soules deny not the satisfaction of Christ our Lord for our sinnes and his Merit of supernaturall Grace to enable our nature towards workes of Piety Be not eleuated Jerem 13.16.17 but Giue you glory to our Lord your God before it wax darke and before your feet stumble at the darke mountaynes Otherwise you shall looke for light and he will turne it into the shaddow of death and into darknes But if you will not heare this in secret my soule shall weepe because of the pride b S. Anselmus ad illud 1. Cor. 4. Quid habes quod non accepisti sayth Fecit Deus vt esses tu fecisti vt bonus esses absit Si enim Deus dedit vt esses alius tibi dare potuit ut bonus esses melior est ille qui dedit ut bònus esses quam ille qui dedit ut esses Sed nullus Deo melior igÃtur à Deo accepisti esse bonum esse Thus sayth our Lord let not the wise man glory in his wisdome but he that gloryeth let him glory in this because I am the Lord that doe mercy For it is not Rom. 9.16 of the willer nor of the runner but of God that sheweth Mercy by freely offeringe Pardon Grace and Glory Let vs not ô let vs not make vaine the Life Sufferings Death Satisfaction and Merit of God incarnate by setting vp an idol of reason but let vs say with the Apostole Galat. 2.21 I cast not away the Grace of God For if iustice by the Lawe of Mòyses if Faith by reason then Christ dyed in vaine II. But heere some will not faile to aske the reason why I should treate this seeming farre fetchd matter in this occasion The Answer to this demand cannot be so fitly and fully deliuered by me in this place as it will of it selfe appeare in severall occasions through this whole worke For the present I say that the necessity of supernaturall grace being once established the most substantiall parts of M. Chillingworths booke will remaine confuted For jf Divine faith be the Gift of God infused into our soules and that we cannot exercise any one Act therof without the particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost it followes immediatly and clearly against his fundamentall and capitall heresie that Christian Faith must be infallible and exempt from all possibility of errour or falshood It being an evident and certaine truth that the supreme and Prime Ueritie cannot by his speciall supernaturall motion inspire a falshood S. Iohns aduise 1. Ioan 4.1 is Beleeue not euery spirit but proue the spirits if they be of God But if we find our spirit to be of God and yet maintayne that it may be stayned with errour what further triall can we make must we raise vp the spirit of man and rely on the strength of reason to trye and so perhaps to check and reject the spirit of God though knowne and acknowledged to be his spirit We reade in holy Scripture Deuter c. 18.21.22 If in secret cogitation thou answer How shall I vnderstand the word that our Lord spake not This signe thou shalt haue That which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord and cometh not to passe that our Lord hath not spoken but by the arrogancy of his mynd the Prophet hath forged it Which yet were no good or infallible signe if the spirit of God who spoke by the Prophets could inspire a falshood III. This truth is granted even by sectaryes themselues who will not deny to be true what Caluin Jnstit l. 1. c. 7. saith Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferred before all reason And even Chillingworth Pag. 145 n. 33. saieth that Potter ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner then any since them Where we see he proportionates infallibility to the guidance of the Spirit IV. Besides if the Theologicall vertues of Hope and Charity be the Gifts of God and their Acts require supernaturall assistance Faith also by which they are directed must be supernaturall and require Gods particular Grace which excludes all falshood Jf Faith Hope and Charity be Gifts infused by God not acquired by Acts proceeding from our naturall forces and for that reason we can not be assured of their presence by sensible experience as we may be of acquired naturall Habits Jf they be Powers to enable not meere Habits to facilitate vs in order to Actions of Piety we must inferre that they are not to be increas'd or diminishd lost conserved or acquired or measured according to the rate of naturall Habits Which truth being once granted his doctrine that Repentance consists in the rooting out of all vicious habits That Charity may consist with deadly sinne and Faith with heresy and the like Tenets instantly fall to the ground their whole foundation being an imaginary paritie or rather identity of infused and naturall Habits or Gifts as will appeare when such particular points shall offer themselues to be examined V. Heere I cannot forbeare to reflect in what manner they who haue once withdrawne their beleife and obedience from Gods Church and an jnfallible living judge in matters belonging to Faith do runne into extremes Some of them to maintayne the necessity of Grace denie freewill others in direct opposition to these giue all to free-will and denie the necessity of Grace Some reject inherent Justice though infused by God yea they teach that the guilt of sinne still remaining doth stayne all our actions
demonstrate the Doctrine of Catholiques concerning the necessity of God's Grace to belieue Hope Loue God Keepe his commandements Merit Repent Ouercome temptations and perseuer to the end All which is not inconsistent with free-will which is assisted and elevated not hindered or impeached by grace as it is wont to be sayd Grace doth not destroy but perfit nature Our adversaryes grant that Adam in the state of innocency was indued with freewill and yet grace was then necessary for the exercise of every supernaturall Act with which humane nature can haue no sufficient proportion otherwise supernaturall were not supernaturall but naturall or due to nature and therfore it is cleare that the necessity and concurrence of God's grace agrees very well with mans freewill Thus all difficultyes are clear'd and Holy Scripture declared not to imply any contradiction while it teaches both the freedome of our will and the necessity of Grace X. By this occasion I cannot chuse but begg of all who are desirous to know what Catholiques teach not to heare and trust the clamors and calumnyes of their Preachers Ministers or other either misinformed or disaffected or passionate or partially interessed persons but that they would for the good of their owne soules and loue to truth reade the Councell of Trent to which all Catholiques in matters of Faith subscribe and I dare confidently promise they will obserue such grauity in the stile such piety in the matter such grounds from Scripture such consonancy with Antiquity such clearnesse and reasonablenesse in the Definitions that they shall never repent themselues of a few howers spent in that search but will find to be true what I haue alwayes thought and often spoken that to set downe our Doctrines as they are beleeved by vs and not as our Aduersaryes falsify or disguise them or rightly to state the Question would be a sufficient defense of our Assertions and confutation of all the contraty Objections XI But I returne to the matter it selfe intendinge to proue out of expresse words of holy Scripture the necessity of grace First for all works of pietie in generall 2. For Faith 3. For Hope 4. For Charitie 5. For keepinge the commandements and ouercoming temptations 6. For repentance 7. For perseuerance These heades for better method we will distinguish into seuerall Sections SECTION I. The necessity of Grace for all actions of Christian Piety in generall XII THe Necessity of Grace appeares sufficiently by the diuers wayes and metaphors vnder which holy Scripture labours jf so I may say to declare it vnto vs as some Diuines haue well observed as by a metaphor taken from him who knocks at the dore Apoc. 3. Behold I stand at the dore and knocke Of one who awakes vs from sleepe Ephes 5. Arise thou that sleepest and arise from the dead and Christ will illuminate thee of a calling Matth. 20. Many are called and few are chosen of Light Iob 29. when his lampe shined ouer my head and I walked by his light in darknesse of Preuentinge and having mercy on vs Psalm 58. His mercy shall preuent me Other expressions of the same Grace will appeare in the places which shall be alleadged out of Holy Scripture In the Concell of Trent as we haue seene aboue Grace is declared vnder diuers names as of Vocation Illumination Inspiration Excitation Touchinge and Motion XIII Let vs now alledge particular Texts of Holy Scripture Ps 58. His mercy shall prevent me Ezech. c. 36.2.26 I will giue you a new hart and put a new spirit in the middest of you and I will take away the stony hart out of your Flesh and will giue you a fleshy hart and I will put my spirit in the middest of you and I will make that you walke in my precepts and keepe my judgements and doe them Chap. 18.31 Make to your selues a new hart and a new spirit Behold in these Texts the possibility of keeping the Commandements the Necessity of Grace and the consistency of Grace with freewill which are three principall doctrines beleeved by Catholicques Isaiae 54.13 All thy children taught of out Lord. Matt. 20. v. 16 Many be called but few elect Ioan. 15. v. 5. Without me you can doe nothinge Rom. 8. v. 26. The spirit helpeth our infirmity For what we should pray as we ought wee know not but the spirit him selfe requesteth for vs with groanings vnspeakable Rom. 3. v. 24. Justifyed gratis by his Grace by the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Rom 9. v. 16. It is not of the willer nor of the runner but God that sheweth mercy Rom 11. v. 6. If by Grace not of works otherwise Grace now is not Grace And v. 35. Who hath first giuen to him and retribution shall be made him 1. Cor. 4. v. 7. Who discerneth thee or what hast thou that thou hast not receaved 1. Cor. 15. v. 10. By the Grace of God Iam that I am and his Grace in me hath not bin voyd but I have laboured more aboundantly then all they yet not I but the Grace of God with me v. 57. Thankes be to God that hath given to vs the victory by our Lord Iesus Christ 2. Cor. 3. v. 5. Not that we be sufficient to thinke any thing of our selves as of our selves but our sufficiency is of God Epehs 1. v. 6.7 Vnto the prayse of the glory of his Grace wherin he hath gratifyed vs in his beloved son in whom we haue redemption by his bloud the remission of sinnes according to the riches of his Grace Philip. v. 6. He which hath begun in you a good worke will perfit it vnto the day of Christ Iesus Philip 2. v. 13. For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to accomplish accordinge to his good vvill Apoc. 3. v. 20. Behold I stand at the dore and knock if any man shall heare my voyce and open to me the gate I will enter in to him and vvill sup with him and he with me Behold agayne the force of Grace in knockinge at the dore and the cooperation of freevvill in hearing the voyce of God and opening to him the gate XIV I need add no more Texts of Holy Scripture for this poynt of the Necessity of Grace to all vvorks of Piety in generall since the same vvill also be proued by demonstrating the Necessity therof for the particulars of Beleeuing Hoping c. As also vvhat vve haue proued in generall infers the Necessity for the same particulars of Fayth Hope c Yea vvhile vve proue the Necessity of Grace for any particular for example Fayth the same remaynes proved for all other poynts belonging to Piety by reason of the same ground and parity for all And indeed since eternall Blisse in Heaven to vvhich men are ordained is supernaturalâ— it is cleare of it selfe rhat it cannot be attained by the forces of nature but by the particular Grace and assistance of Gods Holy Spirit This Necessity of Grace is so fundamentall a
nor of the will of man but of God are borne Ephes 1.4 As he chose vs in him before the constitution of the world that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight in charity and V. 13.14 In whom you also when you had heard the word of truth the Gospel of your saluation in which also belieuing you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise which is the pledge of our inheritance This promise is made to vs and so we being the Creditours the pledge must remaine with vs and signed signifyeth a thing both permanent and intrinsecall Like to this we reade Ephes 4.23.24 Be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man which according to God is created in justice and holyness of the truth and V. 30. contristate not the holy spirit of God in which you are signed vnto the day of redemption And 2. Cor 1.21 He that annoynted vs God who also hath sealed vs given the pledge of spirit in our harts Rom. 6.23 The stipends of sinne death but the grace of God life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our Lord. Rom. 8.14 Whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God are the sonnes of God 1. Cor 3.16.17 Know you not that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwelleth in you The temple of God is holy which you are 2. Cor 6.16 You are the temple of the liuing God as God sayth because I will dwell and walke in them Ephes 2.21.22 In whom all building framed togeather groweth into a holy Temple in our Lord in whom you also are built togeather into an habitation of God in the Holy Ghost 2. Timoth 1.14 Keepe the good depositum by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in vs. Ioan 6.57 As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue by the Father and he that eateth me the same shall liue by me Who can deny but that life signifyes an intrinsecall permanent thing XLIV To these authorityes of holy Scripture which clearly proue that just men are such by a gift inherent and not due to nature but supernaturall we might add conuincing Reasons grounded in principles of faith if it were my purpose to treat this matter at large But I will content my selfe with one taken from the many Texts of holy Scripture which we haue alledged and many more might be brought in this manner God concurres to certaine Actions v. g. Belieuing hoping c. with a particular influence aboue the naturall exigence of humane nature therfore such Actions are both Good and Supernaturall Good because it were impiety to say that God doth or can by speciall motion produce an ill and sinfull Action Supernaturall because no naturall cause alone can produce them nor hath any naturall exigence that they be produced by some more high and powerfull cause as though our soule cannot be produced by any naturall Cause or Agent yet there is an exigence in nature that it be created by God when sufficient dispositions are preexistent in the Body Now it being once granted that there are good and supernaturall Actions it followes that there must be in our soule some supernaturall powers or facultyes as connaturall Principles or Causes of such Actions therfor such Powers must be grāted as in thēselues are supernaturall and absolutely good without any tincture or staine or inclination to sinfulness Which sequeles are so cleare that protestants not deny them but grant at least the supernaturall Habits of the three Theologicall Vertues Faith Hope and Charity which is sufficient for our present purpose though I know not any generall ground or doctrine of theirs for which they doe or must deny the supernaturall infused Habits of Morall Vertues but they denie that either by these or any other quality or Gift we are just in such manner as that we do not still remayne stayned with habituall deadly sinne which heresy is clearly confuted by the Elogiums of the Fathers and Texts of Scripture alledged in this and the former Sections XLV For if deadly sinne still remaine how doth Grace take away the rust of sinne make the soule resplendent whiten it enlighten and make vs like to God is it the beauty and brightnesse of our mynd the picture and image of God the garment of heauenly beauty purity derived from Christ the first stole the riches of the diuine essence the marke of God since deadly sinne is of a direct opposite nature and produces contrary effects XLVI How shall holy Scripture be verifyed in saying that as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made just if we remaine truly sinners by the disobedience of Adam but not truly just by the obedience of Christ who merited for vs iustice and grace How is it true that if in the offence of one Death raigned by one much more they that receiue the aboundance of grace and of donation and of justice shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ For if sinne remaine Death also remaines with which Life cannot raigne How can the holy Ghost be giuē vs while we persist in sinne How can he abide in God and God in him in whom sinne and satan abides How can Faith worke by charity in him who is voluntarily possesd by deadly sinne than which nothing is more repugnant to charity whose inseparable effect is effectually to detest all mortall sinne how is he a new creature who is in state of sinne which alone makes one a child of Adam or the old man not of Christ How doth he cleaue to God and is one spirit with him who cleaueth to sinne and is one spirit with it vnles men haue a mynd to blaspheme and say that the spirit of sinne and the spirit of God is all one how can he who abides in God and God in him beare much fruite if ioyntly he abide in sinne and sinne in him Yea for this very cause that sinne still abides in man these heretikes teach that all our workes or fruites are deadly sinnes so farr are they from being fruites of Gods abiding in vs And how doth this agree with that saying 1. Ioan. 3.9 Euery one that is borne of God committeth not sinne because his seed abideth in him seing sinne the seed of the serpent abides in him Or how doth the continuall breach of Gods commandements agree with what is sayd V. 24. He that keepeth his commandements abideth in him How can regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost powred vpon vs aboundantly stand with deadly sinne which is directy opposite to regeneration and renouation How is the seale and pledge of spirit in our harts togeather with the seale and pledge of the diuell How can the vnction which we haue receiued from him abide in vs in company of deadly sinne How are men partakers of the Diuine nature while they remayne in sinne which is most opposite to God and all the Diuine perfections How cā we be called frendes being deadly
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
of opinions or strayings of errours By the name of substance something certaine and setled is appoynted thee Thou art shut vp within certaine bounds and confined within limits which are certaine for faith is not an Opinion but a certainty But concerning this Text of S. Paul more shall be sayd herafter out of excellent words of S. Chrisostome The same Apostle Heb. 6. V. 17. 18. 19. sayth God meaning more aboundantly to shew to the heires of the promise the stability of his counsell he interposed an Oath That by two things vnmooueable wherby it is impossible for God to lie we may haue a most strong comfort who haue fled to hold fast the hope proposed which we haue as an anker of the soule sure and firme But how can we haue a most strong comfort an anker of the soule sure and sirme or how doth he shew to the heires of his promise the stability of his counsell if the faith of Christians be reduced to probabilityes which are not stable but of themselues subject to change and falshood and for ought we know may finally prooue to be such as long as we haue no other certainty to the contrary Or how can we be assured of that concerning which God interposed an Oath if we be not sure that he euer interposed an Oath or euer witnessed or reuealed any thinge 1. Thessall 2.12 We giue thankes to God without intermission because when you had receiued of vs the word of the hearing of God you receyued it not as the word of men but as it is indeed the word of God which must signify that they receyued it by an Assent proportionable to such an Authority Motiue and Formall Object and therfore certaine infallible and aboue all humane faith opynion and probability For this cause the Apostle giues thanks to God because when they had receyved the word of God they receyued it as such declaring that they belieued with an assent requiring Gods speciall Grace for which thankes are to be giuē eleuating the soule aboue the forces of nature to a super naturall certaine Act proportionable as I sayd to so sublime an Authority 2. Tim. 1.12 I know whom I haue belieued and I am sure that he is able to keepe my depositum vnto that day Where S. Paule speakes of God as a judg and of the day of judgment and reward of the just which are Articles of Christian Faith not knowne by the light of reason This Text is alledged by S. Bernard Ep. 190. to this very purpose saying Scio cui credidi certus sum clamat Apostolus tu mihi subsibilas Fides est aestimatio tu mihi ambiguum garris quo nihil est certius The Apostle cryes out I know whom I haue belieued and I am certaine and dost thou whisper Faith is opinion dost thou prate as of a doubtfull thing concerning that than which nothing is more certaine Act. 2.36 Let all the house of Israel know most certainly not only probably that God hath made him both Lord and Christ this Iesus whom you haue crucifyed 2. Pet. 1.19 We haue the propheticall word more sure which you doe well attending vnto as to a cādel shining in a darke place In which words the Apostle compares the saying of the Prophets which we belieue by faith concerning Christ our Sauiour with the sight of the eyes and hearing of the eares of the Apostles on Mount Thabor when they sawe our Sauiours glory and heard the voyce of his Father saying This is my beloued Son and yet saith that the Propheticall word is more sure And by this place we also gather that faith though it be jnfallible ād certaine yet is ineuident and obscure like to a candle in a darke place which obscures the light of the candle against the doctrine of Chillingworth that certainty and obscurity are incompatible Luke 21.33 Heauen and Earth shall passe but my words shall not passe Surely if his words were belieued by vs only with a probable assent we could not in good reason thinke they were more stable than heauen and earth which by euidence of sinse and reason we see to be constant firme and permanent 1. Ioan. 5. Yf we receyue the testimony of men the testimony of God is greater But as I sayd aboue what imports it that the testimony of God is greater in it selfe if we can assent to it no more firmely than the Arguments of Credibility or history and humane tradition and testimony of men enable vs For by this meanes we shall finally be brought as low as humane faith 1. Cor. 2.5 That your faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God The contrary wherof we must affirme in his principles who reduceth Christian Faith to the Power or rather jmpotency of humane tradition and reason Which last Texts do clearly ouerthrow his doctrine that we belieue the Scripture for humane fallible Tradition and testimony of men not for the jnfallible Authority of Gods Church 2. Pet. 1.21 For not by mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost What neede of diuine inspiration for assenting probably to a Conclusion euidently deduced from premisses euidently probables or how can the Holy Ghost inspire an assent which may prooue false 1. Pet. 5.9 Whom resist ye strong in Faith Tob. 3.21 This hath euery one for certaine that worshippeth thee that his life if it be in probation shall be crowned Ioan. 10.35 If he called them Goddes to whom the word of God was made and the Scripture cannot be broken May not the Scriptures be broken in order to vs if for ought we certainly know their Authority is not divine nor the poynts they contayne true Act. 2.24 Whom God hath raysed vp loosing the sorrowes of Hell according as it was impossible that he should be holden of it Now if our belief of Scripture and contents therof be only probable we cannot be certaine that the contrary assertions or objects are impossible or that it was impossible he should be holden of it since possibility of being true is excluded only by a contrary certainty and whosoeuer belieues any poynt only with probability hath in his vnderstanding no disposition which of it selfe is repugnant to probability and much less to possibility for the contrary part Coloss. 1. V. 21. 22. 23. And you wheras you were sometyme alienated and enemyes in sense in euill works yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by death to present you holy and immaculate and blamelesse before him if you continue in the Faith grounded and stable and vnmoueable from the Gospell which you haue heard which is preached among all creatures that are vnder Heauen Obserue that the Apostle not only speakes of a Faith which is stable and ground of immobility but also declares that such a Faith is necessary to be reconciled to God from being alienated and enemyes and to be
him Philip. 2.17.18 But if I be immolated vpon the sacrifice and seruice of your Faith I rejoyce and congratulate with you all And the selfesame thing doe you also rejoyce and congratulate with me What great sacrifice seruice or obedience is a faith only probable and necessarily inferrd from probable Premises 16. Morouer that Faith doth not necessitate our vnderstanding but is free and voluntary euen quoad specificationem as Diuines speake that is in such manner as it is in our will to belieue the contrary of what we belieue by Faith and for that cause requires Gods particular assistāce and a pious affection in the will and a submitting or captiuating of our vnderstanding is gathered out of diuine Scriptures that vpon the same preaching of the Ghospel some belieued and some belieued not as we reade Act. 17.32.34 Certaine mocked but certaine sayd we will heare thee againe concerning this poynt But certaine men joyning vnto him did belieue Marc 16.15.16 Going into the whole world preach the Ghospell to all creatures He that belieueth ād is baptized shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be condemned V. 14. he exprobated their incredulity Which shewes that jnfidelity is a sinne and sinne supposeth liberty to the contrary Rom. 10.16 But all do not obey the Ghospel This supposeth that some belieue not and that some other belieue and in belieuing exercise a free Act of obedience Gen. 15. Abrahā belieued God and it was reputed to him vnto justice Heb. 11. it is sayd that God prepared for the Fathers an euerlasting citty and that they got a repromission by Faith Ioan. 20. Blessed are they who haue not seene and haue belieued Luc. 2. Blessed art thou who hast belieued But a meritorious act or deserving such prayses must be free Now Chillingworths faith is such as necessitates the vnderstanding to assent at least that it cannot assent to the contrary as hath bene shewed Therfor his Faith is not that Christian belief which Holy Scripture commands that is a free Assent captiuating our vnderstanding and raysing it aboue all the Motiues of Credibility or Probability and consequently absolutly certaine and infallible wherby we voluntarily submit and perfectly subject our soule to God and his supreme authority For wheras we may distinguish foure sorts of Knowledg wherof the First is Experimentall or of senses 2. Scientificall 3. Humane Faith 4. Diuine Faith Man ought to be subject to God by a voluntary knowledg and such the first and second sort is not The third is imperfect as the authority on which it relyes is subject to errour The fourth then remaynes as it were Religion or highest worship called latria or the greatest submission wherby the will perfectly subject vnto God subjecteth vnto him the other powers which are subordinate vnto it selfe and it is great impiety to belieue that God hath not enabled Christians to offer to theyr creatour and Redeemer a seruice or Obedience connaturall to the Diuine Autority Perfection and Testimony 17. This reason drawen from Obedience exercised in the act of Christian Faith is further enforced thus The command of the will or Pious affection which Diuines require in Faith produceth in the vnderstanding a more firme assent than would be produced without (a) Vide Card Lugo de Fide Disp 10. Sect. 2. N. 19. it as we see by experience that men obstinate in errour or strongly affected to some truth produce by theyr will a more firme assent than otherwise it would haue bene yea the command of the will affection passion and the like moue men to assent to that vnto which otherwise they would not assent or from which perhaps they would dissent Therfor seing the will can moue the vnderstanding to produce the substance of an act much more may it determine vs to produce more degrees of assent or dissent than otherwise it would Although therfor it were granted that a Conclusion formally as such can haue no greater strength than it receyues from the Premises yet the same conclusion or object taken materially may receyue greater strength from some other cause than it did receyue from the Premises as such as the same materiall truth which being inferred from probable Premises is only probable may grow to be certaine if it be deduced from demonstratiue arguments Therfore Chillingworths ground that the Assent of Faith being a Conclusion drawne from probable Premises can be noe more than probable is either false if it be vnderstood that by no other meanes it can be made more than probable or impertinent if he meane that it cannot exceede probability precisely and formally as it is a Conclusion inferd from probable Premises it being sufficient for our purpose that it be improued to a certainty by some other meanes Yea since he grants that our Assent of Faith receyues from the Arguments of Credibility the highest degree of probability and that indeed it receyues a further perfection from the Pious Affection and prudent command of the will we must conclude that it is raised aboue the highest degree of a probable to a certaine Assent Which yet is more and more euinced by this following consideration 18. It is impossible that Christian Faith can retaine the highest degree of probability as Chilling pretends if it haue no greater perfection than it receyues from the sole probable Arguments of Credibility Therfor we must find some other ground on which Christian Faith relyes than meerly such arguments The antecedent I proue thus For to omit what some perhaps will say that at least the Assent of Faith which he sayth is a Conclusion is not so probable as the Premises on which it depends and so is not probable in the highest degree although it were granted that the Motiues of Credibility considered alone may mooue the vnderstanding to the highest degree of probability and such as one cannot entertayne without a prudent doubt of the contrary yet if they be compard and confronted with very great difficultyes objected against them by reason that the Mysteryes of Christian Faith which really are superiour and seemingly are contrary to naturall Reason and Philosophy that supposed highest pitch of probability must needs be abated and lessened and come to some lower than the highest As althongh the will do necessarily loue an object which appeares good when it attends not to any reason or formality of some euill neuerthelesse it is not necessarily carryed to loue that object when it perceyueth any euill therin so the vnderstanding so long as truth is proposd without any thing offered to the contrary necessarily or easily yelds assent but if contrary difficultyes be represented it is apt to pause and consider and perhaps doubt or feare and must needs fall somwhat from its former confidence adhesion and assent if it be left to it selfe and not assisted with greater strength than can arise from meere probabilityes encountred and balanced with contrary seeming strong reasons And as Chilling speaking to Catholiques sayth Pag. 113.
vs now come to some other kind of Argument 27. Hitherto Christians haue belieued that true Christian Faith is a Theologicall vertue that is it hath for its Formall object and Motiue God as he is infinitly Wise and True as Hope respects Him as infinitly Powerfull and Charity as infinitly Good But the Faith of these men cannot be a Theologicall vertue Therfore their faith is no true Christian Faith The Minor cannot be denyed in the grounds of this man For although they will pretend to belieue the Articles of Christiā Religion because God hath reuealed them yet the Argumēts of Credibility or humane testimonyes are the only formall object or Motiue of this Assent God hath reuealed the Mysteryes of Christian Religion They are I say Premises from which the sayed Conclusion or act and assent of Faith is deduced and according to which it is to be measured and not only Preparations or Dispositions to it as Catholike Diuines teach so that the infallible Diuine Reuelation comes to be only a materiall object belieued for another fallible Motiue or Formall Object infinitly beneath the Testimony of God which alone is able to constitute a Theologicall vertue Thus he plainly saith Pag 36. N. 8. God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue that the strength of our faith be equall or proportionable to the credibility of the Motiues to it and most expresly he saith in the same place Our faith is an assent to this Conclusion that the Doctrine of Christianity is true which being deduced from a Thesis which is metaphysically certaine and from an Hypothesis wherof we can haue but a morall certainty we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it then of the weaker of the Premises You see he holds the Assent of Faith to be a Conclusion not proportioned to Diuine Reuelation which is most infallible and strong but measured by the weaker of the Premises grounded vpon humane inducements which cannot giue Species or nature and essence to a Theologicall vertue and so his probable Faith is no more than an humane Opinion For euen as he who concludeth out of Mathematicall Principles knowne only probably hath not knowledg but opinion so he that belieues out of Principles not certaine a Reuelation of its nature certaine hath not certaine knowledg but only opinion And therfor his saying Pag 35. N. 7. that he conveyues Faith to be an assent to Diuine Reuelations vpon the authoty of the Renealer will in no wise free him from the just imputation of turning Diuine Faith into Opinion since his assent to Diuine Reuelation is grounded and measured and receyues its essence from testimonyes and Principles only probable and humane and not from the Diuine Reuelation without which euen Dr. Potter Pag. 143. expressly sayes Faith is but Opinion or perswasion or at the most an acquired humane belief And it is to be obserued that the Doctour speakes expresly of the Authority of the Church which he sayth can beget only an Opinion and yet Chillingworth resolues our belief of the Scripture into the Tradition and teaching of the Church and therfor his belief of the Scripture cannot passe the degree of Opinion or humane belief 28. Children are taught in their Catechismes that Faith Hope and Charity are vertues and all Diuines agree that Faith is a vertue infused and seing it resides in the vnderstanding it must be a Vertue of the vnderstanding which of its nature cannot produce any but true acts because vertue out of S. Austine Lib 2. de Libero arbitrio is a quality which by no man is vsed ill And vertue as Diuines teach togeather with Aristotle disposes the Power to that which is best Wherfor the vertue of the will disposeth it vnto Good which is the wils good and an intellectuall vertue must dispose the vnderstanding to that which is True which is the intellectiue Powers greatest Good Since therfor Faith is of its owne essence an intellectuall vertue it must haue an intrinsecall reference and tye vnto true Acts and an incapacity and repugnance vnto false ones and errours 29. Besides Faith is the first Power of supernaturall Being and ought not to be inferiour to Habitus Principiorum in our naturall Being which Habits cannot incline to any false assent And whence comes it that the Habit of Faith for producing an Act requires Gods speciall helpe which cannot moue vnto falshood but that such a Habit is determinated to Truth Or how is it giuen vs as a fitt sufficient and secure meanes wherby to captiuate our vnderstanding with great considence to the obedience of Faith and of God if it be not determined to truth without all danger of errour Will he deny that it exceeds Gods Power to produce such a Habit or to concurre with our vnderstanding to such an Act as shal be incapable of errrour Or what imaginable reason can there be to deny that Faith is such in which concurre Diuine Reuelation a Pious Affection and command of the will and the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost What A supernaturall End of eternall Happyness a supernaturall Habit a supernaturall Grace a supernaturall Act an infinite Authority or formall Object and all to end in meere weake Probabilityes Doth water rise as high as the source from which it flowes and shall not all these diuine and supernaturall fountaynes raise vs higher than Opinion Good Christians can correct naturall Reason in poynts which to Philosophers seemed euident truths and Principles as in the Creation against that Axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made In the Resurrection against From priuation there is not admitted a retourning back to the former Being In the incarnation against A substance is that which exists by it selfe and yet our Sauiours sacred Humanity exists in the Eternall Word in the Mystery of the B. Trinity against Those things which are the same with a third are the same amongst themselues and not to alledge more particulars all miracles wrought by our Sauiour aboue the strength of all naturall causes seemed in humane reason to imply a contradiction or impossibility and whatsoeuer is belieued aboue Reason would seeme false and against it if we did not correct Reason by Faith which could not be done vnless we did judge the light of Faith to be more certaine than the light of Reason or the Principles therof And this Chilling must either grant and so yield faith to be infallible or els must be content to acknowledg a plaine contradiction to himselfe This appeares by these words Pag. 376. N. 56. Propose me any thing out of this booke the Bible and require whether I belieue it or no and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath sayd so therfor it is true And in the Conclusion of his Booke § And wheras he professeth that he will not belieue
it selfe he should not haue spoken so rawly as if one strong and another weaker premise had no greater influēce into the Conclusion than if both the premises were weake 33. But to omitt this he should haue declared whether a conclusion deduced from one certaine and another probable premise although precisely and formally and Reduplicatiue as it is a conclusion can beget only a probable assent yet I say whether such a conclusion taken materially and Specificatinè may not be sufficient to bring our vnderstanding to an infallible Act of Faith not by it selfe but by applying the Diuine Reuelation which growing by that meanes and application to be the immediate and formall Object of our vnderstanding may moue it to an Assent proportionable to such an Object and Authority that is absolutely certaine and infallible as he who applyes fire to a combustible subject is occasion that heat is produced by the fire immediately applyed and not by him who applyed it or as a Preacher or Pastour whose testimonyes are humane and fallible when they declare to their hearers or subjects that some Truth is witnessed by Gods word are occasion that those people may produce a true infallible Act of Faith depending immediately vpon Divine Reuelation applyed by the sayd meanes This if he had declared as he should haue done not to deceaue his Reader his mayne argument that the conclusion followes the weaker premise had bene answered and confuted by himselfe 34. And this same ground and consideration wholy euacuates the examples which he alledgeth pag. 36. N 8. That a man cannot goe or stand strongly if either of his leggs be weake That a building cannot be stable if any one of the necessary pillars therof be infirme and instable That 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 Reuelation cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour For in our Case humane testimonyes are not the leggs on which Faith stands nor the pillars which vphold it nor the message or messenger for which we belieue but it is only the Diuine Reuelation on which the Act of Faith relyes and from which it receyueth perfection nature and essence and which alone is strong enough for that end 35. If you object that perhaps that humane authority is false and proposes to my vnderstanding Diuine Reuelation when God doth not reueale Therfor I cannot vpon humane testimony representing or applying Diuine Reuelation exercise an infallible Act of Faith I answer it is one thing whether by a reflex Act I am absolutly certaine that I exercise an infallible act of Faith and an other whether indeed and in actu exercito I produce such an Act. Of the former I haue sayd nothing neither makes it to our present purpose Of the latter I affirme that when indeed humane testimony is true and so applyes a diuine reuelation which really exists in such case I may belieue by a true infallible Assent of Christian Faith The reason of this seemes cleare because although a truth which I know only by a probable assent is not certaine to me yet in it selfe it is most immoueable and certaine in regard that while a thing is it cannot but be for that tyme in which it is and so it implyes contradiction that Diuine reuelation should not exist when by a true judgment I affirme it to exist which certaine existance once supposed it is able to tansfuse certainty and infallibility to that Act of which it alone and not any precedent thing is the Formall Object and Motiue Neither will God be wanting to concurre on the belieuers part with his speciall Grace necessary for producing a supernaturall Act of Christian Faith And so his argument ibidem that a riuer will not rise higher than the fountaine from whence it flowes turnes against himselfe and proues that our Assent flowing from Diuine and infallible causes Will rise as high as those fountaines to a supernaturall infallible Assent This is sufficient to shew how the probability of a Conclusion taken specificatiue doth not hinder but that by meanes therof I may come afterward to an infalliblity in my Assent deriued not immediately from that Conclusion but from the Diuine Reuelation Wherby his chiefest Ground is ouerthrowne That it is vniuersally impossible to exercise an infallible Act of Faith vnless the existence of Diuine Reuelation be certainly foreknowne in one of the Premises 36. But yet further if we consider all the other Causes of Christian Faith they do euince that it is certaine and infallible as I haue touched before For beside the object of infinite Authority on the belieuers part God doth infuse the Habit of Faith He giues a particular Actuall Motion of Grace for exercising the Act therof He effectually moues the will by a Pious assection and Command to determine the vnderstanding to a firme assent of Faith aboue the precedent Arguments of Credibility If a better vnderstāding conceiue the same Object with more perfection than another of lesse capacity what stint can we put to that vnderstāding which is directed and strengthned by rayes from the light quae illuminat omnem hominem Which enlightneth euery man 37. Alas how perniciously foolish will men needs be towards their owne perdition All things euē by the instinct ād strēgth of nature pass from an imperfect to a perfect state from the outward senses to the inward which cā correct the errours of our outward from which it tooke its first notions from them to the vnderstanding and finally by probable Arguments is prepard to finde out Demonstrations And yet men will not vnderstand how we may rise from arguments of Credibility to a certainty in Faith though assisted with Diuine Grace 38. To what hath beene sayd for the infalliblity of Faith I add this consideration If Faith require not absolute certainty it were sufficient to belieue that the authority of Scripture is only probable or that it is on ly probable that God cā neither deceyue nor be deceued For this were sufficient to ground a probable assent that Christian Faith is true Because according to his Principles that Faith is a Conclusion and that the Conclusion followes the fallible and weaker Premise what difference is there to belieue that Scripture is fallible or to affirme that we do but probably and fallibly belieue that it is infallible or the word of God in his Principles or what imports it for attaining certainty that Gods Reuelation is in it selfe infallible if I doe but fauibly know that he hath reuealed any thing And yet S. Paule Heb 6 groundes Christian Faith vpon this that it is impossible For God to lie Therfore he did suppose that Christian Faith is infallible 39. But what if 〈◊〉 himselfe pretend to belieue that Christian Faith is infallible I do not say he belieues it to be such yet he hath words which I propose to the Reader
is not perceyved to be repugnant to our Faith one may assent to it because one may belieue contradictions not vnderstood to be such as dayly experience teaches but then that doubt is not voluntary as it stands in opposition with Faith in regard that no such opposition is represended to our vnderstanding and so it is no way destructive of Faith 55. I need not say any more for confutation of this Objection Yet I deeme not this an vnprofitable Demand vpon what ground you say Euery least doubting in any matter of Faith if it be infallible though resisted and inuoluntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructiue so long as it lasts of true and saving Faith For one act formally excludes only that which is naturally opposite to it and therfor why should One involuntary and inculpable Act be destructiue of all sauing Faith If the Doubt be voluntary and culpable it destroyes I grant all true Faith both Habituall and actuall though euen in this case of sinfull errour you must say the contrary and so ouerthrow your owne argument you I say who Pag. 368. N. 49. teach that a voluntary and sinfull errour against one Article of Faith may stand with true Faith and belief of other Poynts and the contrary doctrine you tearme a vaine and groundless fancy and therfor in your Principles one may belieue with absolute certainty some Poynts V. G. that there is a God or that Christian Religion is probable which you pretend to belieue with certainty or the other examples which I specifyd aboue out of your owne doctrine and yet doubt of euidency in some other poynt of Faith and so you must grant that euery inuoluntary doubt is not destructiue of all infallible and certaine Faith as you assumed in your Objection which now your selfe must answer 56. Beside you speake very confusedly in affirming that euery least doubting though resisted would be destructiue so long as it lasteth of all true and sauing Faith without declaring whether you speake of Habituall or actuall Faith or of both Acts if we speake naturally and Philosophically do not directly and immediatly destroy the contrary Habit and therfor there is no reason why an involuntary doubt should destroy the Habit of Faith But you will say At least euery Doubt is destructiue of the Act of Faith because we cannot at the same tyme doubt of that thing which we belieue with Certainty whether such a doubt be voluntary or inuoluntary I Answer I haue sayd already that an inuoluntary doubt or a doubt resisted is not receyued in our vnderstanding and therfor cannot exclude the contrary certaine Act of Faith Yet if for declaring the matter we will make an impossile supposition that an errour inuoluntary ād consequently no sinne is receyued in our vnderstanding I say in that case it will not destroy the act of Diuine Faith morally but only physically by a naturall in compossibility or incompatibility in the same subject or vnderstāding it hinders the exercise therof which may happē not only by such a doubt as we speake of but also by other lawfull occasions as sleepe serious application to some business requiring a perfect attention or by a resolution not to exercise an Act of Faith in some circumstances wherin one knowes he is not obliged therto and yet these thinges and the like which for the tyme exclude an Act of faith must according to your Objection be damnable sinnes as destructiue of all both infallible and probable Faith because they are incompatible with the actuall exercise of any either certaine or only probable Assent In how many respects is your Objection proued to be weake and contradictory to your selfe 57. Object 4. In the same Pag. 326. N. 4. you say The same is invincibly confirmed by euery deliberate sinne that any Christian committs by any progress in charity that he makes For seing as S. Iohn assures vs our faith is the victory which ouercomes the world certainly if the faith of all true belieuers were perfect and if true faith be canable of no imperfection if all faith be a knowledge most certaine and infallible all faith must be perfect for the most imperfect that is according to your doctrine if it be true must be most certaine and sure the most perfect that is cannot be more than most certaine then certainly their victory over the world and therfor over the flesh and therfor over sinne must of necessity be perfect and so it should be impossible for any true believer to committ any deliberate sinne and therfore he that committs any sinne must not thinke himselfe a true believer Besides seing faith worketh by Charity and Charity is the effect of faith Certainly if the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect and consequently as you make no degrees in faith so there would be none in Charity and so no man could possibly make any progress in it but all true believers should be equally in Charity as in faith you make them equall and from thence it would follow vnavoidably that whosoever finds in himselfe any true faith must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoever discovers in his Charity any imperfection must not believe that he hath any true faith 58. Answer I haue had the patience to set downe your Objection at large though the full substance therof might haue bene exprest in very few words notwithstanding your repetitions inferences and inuolutions which I will indeauour to vnfold by degrees and lay open the weakness of your Argument in these following reflections 〈◊〉 In conformity to your owne Argument you must grant that your victorie ouer the world the flesh and sinne as also your Charity cannot be perfect because your faith being acknowledged to be only probable is supposed by your selfe to be imperfect since you say we must hold that our faith is perfect because we belieue it to be certaine And who would not detest such an imperfect faith if it were but for this cause that your Charity cannot be perfect with it if your owne Argument be good And heere you put me vpon a necessity to add a new Argument for the infallibility of Faith to all the reasons alledged aboue For seing men may by Gods assistance ouercome the world and be perfect in Charity both which according to you are measured by Faith it followes that they may haue perfect faith and if you can say as you doe If the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect much more I may say if the cause be imperfect the effect which neuer exceeds the perfection of the cause must be imperfect and so if your faith which you say is cause of our victory and of Charity be imperfect the effect must be imperfect And therfore seing the effect of victory and Charity in Christians may be and in many de facto is perfect it followes clearly that they haue not a meere probable but an infallible perfect faith 59. Secondly your Objection
or liuing as we ought is the cause of faith and as faith is the cause of Charity to which all being obliged they are by consequence obliged to procure the cause therof which you say is faith Wherfor vpon the whole matter your probable faith remaines only to such as keepe not the Commandements nor liue as they belieue which if they did God would rayse them higher to a certainty For thus you say Pag 37. N. 9. God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be truing and effectuall to true obedience and rhat for sincere obedience God may and will rayse men higher to a Certainty Therfor a primo ad vltimum the weakest Faith if it be effectuall to obedience will bring men to certainty Therfore none de facto want such a certainty except they whose faith is not liuing nor effectuall to obedience And further seing you confess yours not to be certaine it must follow that it is not effectuall to true obedience otherwise it would be improued to a Certainty 73. But this is not all that occurrs to be sayd in this poynt Remember your doctrine Pag 379. N. 70. and elswhere that repentance necessary to saluation requires effectuall dereliction and mortification of all viâ—es and the effectuall practise of all Christian vâ—rtues which whosoever performes exercises very perfect obedience and shall not fayle of being raysed higher to a Certainty of faith Therfor your fallible faith will remaine only in sinners For if one either giue himselfe to sincere obedience and so fall not into great sinne or truly repent by your kind of repentance he must passe to a certainty of Faith and so all in state of saluation both Saints that is who haue not sinned mortally and repentant sinners cannot want the spirit of Obsignation as you call it and certaine Faith Why then do you deceiue the world and delude poore soules with a fallible faith or perswasion and not absolutely proclaime to the world that infallible Faith is necessary since euen according to your grounds it is necessary for all sorts of people 74. Now all your Objections and my Answers being vnpartially considered let any man judge whether your Arguments deserue such epithetons as you giue them of demonstratiue conuincing inuincible cleare and the like and what reason you had to say P. 326. N. 4. These you see are strang and portentuous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleare and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours which you would fame haue true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but euen to all Religion and Piety sit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or Charity And therfor I must intreat and adjure you either to discouer vnto me which I take God to witness I cannot perceaue some fallacy in my reasons against it or neuer herafter to open your mouth in defence of it 75. I answer S. Paule had good reason to say Scientia inflat 1. Cor 8.1 Knowledg puffeth vp it is a poysonous quality making the person swell his Arguments and all that he does or sayes swell and emptyness appeare greatness it is a multiplying glasse that stirrs vp in mens fancyes strang and huge apparitions from nothing But Sir remeber that your ObjectioÌ„s make no more against Vs Catholikes than PictestaÌ„ts who profess ChristiaÌ„ Religion to be infallible and I belieue will not belieue your bare word that these consequences are cleare Christian Historicall Faith is infallibly true Therfor it must be lost by any least doubting though resisted that is by a no-doubt as I haue shewed it must be incompatible with any deliberate sinne it must bring with it Charity so perfect that we can make no progress therin For my part I do in no wise vnderstand such deductions nor how any man of vnderstanding should take them for good as I haue shewed more than sufficiently though yet I must add that though the consequences which you pretend to deduce from our doctrine be strange and portentuous in themselues yet to you they ought not to seeme so or at least ought not to be publikly avouched by you for such For besides that the very same consequences which you deduce from our doctrine follow from your owne assertions as I haue proued answer I beseech you these few Demands 1. Whether it be more convenient that true Diuine Faith should be inconsistent with an involuntary Doubt which you inferr against vs as a great absurdity or that it should be compatible with a voluntary sinfull damnable not only Doubt but positiue assertive Errour as you teach Pag. 368. N. 49. and call the contrary doctrine a vaine and groundless fancy as I observed aboue or that it may stand with an assent that probably it may be false or with a preparation of mynd to forsake it if seeming better reasons offer themselves against it thaÌ„ you conceive your selfe to haue for it which for ought you know may happen as I shewed above 2. Whether it be worse that all should of necessity be perfect in charity by an Infallible Faith or that none can be perfect as it ineuitably followes out of your Tenets put togeather That Faith is only probable and fallible and yet that the measure of our victory over the world and of our charity must be taken from Faith which you say is the cause of charity and the effect cannot be more perfect than the cause Besides your brethren the Calvinists believe that men are justifyed by a sirme and certaine Faith that they are just and that charity and good works are inseparable from such a Faith and then seing according to your owne words if the cause be perfect the effect must be perfect and that the cause of charity is in their opinion perfect that is a sirme and certaine Faith it followes that their charity must of necessity be perfect and that no just man can make any progress therin 3. Whether it be more absurd to hold an impossibility of committing any deliberate sinne or to belieue that all our best actions are deadly sinnes Or whether it be worse to teach that one cannot breake the commandements which you against all truth impute to vs Or that he cannot keepe them euen with the assistance of Gods grace which is the common doctrine of Protestants Thus then it is not our doctrine but the errours of you and your brethren that must in many respects make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or charity And what a Paradoxe is this A weake and fallible Faith makes men diligent in making Progress in charity and a strong infallible Faith is fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity as yon are pleased strangly to speake directly against the admonition of S. Peter 1. Pet 5. cui resistite fortes in Fide whom
make vs evidently see what we belieue yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God and therfor say I with an Assent more certaine than can proceed from humane Authority or meere Arguments of Credibility 3. Divers great Philosophers hold that Accidents are not only dispositions to the substantiall Forme but reall causes therof immediatly producing it as they are instruments of the Principall substantiall Agents and make vp as it were one totall Cause with them According to this Philosophy your instances make against your selfe and do confirme the Doctrine of some grave Diuines that if we consider the Arguments of Credibility not as they are mere inducements precedent and disposing to Faith only shewing the object therof but as they integrate the Formall object or Divine Revelation we must say that they are elevated and raised vp to be part of the object and immediately causes of the Assent of Faith not of their owne force or taken alone but joyned with and conveying to our vnderstanding the Divine Revelation wherby they grow to be the voyce and testimony or as it were reall letters of God speaking to men by them For which cause S. Paule Heb 2.4 affirmes miracles to be a certaine speach of God saying God withall witnessing by signes and wonders where Theodoretus sayth that God by miracles giues a testimony to preaching Miracles therfor are in some manner the very voyce of God Whence S. Austine Ep 49. Quaest 6. absolutely sayeth God speakes by wonderfull workes And Marc vlt it is God cooperating and by signes confirming what they spoke And Ioan 10. Christ our Lord sayd concerning his owne workes They give testimony of me Therfor say these Divines Arguments of Credibility may be raised above themselues And so your examples and instances make nothing against vs but do confute your selfe Which contradicting of your selfe as in many other occasions so heere also forces me to stay yet a little in observing a couple of your contraryetyes or contradictions 81. The one is in these words Pag 329. and 330. If you speake of an acquired rationall discursive faith these Reasons which make the object seeme credible must be the cause of it If you speake of a supernaturall infused faith then you either suppose it infused by the former meanes and then that which was sayd must be sayd againe c Do not these words distroy themselues Or what sense can they beare An acquired rationall discursive faith caused by Reasons which make the object credible and a supernaturall infused faith infused by the former meanes that is by the Reasons which make the object seeme credible If an acquired rationall discursive faith be caused by the Reasons which make the Object credible and a supernaturall infused faith be caused by the same meanes and Reasons how do you distinguish a faith so acquired from a faith in the same manner infused Or rather how can it be a supernaturall infused Faith if it be caused by the same meanes by which an acquired discursive faith is caused In a word how is the same faith acquired and supernaturally infused 82. Your other contradiction I fynd Pag 36. and 37. N. 9. And Pag 112. N. 154. in both which places you grant to some a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence and yet in the former places you say of such men that the spirit of obsignation or confirmation makes them know what they did but believe Now if they know that they did but believe how is their certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence seing you put such a knowledg as is more than Faith which implyes obscurity and consequently such a knowledg is indued with evidence and yourselfe Pag 325. N. 2. saie He that doth barely and meerly believe doth never know and that science and knowledg are synonymous termes Therfor you speak of an evident knowledg and then I say how comes their certainty of adhesion to be beyond their certainty of evidence Or how can you speake of a certainty of adhesion beyond the certainty of evidence Who Pag 330. N. 7. say That power which infuseth into the vnderstanding assent must also infuse Evidence into the object and looke what degree of assent is infused into the vnderstanding at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object If at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object which is in the Assent how can the Assent be beyond the evidence of the object 83. To these your contradictions I add your saying Pag 37. N. 9. What God gives as a reward to believers is one thing and what he requires of all men as their duty is an other and what he will accept of out of grace and favour is yet an other To those that believe and live according to their faith he gives by degrees the spirit of Obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe He requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the Motives and Reasons enforcing to it he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith if it be living and effectuall vnto true obedience In which words you distinguish three sorts of persons which yet according to your owne words must fall to be the same First of them who believe and live according to their faith 2. of those who performe what is required of them as their duty and 3. of them whose faith God will accept out of grace and favour For to believe and live according to their faith to have a faith effectuall to obedience and working by love is required of all as their duty such a faith I say is required and will be accepted by the law which God hath prescribed Matt 19. V. 17. If thou wilt enter into life keepe the Commandements and no less will be accepted out of Grace and Favour Otherwise it should be and not be required and so your triple distinction of persons destroyes it selfe and ends in one only sort 84. I would gladly go forward to your other Objections but first you must give me leave to confute and turne against your self a saying which hath too much of the insolent and injourious against true Christian Faith in these words Pag. 329. N. 7. Your Faith if you please to have it so let it be a free necessitated certaine vncertaine evident obscure prudent and folish naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall assent 85. All this groundless insulting I will retort against your self eveÌ„ out of your owne grounds aÌ„d joyntly will shew that it belongs nothing at all to our Faith First your Faith is free and necessitated Free if you will stand to your owne express words Pag 329. N. 7. that there is obedience in it which you say can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disâ—bâ—dience as there is not where
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
vnderstand that it would not be very much prejudicall to your Faith to be imprudeÌ„t as it is nothing against the difinition of a man that he is not an Astronomer And who would be of that Religion and Faith which confessedly may be imprudent and foolish wheras true Christian Faith must needs be prudent And you were too forward to say no worse in saying so freely that Charit Maintayned was mistaken therin For if Prudence be required to every true act of morall vertue shall we say that true Faith may be imprudent But you speake according to your skill in SociniaÌ„ and Pelagian Heresy which denyes that every act of true Faith is essentially supernaturall and requires the supernaturall motion of the Holy Ghost for the production therof For how can an act supernaturall in essence be imprudent since this is alwayes a defect only of man and can never be a speciall effect of God as all things supernaturall in essence are Or how can the Holy Ghost particularly move and inspire vs to an inprudence and lightnesâ— of hâ—rt the Holy Scripture saying Eccles. 19.4 He who soone believes is light of hurt We may I grant think that to proceed from the Holy Ghost and to be a true act of Faith which is not such but that a belief all things considered imprudent should be indeed a true act of Faith produced by the Habit of Faith and particular impulsion of the Holy Ghost you have not prooved notwithstanding your confident avouching that questionless your Adversary was mistaken wheras yourself was much mistaken in your example of having skill in Astronomy which is a quality wholy impertinent and vnnecessary to a man as prudence is not to the acts of our Faith Though yet indeed you will find that Char Maintayned Part. 1. Chap 6. N. 8. Where he gives the Definition of Faith doth not so much as mention Prudence 89. But what do you answer to the argument of Char Maintained Chap .6 N. 32. That the Faith of Protestants being imprudent and rash cannot proceed from Divine motion and grace Nothing but that by this reason all they that believe our Religion and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it must be condemned to have no supernaturall Faith Thus you Pag 381. N. 74. which is nothing to our purpose For we speak not of ability to explicate or declare to others the reason of our belief which belongs to gratias gratis datas but of gratia gratum faciente or prudence in order to the accepting Faith for ourselves which hath a great latitude and that which to one may be prudent would not be so to another indued with more knowledg naturall or supernaturall God judging of every one according to his particular disposition and readiness to embrace the object of Faith in the measure of vnderstanding communicated to him But if indeed all thing considered we suppose him to proceed imprudently his assent shall not be a true Act of Faith for the reasons I aâ—â—edgd though such an assent wherby the ice is as it were broken in order to such an object may Facilitate towards a true act of Faith when circumstances being altered a prudent judgment may take vp the place of the former imprudent perswasion and so God concurr with his Grace to a true assent of Faith Neither doth it import that he who proceeds imprudently cannot discover in himself any difference between a prudent and imprudent assent because in these hidden intellectuall acts we must proceed by Reason not by experience as when a Pastor or Prelate proposes to his subject two objects as matters of Faith wherof one is indeed revealed the other not the subject with equall prudence assents to both without experiencing any difference in those assents and yet that which respects the object not truly revealed cannot be an act of Faith but the other may be such And by this is answerd what you have Pag 331. N. 10. of this same poynt 90. But now that the Faith even of your most select believers is imprudent appeares by your owne Principle that certainty in assent cannot be without proportionable evidence in the Object and yet you say they have certainty beyond evidence Therfor they have a Faith in an impossible manner and so are imprudent in an eminent degree 91. Your common probable Faith to be imprudent I have proved hertofore because it being only probable yet you preteÌ„d to preferr it be fore any reason to the contrary though seeming never so certain and convincinge which certaine is against all reason Therfor your Faith is imprudent and seing you hold it to be prudent the conclusion must be that it is prudent imprudent 92. Before I leave this poynt I must aske you two little questions or Doubts First what you meane in these words Though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may believe aright which are not wise If they be truly wise who are wise for eternity and whosoever believe aright are wise for eternity for as much as concernes their belief we must conclude that all who believe aright are truly wise How say you then that many who believe aright are not wise Secondly I reflect a little on your words Pag 381. N. 74. I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certaine and as prudent as the Faith of Papists and therfore if these be certain groundes of supernaturality our Faith may have it as well as yours But I beseech you where did Cha Maintayned say that certainty and prudence are grounds of supernaturality He sayd only that if Faith be imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine Motion and grace Is it all one to say if an Action be prudent it must be supernaturall which if it be taken in generall is false since an action may be prudent and not supernaturall and it cannot be supernaturall if it be not prudent What Logick teaches an vniversall Affirmative Proposition to be simply converted and from this All supernaturall Acts are prudent to inferr Therfor all prudent Acts are supernaturall just as we have heard you saying Pag 331. N. 10. All Astronomers are men but all men are not Astronomers But it is more than tyme that I goe forward 93. Fiftly you calumniate our Faith as a naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall Assent I answer Our Faith is supernaturall not naturall or vnnaturall though I wish you had explicated what you meane by vnnaturall because we acknowledg it to be Donum Dei the Gift of God But your faith is indeed naturall being but a probable Conclusion evidently deduced from evident probable Premises as I have declared hertofore and yet in words you pretend that it is supernaturall Pag. 409. § And though where you seeke to vindicate yourself from being guilty of taking away supernaturall Faith and Pag 325. N. 2. where you will seeme to admitt the necessity of a supernaturall belief though in truth you do not but with Socinians deny that
protestāts that they haue no certaine meanes to judg whē scripture is evidēt ād consequētly it alone is not sufficiēt to judg evidētly of all poynts necessary to be believed Nay seing they haue no evident Ground to know that scripture is the word of God they cannot be certaine of any one text of scripture though we did suppose that the sense therof were very cleare 89. 16. It is a maine ground with Heretikes that a living judg was necessary till the whole canon of scripture was perfited which being done they say the scripture alone is sufficient But even from this principle of theirs I argue thus seeing they belieue nothing which cannot be proved out of scripture they are obliged to proue out of scripture this very Ground that the necessity of a living judg did expire as soone as scripture was written This is impossible for them to do because no such text is to be found in the whole bible Therfor they cannot hold it even according to their owne principles See what I haue sayd in my nynth reason N. 59 to proue that according to their grounds on text will serue their turne for our presēt purpose vnless it be the last book or text because they teach that scripture alone was not sufficient till the whole Canon was perfited and yet who will vndertake that such a last booke or text hath evidently this Proposition After the Canon of scripture was perfited the necessity of a living judg did cease To say nothing that it is not certaine what part of Holy scripture was written last as also that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonical or no as I sayd aboue 90. 17. I take an argument from the confession of Protestants themselves that the Ancient Fathers stand for vs against them and that therfor the Fathers erred Which could never haue happened to Persons so holy wise learned sincere laborious dispassionate and whom all Christians acknowledg to haue wrought miracles on earth and to be glorious Saints in heauen if the scriptures were so express and evident as our adversaryes pretend Or if they will needs haue scripture to be so cleare every man of Conscience and discretion will stand for the anciēt Fathers ād vs who are acknowledged to agree with them Now that the Fathers are confessed by Protestants to haue taught the same doctrines which we at this day maintayne is diligētly demonstrated by that judicious exact and Faithfull Author of the Protestants Apology for the Roman Church concerning divers poynts which the Reader to be assured of the truth and for the Eternall good of his soule may find in the Alphabeticall Table Verb. Fathers and then examine them vnpartially as the Reall Presence Transsubstantiation Reservation of the Sacrament Masse and Sacrifice Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech Propitiatory Sacrifice euen for the dead Purgatory Free-will the possibility of keeping the commandements justification and Merit of works invocation of Saints Translation of Saints Reliques and their worship Pilgrimage to holy places Grace conferd by Baptisme necessity of Baptisme Chrisme and Confirmation Confession of sinnes injoyned pennance or satisfaction Absolution the Fast of Lent other sett Fasting daves Fasting from certaine meates vnwritten Traditions Hallowing of Alters Churches Water Oyle Bread Candles c More Sacraments than two that Antichrist shal be but one man the great vertue of the signe of the Crosse the worshipping of it Lights in the Church in the day-tyme Images in the Church their Worship S. Peters Primacy ouer the Apostles the Popes Primacy aboue other Bishops Vowed Chastity monasteryes of vowed virgins their consecration their religious habit Mòks that priests might not marry that Bigamus may not be priest the inferiour orders of deacons subdeacons acolyts exorcists c In so much as in regard of these and many mo like premises many of the learned Protestants do deale plainly in making generall disclaime in the Fathers as may be seene in Brierley tract 1. Subdiv 14. where beside other Protestants he names Whitaker Iacobus Acontius Napper Fulk Downham Melancthon Peter Martyr Beza Caelivs Secundus Curio Sebastianus Francus c Besides it cannot be denyed but that learned Protestants do taxe the Fathers of divers errours as is notorious and may be particularly seene in Brierly ibid wherin although they manifestly wrong those Holy and Ancient Doctours yet these their Accusers ought to gather from thence that scripture is not evident since men indued with all ornaments and helps for attayning the true meaning therof were so much mistaken as our sectaryes pretend 91. The same is also clearly demonstrated by reflecting that very many of the most learned Protestāts agree with vs in many points against their Protestant brethren as Brierley Tract 3. Sect 7. lit M. exactly demonstrates For example the Reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament that Sacraments do not only signify but also conferr grace that Christ after his corporall death did descend in soule into Hell that the Church must continue visible concerning Evangelicall Councells Viz. that a man may do more than he is commanded concerning the vniversality of Grace and that Christ dyed for all that men are not certaine of their election and that he who is in state of Grace may finally fall that in case of divorce vpon adultery the innocent party may not marry againe that to children of the Faithfull dying vnbaptized salvation is not promised Freewill That in regard of Christs Passion and promise our good works proceeding from Faith are meritorious Temporall punishment reserved by God in justice for sin remitted The impugning of the civill Magistrates headship though but of a particular Church Intercession of Angels Intercession of Saints invocation of Saints vowed chastity voluntary Poverty Chastity and Obedience prayer for the dead purgatory Limbus Patrum Images in the Church worship of Images Reverence and bowing at the name of Jesus the power of priests not only to pronounce but to giue remission of sinnes private confession of sins to a priest distinction of mortall and veniall sin in one and the same person the indifferency of communion vnder one or both kinds sacrifice of the New Testament according to the order of Mechisadech that first motions of our concupiscence without our concent therto are not sinnes that the commandements are not impossible Transubstantiation that the Sacraments of the old Testament were not in working and effect equall with ours The visible signe of imposition of hands in confirmation with the grace therby conferred The like visible signe and grace given in Orders yea expressly counted a Sacrament An indeleble character imprinted by certaine Sacraments The baptisme of women and lay persons in case of necessity The knowen intention of the church needfull to the administration of Sacraments Seaven Sacraments implicite Faith that Antichrist is yet to come the patronage and protection of certaine Angels over certaine countries and Kingdomes
in this whole chapter it is easy to answer a kind of Objection which you make Pag 134. N. 13. against those words of Charity Maintayned Part. 1. Ch. 3. N. 19. I deliver a catalogue wherin are comprised all Points y vs taught to be necessary to salvation in these words We are obliged vnder paine of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible church of Christ proposeth as revealed by God Against this you say that in reason Charity Maintayned might thinke it enough for Protestants also to say in generall that it is sufficient for any mans salvation to believe that the scripture is true and contaynes all things necessary for salvatiō and to doe his best endeavour to find and belieue the true sense of it without delivering any particular catalogue of the fundamentalls of Faith 211. This Objection I say is easily answered out of the grounds we haue layed and proved For First we deny that scripture containes all things necessary for salvation and so one might belieue all the contents therof and yet want the belief of some necessary Points But whosoever believes scripture with the Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church is sure to belieue all and so hath a sufficient catalogue of all 2. Whosoever believes the church hath an evident and certaine Meanes to know the true Meaning of scripture in all necessary Points Not so they who belieue only scripture which needs an infallible Interpreter 3. We are sure that the church which is assisted by the holy Ghost will not faile to propose in all occasions every particular Object of Faith as necessity shall require Which as I haue often sayd scripture cannot doe taken alone And therfor our chiefest care must be to belieue the true church which we know will propose in due tyme all necessary Points of Faith whether or no we know what Points in particular are fundamentall and so this belief of the church brings with it the explicite belief of all necessary Objects as need shall be But you cannot tell whether you belieue all fundamentall Points vnless first you know what Points in particular be such and therfor Protestants hitherto haue endeavoured to assigne a particular Catalogue of them and after all you come to tell vs that it is impossible to make any such Catalogue 212. But enough of this Objection and whole Question wherin much more might haue beene sayd out of scripture Fathers and Reason which may be seene at large in Catholique VVriters My purpose was to answer Mr. Chillingworths Arguments and yet some will thinke I haue beene to long to whose judgment I would subscribe as soone as any other if I had not found that perpetually he gives so many advantages as I must either haue bene long or wholy dissembled them and by occasion given by him some things not vnprofitable in themselves haue bene declared 213. And even now I must not omitt to add a new Argument to all my former and it is this that although it were granted that scripture alone did containe evidently and expresly all particular Truths that we are bound to belieue yet this were not enough for Protestants if they will belieue this mans doctrine which is such as overthrowes the authority of scripture it self and therfor they must either renounce his Assertions or els be content to alter their pretended most common ground that scripture alone contaynes evidently and in particular all Points of Faith and so returne to belieue the authority and infallibility of Gods Church 214. The Reader I confess may well expect now that having proved Christian Faith to be infallibly true and that this infallibility cannot be setled vpon scripture alone I should according to good order declare what is that on which it must be grounded yet for perfiting this Question about the sufficiency of scripture alone I must of necessity shew out of this mans particular Tenets that if his doctrine were true scripture cannot be any Rule at all and much less a perfect Rule for matters of Faith This I will endeavour to peforme in the next Chapter CHAP III. A CONFVTATION OF MR. CHILLINGVVORTHS ERROVRS AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTVRE IT is a singular Providence of God to permit you who pretend that Scripture is a totall and not only a partiall Rule of Faith as you speake Pag 55. N. 8. to publish so gross errours against the Authority therof that if they were true it could not be so much as any Rule at all much less a totall and perfect Rule of Faith 2. First then you teach and endeavour to proue that Scripture is none of the materiall Objects of Faith but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs as you expressly say Pag 65. N. 32. And yet in this you are still like yourself so confused that you may be alledged for both parts of contradictory Assertions For in the same place you deliver these words All the divine verityes which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contayned in Scripture That is all the materiall Objects of our Faith wherof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs Which we belieue not finally and for it self but for the matter contained in it So that if men did belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speakes of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aymes at is the belief of the Gospell the Covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to belieue but not as the last Object of our Faith but as the instrument of it When therfor we subscribe to the 6. Article of the 39. of the English Protestant Church you must vnderstand that by Articles of Faith they meane the finall and vltimate Objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall Objects 3. what confusion and obscurity is here First scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith but only the meanes of the conveying them to vs. Which words put an antithesis between the materiall objects of our Faith and the meanes of conveying them to vs that is scripture Then which Scripture we belieue not finally and for it self but for the matter contayned in it or as you say afterward this Scripture also we are to belieue but not as the last object of our Faith but as the instrument of it Which words seeme to signify that we are to belieue scripture though not finally and for it self and consequently that it is a materiall object of our Faith For what is a materiall object of Faith except that which is believed by Faith And then how is scripture none of the materiall objects of Faith if it be one that is believed though not for it self If a thing cannot be sayd to be a materiall object of Faith
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
his Apostles therfor if these people were thē obliged to belieue the cōtēts of scripture christiās now are for the same reasō obliged to belieue scripture it self 19. Fiftly Not vnlike to this Reason is that which I tooke from your owne words Pag 115. N. 156. where you teach that nothing can chalenge our belief but what hath descended to vs by originall and vniversall Tradition and that scripture alone is such therfor scripture doth chaleng our belief and is an object of Christian Faith 20 From these two last Arguments I deduce that this Truth Sctipture is the word of God is an object to be believed by Faith though we should suppose that it were proposed to one whom God would not oblige to know the particular Mysteryes contained therin because independently of any such obligation it is sufficiētly proposed as a thing revealed by God and consequently as an Article of Faith abstracting from any relation to a further end Which consideration overthrowes the ground of your assertion that the belief of scripture is referred to the end of believing the contents of it and therfore itself is not an object of Faith 21. Sixtly If we be not obliged to belieue the scripture Protestants are not bound to belieue the contents therof as I haue often sayd vpon severall occasions because they haue no notice of the contents but by scripture it self Neither can you answer that we are obliged to belieue scripture as a meanes to lead vs to the verityes contayned in it For this answer supposes that I haue some notice and belief of being obliged to belieue the matter of scripture before I belieue the scripture wheras Protestants must say the direct contrary to wit that all their belief or any apprehension of the particular Truth of scripture proceeds from and is grounded in scripture which therfor must be believed before we can be obliged to the belief of those particular Truths So that if we haue no antecedent obligation to belieue scripture we cannot possibly in the grounds of Protestants be obliged to belieue the contents therof Besides this Answer overthrowes your owne Assertion and grants that we are obliged to belieue the scripture at least as a meanes de facto necessary to attayne the belief of the contents therof it being cleare that if I be obliged to attayne an End I am necessarily obliged to vse the Meanes which is necessary to attaine that End and consequently this Answer doth not excuse you but strongly proves that you haue a strict obligation to belieue scripture since you are obliged to compasse that End of the belief of those Divine Truths which it containes Neither is our Question whether scripture be a materiall Object believed for itself alone as I sayd aboue but whether it be an Object which I am obliged to belieue which this very Answer is forced to grant This discourse is clearly confirmed by your words Pag. 86. N. 93. It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserve the scripture from any vndiscernable 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 cōtinuing the knowledg of thē heing perished Much more you must say it is apparēt it had not bene Gods will that the contēts of scripture should be knowne if we need not knowe yea if we may reject the only meanes of begetting or continuing the knowledg of them which you in this very particular acknowledg to be scripture and thence you inferr that God could not but preserue it from any vndiscernable corruption 22. Seventhly They who believed these Articles of Christian Faith because the Apostles and Apostolicall men did preach them believed not only the Mysteryes or Matters which they preached but also the Authority of those Preachers as of persons worthy of credit so that it was a materiall object of Faith that the Apostles spoke in the name of God and inspired by him yea the matters proposed were believed for the Authority of the proposers which therfor must be believed at least as much as the things believed yourself saying Pag 377. N. 59. VVe must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proof◠Therfor as their words so their writings must be believed as an object of faith at least as much as the truths which they spoke or wrote neither doth speaking or writing make any difference at all in this point And as you say their writings were referred to the belief of the things which they wrote or were taken as Meanes for that End so their speaking or preaching was ordained to beget a belief of the things which they spoke and so there is a most exact parity neither cā you exclude the authority of scripture from being a materiall Object of Faith but you must likewise say that mē were not bound to belieue the Authority of the Apostles when they preached and consequently that they were not obliged to belieue the Truths which they preached and which they could belieue only in vertue of the belief of such an authority And further although it were supposed that some one or more believed the Articles of Christian Faith by an extraordinary Motion and light of the Holy Ghost without the Preaching or writing of the Apostles and lived according to their belief and were saved In that case although those men could not be obliged to belieue the preaching or writing of the Apostles precisely as a meanes for attaining the belief of those Articles which they believed already yet they would remayne obliged to belieue the authority of the Apostles if at any tyme it came to be sufficiētly propounded and proved by miracles or other argumēts of credibility and could no more reject it thē they could disbelieue the articles of Christian Faith sufficiently proposed Therfor the authority of the Apostles and the infallibility of their preaching ād writing is sufficient to terminate an act of faith that is to be a materiall object therof even of it self or takē alone because so taken it may be proved to be revealed by God which is the formall motiue for which we belieue all the materiall object of faith Since therfor you teach as I haue often put you in mynd that scripture had bene confirmed by Miracles you cānot deny it to be a materiall object of Faith And this argument is stronger against you thē the case I put doth declare wherin it was supposed that the articles of our faith were knowne by some other meanes then by the preaching or writing of the Apostles wheras de facto you profess to know those articles only by scripture which therfor you are obliged to belieue vpō a double title or account that is both as it is credible in itself by divine argumēts abstracting frō any further end ād also as a meanes to attaine the sayd end of believing the articles therin contayned 23. Eightly You confess
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
contradictions and falshoods then are found in those Bookes of Scripture which both Catholikes and Protestants admit Now say I in this case what shall Reason doe being left to itself without any Authority beside itself The Motives and humane Testimonyes of your tradition produced in favour of Christianity are only probable as you affirme Arguments to the contrary seeme convincing and such as haue bene held for Principles among the best Philosophers as I shewed vpon another occasion and therfor Christian Religion is accounted foolishness to the Gentils and we treate of the tyme before one is a Christian who theÌ„ will oblige such a Man being in possession of his Liberty to accept vnder paine of damnation an obligation positively to belieue and to liue according to the Rules of Christian Faith only vpon fallible inducements in opposition to so great seeming evidence to the contrary 76. Neither can you in your grounds say that Miracles wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion ought to be prevalent against all seeming evidence of reason For you teach that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men for avoyding of which delusion it may seeme wisdome and safest to sticke close to the Principles of Reason wherby though he may chance to be deceyved yet he cannot be accounted rash imprudent or inexcusable 2. you must suppose that Miracles and all other Motives end in probability alone for if they surpass probability you grant Christian Faith to be infallible and then the difficulty still remaynes how one can be obliged to imbrace meere probabilityes and such as you confess are not able to rayse our mynd to a higher and more firme assent than they themselves are against and as I may say in despight of seeming evidence of Reason opposed only by such probabilityes 3. This Answer is not pertinent to our present Question which is not to treate how farr one may be obliged by Miracles either evident by sense to those who see them wrought or asserted and delivered by an authority believed to be infallible as we Catholikes belieue Gods church to be but we speak of Miracles wrought in great distance of tyme and place from vs commended and believed only by your fallible tradition which therfor leaves this doubt whether one can be obliged to preferr fallible humane tradition confessedly insufficient to cause a certaine assent before seeming evidence and certainty of naturall Reason And it seemes easy to demonstrate that Protestants if they will be constant to their owne assertions and proceedings must yield to that seeming evidence of Reason For it cannot be denyed without great obstinacy and impudency that in all ages there haue bene wrought frequent great and evident Miracles by the professours of the Catholique Religion recorded by men eminent for learning wisdome and Sanctity who would be credited in whatsoever case or cause of highest concernment and testifyed not by one or a few or many single persons but by whole Communityes Cittyes and Countryes by meanes of which Miracles Infidels haue beene and are at this day converted from the worship of Idols to know the true God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ and yet notwithstanding all these Miracles which are able to convert Pagans Protestants will not conceiue themselves obliged to belieue that such Miracles were wrought or that those Articles of our Faith in confirmation wherof they were wrought are true And why Because they seeme contrary to naturall Reason as the Reall Presence Transubstantiation c Seing theÌ„ they reject Catholique Doctrines confirmed by Miracles in regard of that seeming contrariety to Reason how can they pretend Reason to receaue Scripture and the contents therof for example the Misteryes of the B. Trinity the Incarnation of the Son of God the Creation of all things out of nothing the Resurrection of the Dead and other such Articles which they make shew to belieue and are no less yea much more seeming contrary to reason then those doctrines of Catholikes which they reject Wherfor our finall Conclusion must be that to deny an infallible Authority both to propose Scripture and deliver infallible Traditions is to vndermine and ouerthrow Christian Religion 77. 7. Since Scripture may be corrupted as some haue bene lost and in particular Protestants affirme even the Vulgate Translation which anciently was vsed in the Church to be corrupted as also the Greek and Hebrew your Tradition cannot secure vs what in particular is or is not corruted because it delivers only as it were in gross such or such Bookes but cannot with certainty informe vs of all corruptions additions varietyes and alterations as occasion shall require Thus some both Catholikes and Protestanis teach that Additions haue been made even to Pentateuch others assirme the same of the Bookes of Josue Kings and Hieremy and the like Additions might and perhaps haue been made to other Bookes at least we cannot be sure of the contrary if we consult only your fallible Tradition neither can we know by it that such Additions proceeded from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost And as Protestants are wont to say that a very great number of Catholique Doctrines which they vntruly call errours crept in by little and little as you also say Pag 91. N. 101. so what certainty can they haue that corruptions in Scriptures yea whole Apocriphall Bookes may not in tyme haue gained the repute of being Canonicall As for corruptions in Scripture you speak dangerously in saying Pag 141. N. 27. As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farr from being a proof of the Scriptures incorruption that no proof can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible then any other and made to speake as they do for the advantage of those meÌ„ whose ambitioÌ„ it hath bene a long tyme to bring all vnder their authority And afterward I would aske how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these plaâ—es which arealledged to proue the infallibility of the Church seing it is possible and not altogeather improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible wheÌ„ they had the government of all things in their owne hands may haue altered them for their purpose Do not these words giue scope for the enemyes of Christian Religion to object that we cannot be certaine of any Text of Scripture whether or no it be incorrupted For as you say it is not altogeather improbable that we haue altered some places for our purpose of proving the infallibility of the Church so you may say we haue done the same in other places to prove other Points of our belief and the like may be sayd of all others who teach different Doctrines that they will incline to corrupt Scripture in favour of their severall Sects Neither can we haue any certainty whether this which may be done hath not bene practised and
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
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
thither If then we may learne all things necessary to salvation without a writing or Scripture as you grant we may and as all Christians must grant for the tyme before Scripture was written we must say therfor it is not necessary for that end and though it were necessary yet it is not necessary that it be so plaine as every man may vnderstand it by himself seing that end of vnderstanding may be compassed by another meanes which is the Declaration of Gods Church And here I beseech you reflect on your owne words Pag 79. N. 68. That it is altogether abhorrent from the goodnesse of God to suffer an ignorant Laymans soule to perish meercly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had Reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other Therfore say I we are to belieue that the Church on which we must relie ought to be infallible that so we may trust her without danger For if her Authority be fallible vncertaine and doubtfull yea if de facto she erred she is liable to your censure Pag 37. N. 20. A doubtfull and Questionable Guide is for mens direction as good as non◠at all 10. But here againe Pag 93. and Pag 94. N. 108. which is put to two § § You object how shall an vnlearned man amongst vs know which is the true Church or what that Church hath decreed seing the Church hath not bene so carefull in keeping of her Decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted and that even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning diverse things whether they be de fide or not Or how shall the vnlearned be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of the Decrees of the Church than 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 are all written in languages which the ignorant vnderstand not and therfor must of necessity rely herein vpon the vncertaine and fallible Authority of fome particular men who informe them that there is such a Decree And if they were translated into vulgar languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translatours of the Scripture are who can possibly imagine And N. 109. you say How shall an vnlearned man or indeed any man be assured of the certainty of any Decree seing a Councell depends on a true Pope which he cannot be if he came in by Simony or were not babtized which depends on the due Intention of the Minister or were not rightly ordayned Priest and this againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret Intention and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character 11. This is the summe of what not only you but other Protestants are wont to object and it is the vtmost of your endeavours But will be easily answered by laying this ground That both in this and other Poynts we must distinguish between the certainty of a generall ground or foundation and the certainty of that particular meanes by which we actuate or apply to particular occasions that Generall ground which vnless it be first belieued with certainty cannot haue strength to moue vs to vndertake with resolution and perseverance mattters of great difficulty You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not so much strength required in the Edisice as in the Foundation And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a sever thing that the foundition shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation 12. This Truth will better be vnderstood by Examples That we may prudently yield Obedience Piety and Observance and be obliged to doe so towards Magistrates Parents and Superious it is sufficient that we haue a morall and prudent practicall judgment that they are such because that judgment is sufficient to apply the generall ground that Obedience Piety c are due to Magistrates Parents c But if that Generall ground were not certaine as an evident dictamen of Reason but only probable men would not thinke themselves obliged to such dutyes but rather would stand for their liberty by pleading possession and following that other dictamen of Reason Equity and Justice Meliorest conditio possidentis To Hope for the reward promised to the just after this life it is sufficient that we haue good Reason though not certainty that we are just or in the state of Grace But if this generall Principle The just shall be eternally rewarded were not certaine few I feare would be perswaded to preferr a future vncertainty before that which they enjoy certainly and for the present You say Pag 172. N. 71. The Spirit of Truth may teach a man Truth and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly But if one were not certaine of this generall ground That God of his part teaches every one sufficiently men would not easily thinke themselves obliged or would be induced to vse their best endeavours to learne things which they belieue cannot be learned vnless God alone teach them sufficiently if they had no certainty that they can hope for any such teaching And to come neerer to our purpose If one do verely belieue some particular Poynt to be evidently contained in Scripture who can oblige him to belieue that Point with absolute certainty vnless he first belieue Scripture itself to be the infallible word of God Neither is this enough to make his Assent really infallible though it were supposed to be casually true vnless Scripture were not only believed to be the word of God but that indeed it be so For Infallibility of Assent signifyes two things the one that de facto the thing for the present is true the other that it depends on such constant Causes or Priciples as cannot in any possible case or occasion consist with falshood or vncertainty which could not be verifyed vnless Scripture in truth and reality and not only in opinion or belief be the word of God For though in some one occasion it might chance to speake truth yet in some other it might faile and cause vs to fall into some errour But if we make another kind of supposition That one is told by his Pastour or Prelate whom he might prudently belieue that some Point is contained in Scripture which indeed is so contayned ād he beleeue it as cōtayned in that booke which he believes to be the word of God ād in itself is such and consequently infallible in that case he of whom I spoke may exercise an infallible act of faith though his immediate instructour or proposer be not Infallible because he believes vpon a ground which both is believed to be Infallible and is such indeed
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
his defence of Hooker teachers the same Doctrine and neither you nor any Protestant in the world can haue any ground to thinke that it is possible to convince them of fal shood in this matter and therfor this vncertainty which you impute to vs falls heavy vpon yourself and other Protestants if indeed they administer Sacraments without such an intention as all Catholikes aÌ„d some chief ProtestaÌ„ts belieue to be necessary 33. Now as for the Doctrine itself of Catholikes about the necessity of Intention it is so reasonable and cleare that it is strang any can call it in Question For I beseech you if a madman or a foole ar a drunken man or an infant or one in his sleepe should chance to cast water vpon one and pronounce the Forme should such an one be baptized or if he were baptized already were such an action of such persons a rebaptizatioÌ„ If one with purpose only to learne the manner of baptizing did practise the pronouncing the words and applying the Matter should that be true Baptisme If one by chance reading or disputing or for some other end should pronounce the words of Consecration out of Scripture and that without his knowlege there should chance to be bread aÌ„d wine with in a morall distaÌ„ce should he consecrate the Eucharist Or are men obliged never to pronounce those words in such occasions as I specifyed least they consecrate whether they will or noâ— Are not these foolish absurdityes If you say and it is all that can be imagined you can say that at least he who pronounces the words must exercise a deliberate humane morall free Action which madmen infants c. nor even men in their wits cannot exercise when they are ignorant of the morall presence of the matter that is to be consecrated but that it is not necessary besides the substance of a morall Action to intend also to administer a Sacrament I answer first This answer evacuates the ground of Heretiks who say That intention is not necessary because the words receive force only from the Will and Institution of God and therfor must not depend vpon the morality of that Action which morality depends vpon the intention of him that pronounces the words to wit that he intend to doe it seriously aÌ„d not in jeast or by way only of pronouncing the materiall words without their signification and so the salvation of soules must depend vpon a secret intention of which we cannot be sure as men exercise many indeliberate actions without any virtuall or actuall inteÌ„tion If for the validity of a Sacrament it be sufficient to exercise a deliberate action without any further reference or Intention one could not without a deadly sin wash an infant already baptized and for devotion say I wash the in the name of the Father c as meÌ„ are woÌ„t to say I doe this in Gods name because according to this answer it would be repabtization 2. I answer if one be supposed to intend the performance of the Sacramentall action for the substance no reason can be imagined why he should not inteÌ„d to doe as others do in such an action for example if the child be brought to be Christened and the Minister deliberately apply water and pronounce the Forme ether can be no cause which can moue him at least not to intend that which there are wont to do in the like case and to thinke the contrary may easily or almost possibly happen argues only in you an excessiue desire to impugne by whatsoever arguments our Catholique Doctrine 34. And here I must of necessity make a diversion rather than a digression and answer some Points to which you referr yourself in this Pag 94. N. 109. in these words All which things as I haue formally proved deâ—end vpon so many vnâ—ertaine suppositions that no human judgment can possibly be resolved in them For although what you pretend to haue bene formally proved hath bene in effect answered already yet I thought sit to examine every point in particular that so the Foundation of your assertions in this place being overthrowne all the superstructions which you and other Protestants are wont to make may evidently appeare false and ruinous and so fall to the ground 35. Cha Ma Part. 1. Chap 2. N. 16. having shewed out of Brierly Tract 1. Sect 10. subd 4. joyned with Tract 2. Chap 2. Sect 10. Subd 2. That the Translations of Scripture made by Luther Zwinglius Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basill Castâ—lio Calvin Beza and Geneva Bibles as also the English Translation are mutually condemned by Protestants themselves respectiue as corrupting the Word of God and the Authors as Antichrists and deceivers Wicked and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost sacrilegious Ethnicall making the Text of the Gospell to leap vp and downe vsing violence to the letter of the Gospell adding to the Text changing the Text deserving either to be purged from those manifold errours which are both in the Text and in the margent or els vtterly to be prohibited in the Translation of the Psalmes in addition substraction and alteration differing from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least and such as is doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe therto depraving the sense obscuring the truth deceiving the ignorant in many places detorting the Scripture from the right sense and that the Translators shew themselves to loue darkness more than light falshood more than truth taking away from the Text adding to the Text to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost c. This I say Charity Maintayned having shewed adds these words Let Protestants consider duly these Points Salvation cannot be hoped for without the true Faith Faith according to them relyes vpon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certaine then a most certaine possibility to erre and no greater evidency of truth than that it is evident some of theÌ„ embrace falshood by reason of their contrary Translations What then remayneth but that truth Faith Salvation and all must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of Divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therfor if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwayes visible Church against which the gates of Hell can never so farr prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceyue the Christian world with false Scriptures 87. Against these words Pag 76. N. 63. you speak in this manner This Objection though it may seeme to do you great service for the present yet I feare you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged it against vs as a fault that we make mens salvation depend vpon
though the absolution be valid At least these considerations are more then sufficient to put every dying man and indeed every man in mynd to implore the Divine assistance and to endeavour the exercising an Act of Contrition If you be resolved not to approue these Answers let vs see what better you can giue and how you will apply it to satisfy the Argument which I haue made to shew that the Faith and salvation of Protestants rely vpon vncertaine Grounds 49. You say Pag 79. N. 68. That it is altogeather as abhorrent from the goodness of God to suffer an ignorant Lay-mans soule to perish meerly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation which was commended by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had reason to rely vpon either aboue all other or as much as any other as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution which his Ghostly Father perhaps was an Atheist and could not giue him or was a villaine and would not 50. I answer as aboue The totall and proper cause of damnation of men is their sin and not any secret defect or invalidity in the Absolution and therfore in your case an vnlearned man shall not be damned meerly for being missled by an vndiscernable false Translation but for the sins which he hath voluntarily committed and his damnation can be imputed to himself alone and in no sense to any want on Gods behalfe from whose Goodness it is not abhorrent to suffer a manes soule to perish for his sins which punishment he might haue permitted and inflicted in the very moment wherin they were committed for sin of it self gives most just cause for a man to be instantly lodged in Hell as we see māy are permitted to dy in the Act of some wickedness without foresight of that just punishment hanging over their head and therfore without possibility to repent vpon the motiue of being so forewarned neither shall they be damned for their vnvoluntary omission of repentance in that case but for the sin itself never forgiven And this I returne to say your self must affirme as I proved aboue For suppose by such a false Translation on were misled into some errour destructiue of a Fundamentall poynt of Faith such a man cannot be saved and it would not be abhorrent from the Goodness of God to damne such a person not for his errour which we suppose to be vnvoluntary but for his sins God hath promised pardon to repentant sinners but hath no where obliged himself to expect their leasure for repenting or to giue his efficatious Grace at their pleasure who believing man to be what he is infiinitely inferiour to the Divine Majesty and infinitely obliged to his Goodness and God to be what He is infinite in all kind of perfections and sin to be what it is infinitely vgly deformed and malitious a sinner I say firmely believing all this and yet differring his repentance if it were but for one momēt must blame himself alone if he dy without true repentance and so be damned for his sins never repented If I were not well acquainted with your custome of contradicting yourself I should wonder that you should object to vs as a thing abhorrent from the Goodness of God that men should be permitted to be misled by a false Translation and so chance to be damned seing you teach that God may in his Justice permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men in punishment of their sins and besides this seing you affirme true Repentance to consist not only in harty sorrow and firme purpose to amend but to require as you say Pag 392. N. 8. the mortification of the Habits of all Vices and effectuall conversion to newness of Life and Vniversall Obedience and withall that an Act of Attrition which we say with Priestly Absolution is sufficient to salvation is not mortification which being a worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an Instant It followes clearly out of this Doctrine that neither Attrition nor Contrition can saue a poore soule at the houre of death because this your kind of Repentance being a Worke of difficulty and tyme cannot be performed in an instant Nor can such a man be saved at that tyme though he doe as much as God can require of him for his salvation in those circumstances You object against vs as a huge absurdity that one may be damned by reason of an invalid Absolution when as yet it is in the Penitentes will assisted with Gods Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition wherby he shall certainly be saved and yet you are not afrayd to tell vs that a sinner though he do all that possibly he can and haue that most perfect kind ofsorrow which is called Contrition yet cannot be saved without the Mortification of the Habits of all vices and effectuall conversion to a newness of life and Vniversall Obedience Which things cannot be performed in an instant but require long tyme And then his damnation shall not proceed from his not doing as much as he is able in those Circumstances for we suppose him to do all that nor for any accidentall defect in applying such Meanes as Almighty God hath provided but because according to your Doctrine God hath not provided sufficient Meanes for the salvation of a Repentant sinner at the houre of his death Which to affirme is no better then blasphemy and makes mens salvation depend not only vpon vncertaintyes as you object to vs but also vpon impossibilityes And they shall be damned by reason of the nature of those very Meanes which are appointed by God for forgiveness of their sins and salvation that is by your way of Repentance The like I may say of your Doctrine That Attrition alone is sufficient for salvation which being certainly most false and if you haue any modesty must be even in your owne Oppinion vncertaine as not being the common opinion of Protestants for ought I know you put salvation of soules vpon Grounds which are in themselves and not only in the application of them vncertaine And the same I say of your wicked Doctrine that Christian Faith is not infallible which must be a sourse of all other vncertaintyes 51. Having thus answered for ourselves and retorted your Arguments it will not be amiss to examine what you vndertake to speake for vs without any Commission to a considering man lying on death bed who feeles or feares that his Repentance is but Atrition only and not Contrition and consequently believes that if he be not really absolved by a true Priest he cannot possibly escape damnation Such a man for his comfort you tell first you who will haue mens salvation depend vpon no vncertaintyes that though he verily belieue that his sorrow for sinnes is a true sorrow and his purpose of amendment a true purpose yet he may deceiue himself perhaps it is not and if it be not
he must be damned You tell him secondly that the party he confesses to may be no Priest by reason of some vndiscernable invalidity in his Baptisme or Ordination and if he be none he can doe nothing You tell him thirdly that he may be in such a state that he cannot or if he can he will not giâ—e the Sacrament with due Intention And if he does not all is in vaine 52. You plead our cause so feebly and falsly that your best fee will be to be silenced First I haue told you in what sense we would haue mens salvation depend vpon no vncertaintyes 2. For your case of a man lying vpon death bed who feeles or feares that his repentance is but Attrition only and not Contrition surely if it be attrition only it is not Contrition we tell him that Gods grace is never wanting if we do implore it which are your owne words cited by me aboue and not neglect to cooperate with it If therfor he do his endeavour God will not fayle to giue him all that shall be necessary for his salvation whether it be atrrition with the Sacrament or Contrition without it and so it shall not be in the Parsons power to damne whom he will in his Parish as you are pleased to speake and you speake profanely in applying to our present purpose that saying Spes est rei incertae nomen which is to slight all those Texts of Sceipture which declare that absolute certainty or security must not be expected in this life where we must worke our salvation with feare and trembling so that neither Hope excludes a wholsome feare nor feare a comfortable Hope it being also most true tha we are saved by Hope and Hope does not confound which signifyes more then rei incertae nomen an empty name only By this Instruction the dying man will clearly see that neither want of Priesthood in the partie he confesses to nor want of Intention in a true Priest nor any other thing beside his owne freewill neglecting to cooperate with Gods Grace can damne him We haue heard your words Pag 277. N. 61. That Gods assistance is alwayes ready on condition that when it is offered in the divine directions of Scripture or reason the Church be not negligent to follow it I cannot stand here to note that you seeme to place Gods assistance only in the externall divine directions of Scripture or reason without necessity of any internall Grace which is direct Pelagianisme and you put the case expressly when the Penitent feares that his Repentaâ—â—â— is attrition only and consequently when God hath giuen him light to see his danger and the necessity of contrition and therfor that God will not be wanting to affoard his Grace if he be not negligent to follow it and by this truth he may prudently quiet his mind This seemes to be the Doctrine of S. Thomas 3. Part Q. 64. a. 8. ad 2. granting that in persons indued with the vse of reason Faith and devotion supplyes the defect of intention in the Minister for justification from sinne but not for making the Sacrament valid 53. Let vs heare what more you are pleased to answer in our behalf You say Put case a man by these considerations should be cast into some agonyes of your owne making and fayning for we cleare him of all what advise what comfort would you give him Verily I know not what you could say to him but this That First for the Qualification required on his part he might know that he desired to haue true sorrow and that that is sufficient But then if he should aske you why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow as well as his desire to be sorrowfull to be a true desire I believe you would be put to silence Then secondly to quiet his feares concerning the Priest and his intention you should tell him by my advise that Gods Goodness which will not suffer him to damne men for not doing better than their best will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were vnavoidable And therfore though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one and if he gaue Absolution without Intention yet in doing so he should hurt himselself only and not his Penitent 54. Answer First If you should tell him that only a desire of true sorrow is sufficient for remiffion of deadly sins either alone or with Sacramentall Absolution you should deceaue him For a desire only is of a thing which one is supposed not to haue and therfor he who only desires to haue sorrow certainly wants it as he who only desires to find the true Faith and Religion cannot be sayd to haue it though such a desire may moue him to seeke and sind if he persever in seeking and in like manner he who desires true sorrow may to satisfy that good desire endeavour to passe from a meere desire to the thing desired seing God will not be wanting on his part to affoard his Grace to perfit that desire and so persons of timorous or scrupulous consciences may conceiue they only desire true sorrow when indeed they haue it 55. You say If he should aske you why he might not know his forrow to be a true sorrow as well as his desire to be sorrowfull to be a true desire I belieue you would be put to silence 56. Answer All that you can inferr from this your Objection is That you haue put yourself to silence For you it was and not Charity Maintayned who talked of a desire to be sorrowfull as sufficient though it were alone Nevertheless if one should aske whether you are not very sure that you did desire to know and embrace the true Faith and way which leads to eternall happyness I suppose you would answer that you were absolutely certaine of such a desire and yet you caÌ„not in your Grounds be certaine that the Faith which you embrace is true For then you would be certaine that Christian Faith is true which you deny and accordingly Pag 376. N. 57. You say only This is the Religion which I haue chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I haue chosen wisely And yet certainly you thought yourself to haue bene more than verily perswaded of your generall desire to imbrace the true Faith Therfor one may know his desire of Faith to be a true desire and not be certaine that his Faith is a true Faith and then why may he not be certaine that he hath a true desire of sorrow and yet not be certain that he hath true sorrow But to omit this Instance the truth is that you do not distinguish between an effectuall and vneffectuall desire This may be without the effect or the object of it which is the thing desired but That cannot be For when we treate of Actions which all things considered are in our power to exercise if one effectually desire them he
the Eucharist depend vpon the casualtyes of the Consecrators true Priesthood and intention and yet commanding men to belieue it for certaine that he is present and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine â—â—â—ought they can possibly know may be nothing els but a piece of bread so exposing them to the danger of idolatry and consequently of damnation 65. Answer First Who will not wonder you should object to vs danger of idolatry by reason of some particular case or application of a generall true Ground which can be neither Heresy nor formall idolatry while Protestants are exposed to danger of Heresy and idolatry and consequently of damnation by reason of the very generall Ground by which their Actions should be directed Luther and Lutherans belieue the Reall Presence and divers of their chiefest Writers expressly teach that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist And Kemnitius proves it by the severall sayings of the Saints Austine Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen The Reader may be pleased to see Brierley Tract 2. Cap 1. Sect 3. Seing then Zwinglians Calvinists Socinians and all they who deny the Reall Presence hold the opinion of Lutherans to be false and that the Eucharist for substance is but a piece of bread according to your Objection those Lutherans expose themselves not only to the danger of idolatry and consequently of damnation but also to certaine idolatry if the Faith of Sacramentaryes be certainly true as themselves hold it to be On the contrary side If Christ be really and substantially present in the Sacrament they who deny both his Presence and Adoration are Heretiks and expose themselves to the danger of a sin no lesse haynous than idolatry For it is no less if not more injurious to deny that honour to any person which is due to him than it is to yeild greater respect than is due rather this latter is less grievous that that former because to exibite due honour is one of those precepts which Divines call Affirmatiue and do not oblige for all tymes but expressly to deny that honour which is due to one yea and avouch it not to be due is ranked in the class of Negatiue Precepts which oblige for all places tymes and other circumstances Thus we are not obliged to be at all tymes in act of adoring God but we are bound never to deny the supreme honour which Divines call Latria to be due to his Divine Majesty If therfor Lutherans be Hererikes and Idolaters for adoring Christ in the Eucharist if it be only a piece of bread other Protestants shall be Heretikes and as bad or worse than Idolaters if indeed Christ true God and man be really present The difference then and doubtfullness among you concernes Matter of Faith but that which you object to vs concernes only matter of Fact We are most assured of this generall Ground Christ is reâ—â—â— present in the Consecrated Hoast but it is not an Article of Faith that this Hoast in particular is Consecrated or that that which seemes to be bread and wine is indeed such You say We command men to belieue for certaine that Christ is present in the Eucharist but for certaine you speake against your conscience if you would haue the Reader to belieue that we command men to belieue with certainty of Faith that Christ is present in this or that particular Hoast though vnless we haue some grounded positiue reason to the contrary we ought not positively to doubt which would be but an Act of imprudency or perhaps vncharitableness or injustice as it happens in a thousand cases wherin we haue no certainty of Faith or Metaphisicall evidence and yet it would be meere foolishness positively and practically to doubt of them nor could there be in this case any shadow of danger to committ formall or culpable Idolatry Religion is a morall Uertue and requires not for its direction in particular occasions the certainty of Faith but is regulated by the vertue of Prudence which in our case doth most reasonably judg that Christ is really present in that Hoast which we haue good reason to judge is Consecrated and if there be no danger of formall idolatry there can be no danger of damnation But in the meane tyme you should consider that by your fallible Faith you can haue no certainty that Christ either is or is not present in the Eucharist and so you expose yourself to the danger of a grievous sin by not believing and adoring Christ if really he be present Besides seing you hold that any errour against Divine Revelation is damnable in itself no man must read Scripture or seeke to find the sense therof least he chance to misse of the true meaning aÌ„d so expose himself to danger of coÌ„mitting a thing damnable in itself You blame Charity Maintained because you conceaue he would not haue vs subject to any vncertainty in matters belonging to salvation and yet now you object against all Catholiques that they adore our Saviour when they are not absolutely certaine that he is present though indeed if passion did not blind you you would condemne Lutherans only who belieue that bread remaynes and therfor if Christ be not really present as you hold for certaine he is not they adore that which is nothing els but a piece of bread wheras we Catholikes believing that bread doth not remayne cannot possibly direct our intentions and Adoration to bread but to Christ himself and so the most that can be imagined will only be this that we adore Christ thinking he is where he is not our intention being still carried to him aÌ„d not to any Creature which if you will hold for true idolatry you must condemne all good Christians of idolatry who adore God as He is in Heaven Earth and everie where though in the opinion of your fellow Socinians He be really and substantially only in Heaven Even Dr. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying Pag 258. Numb 16. speakes home to the purpose of freeing Catholiks from all danger of idolatry in these words idolatry is a forsaking the true God and in giving the Dâ—vine Worship to a Creature or to an idoll that is to an imaginary God who hath no foundation in essence or existence And is that kinde of superstition which by Divines is called superstition of an vndue object Now it is evident that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their mindes their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternall God hypostatically ioyned with his holy humanity which humanity they belieue actually present vnder the veile of the SacrameÌ„tall signes And if they thought him not bresent they are so farre from worshipping the bread in this case that themselves professe it to be idolatry to doe soe which is a demonstration that their soule hath nothing in it that is idololatricall If their confidence
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
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
externall communion in Sacraments Liturgy c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith and corruptions in the discipline of the Church and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings or admitting any votum or desire to be vnited with the Church that they held all such repentance to be a sin wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace and Charity and so it appeares that by meere Excommunication one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated but is excommunicated because he is a Schismatike and had been divided from the Church though he had never been excommunicated or though the excommunication were taken away Besides as I touched already it is ridiculous to say that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion the profession of her errours in Faith and externall Communion in Sacraments Liturgy and other publike worship of God For profession of the same Faith and communion in Sacraments c. is the very thing wherin Communion consists or rather is the Communion itselfe and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition voluntarily required by the Church or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion and so you speake as if one should say Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith It was therfore no condition required by vs that made Protestants leaue our Communion but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs which essentially is incompatible with our Communion This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason 95. Fourthly Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church or there was not If not then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation in which case the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne and then your Memorandum cannot haue place nor can excuse you from Schisme since such an imposing a necessity would vpon that supposition be both lawfull and necessary If there were just cause for your separation then you had been excused from Schisme though the Church had never imposed vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne errours because you say Schisme is a Causless separation and surely that separation is not causelesse for which there is just cause Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity c is both impertinent and incoherent with your first Memordium That not every separation but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme And yet P. 282. N. 71. you say expressly It is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered So still you vtter contradictions Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense being confuted both by evident reason and out of your owne sayings it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme 66. Fiftly How can you maintayne this your Memorandum and not giue full scope to all other Protestants who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true of whom I am sure you are one to forsake her communion seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous Is not this the very thing which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs O Approbators Is it conforme to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England to say Her communion may and must be forsaken And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth communicate with English and other Protestants in their publike service corrupted with errours about the Trinity the Creed of S. Athā c as you belieue it is Or why could you not communicate with vs Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs 67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points First what a thing your Religion is which can so well agree and hold communion with innumerable Sects infinitly differing one from another and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged to parte from vs Catholiks But so it is The false Gods of the Heathens and their Idolaters could handsomly agree amongst themselves but in no wise with the true God and his true worshippers An evident signe that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true and teaches the right worship of God and way to salvation Falshoods may stand togeather but cannot consist with truth 68. Secondly If as you tell vs things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered points not Fundamentall of themselves become Fundamentall because they are revealed in Scripture and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed as revealed by God as Potter expressly grants Seing then Protestants differ in points which one part verily believes to be plainly delivered in Scripture and consequently in things necessary according to your assertion they cannot grant their communion to those who hold not with them in such necessary points that is in effect in all things wherin they disagree For every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture How then can they be excused from Schisme in their separation from vs while they hold Communion with other Protestants and thinke they may and ought to do so and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks Which Argument still presses them more forcibly if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants in divers chiefe Articles of Faith stand with vs Catholiks against their pretended Brethren and therfore they must either parte from them or not parte from vs 69. Thirdly it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary must divide from one another though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary that is plainly dedelivered in Scripture he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith though they do not pretend to impose a necessity c And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity c Which you say is the chiefe part of your defense comes to nothing even by your owne grounds and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all to free yourselves from Schisme 70. Fourthly When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall it is alwayes vnderstood that they be sufficiently proposed and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens and the contrary Errours certainly damnable and consequently a necessary cause of separation no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves and seing
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
if it should containe more And yet even in this one point there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves or with vs. For in the sense I haue shewed elswere that Protestants disagree about Faith or what to belieue signifies and about the Attributes and perfections of the Deity and his Title of a Rewarder and about our Saviour Christ whether he be true God Whether he be to be adored Whether to be invoked Vid Volkel Lib 4. Cap 11. Whether reverence to be done to his sacred name Jesus And many other such points And then I pray what Communion could there be in a worship of God consisting only in words or in prating like parrots with infinite difference in the meaning of them and such a difference as one part holds the contrary to belieue damnable errours even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree as in a Forme common to all in Errours I say damnable as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God whom they pretend to worship Jewes and Turks belieue that God is and that he is a rewarder and Philosophers believed that there is a God and some of them in generall that he is a rewarder What a sight would it be to behold all these in one Church or Quire of Christians as agreeing in this generall Liturgy Of which Jewes Turks and Philosophers might say in your owne words Behold we propose a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawfull Why then do you not joyne with vs If you answer them because they erre in other points they might reply what is that to the purpose as long as a necessity of professing those Errours is not imposed vpon you Or if it be not lawfull to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ how can Catholiks communicate with you or Protestants with one another or how can you say If you would propose a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold 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 seing men of different faith cannot communicate togeather even in a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull Or if they may you cannot refuse your Communion to Jewes and Turks in such a common Forme of Liturgy I therfore conclude that either you may communicate with Jewes Turkes c. or els you must confess that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy and publike worship of God whatsoever imaginary Forme be proposed and that you renounce our Communion absolutely which you deny against all Truth and your owne grounds and the common grounds of Christianity vnless you will make vp one Church of Jewes Turks Philosophers condemned Heretiks and whatsoever different Sects and therfore you cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme 82. Morover we know you disliked diverse Points in the publike Service of the Protestants Church of England as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity the Creed of S. Athanasius c Now I aske whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service or no If you say you could because your intention was carryed only to that which was good and true and not to those particulars which you did belieue to be false and errours why may not Protestants on their part be present at Masse and our publike worship of God And why do they alledg as a cause of their forsaking our externall communion in Liturgy the corruptions thereof Or why do you require a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold lawfull if one may be present at some corrupt worship of God so that he intend to participate and communicate only in what is good And you cannot deny but that in our Liturgy there are many good and holy things out of which the ProtestaÌ„t church of EnglaÌ„d transcribed divers things into their booke of coÌ„mon prayer wherby they proue theÌ„selves true Heretiks or chusers accepting or rejecting what they please aÌ„d deceyving simple people as if there were small differeÌ„ce betwixt English Protestants and Catholiks Or how could you wickedly perswade Catholiks to go to Protestant Service which you know we belieue to containe Errours against our Faith and Religion and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy c. Or if they were not obliged to forsake vs how can they be excused from Schisme in doing so If you could not be present at the English Service which was the other part of my demand the reason must be because men of different Faith cannot communicate in one publike worship of God or Liturgy And the further reason of this because such a communicating or Communion were indeed a reall and practicall approbation of such a Communion and of such a Church stayned with Errours and consequently how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they belieue to erre in points of Faith and yet thinke they are obliged not to communicate with vs Truly they cannot possibly giue any reason for this their proceeding and as I may say acception of persons the merit or demerite of the cause being the same For this Rule it is not lawfull for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy and publike worship of God is vniversally true and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion stisle all zeale overthrow Religion and is of its owne nature intrinsecè malum though there were no scandall danger of being perverted and the like as really alwayes there are Certainly if in any case a Catholike can be sayed to approue and participate with Heretikes as such it is by communion in the same Liturgy and divine offices and never more than when it happens to be with such Heretiks as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholiks as superstitions and corrupted and framed an other as proper to themselves which happened in England in direct opposition to our Liturgy to which proceeding of theirs hee in fact consents and gives approbation who refuseth not to be present at their Service so opposite â—o our Liturgy Whosoever considers the zeale of all Antiquity in abhorring the least shaddow of communion with Heretiks will haue just cause to lament the coldnesse of them who seeke by distinctions and speculations to induce a pernicious participation of justice with Iniquity a society between light and darkness an agreement with â—hrist and Belial a participation of the faithfull with the infidell as we haue heard our adversaryes confess every Errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently propounded to be Infidelity Holy Scripture Num 16.26 speaking of Core Dathan and Abiron saith Depart from the tabernacles of the impious men and touch you not those things which pertaine to them least you be enwrapped in their sin What then shall we say of those who will not depart I say not from the tabernacles
whole company hath for essentiall Notes the true preaching of Gods Word and due administration of Sacraments This instance convinces ad hominem and vpon supposition that you will make good your owne inference which indeed is in it selfe of no force in regard that to sin or erre is not assentiall to every part of the Church as preaching of the word is essentiall to every particular and consequently to the whole Church and therfore God may giue his assistance to keepe men from sin and errour as he shall be pleased and having promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the whole Church and not having made any such generall promise to private persons which neither are nor do represent the whole Church you cannot inferr that the whole Church or a Generall Councell may fall into Errour because every particular private person taken apart may be deceived Your parity also between sin and errour is vnworthy of a Divine Faith externally professed or the exteriour profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but justifying grace or sanctity or Charity is not Yourselfe grant that Errour in Fundamentall Points destroyes a Church and that every particular person ceases to be a member of the Church by every such errour I hope you will not say the same of every or any grievous sin You grant Pag 274. N. 57. that corruptions in manners yield no just cause to forsake a Church and yet you excuse your leaving the Communion of our Church vpon pretence of corruptions in Her doctrine even in Points not Fundamentall of themselves It appeares then that errours in Faith though not Fundamentall preponderate any or all most grievous corruptions in manners in order to the maintayning or breaking the Communion of the Church Do you not expressly say Pag 255. N. 6. Many members of the Visible Church haue no Charity Which could not happen if Charity were as necessary as Faith to constitute one a member of the Church This is also the Doctrine of other Protestants Field Of the Church Lib 2. Cap 2. saith Entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ is essentiall to the Church Fulke Joan 14. Not 5. The true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy It is an impudent slander to say we say so Whitaker Contron 2. Quest 5. Cap 17. The Church cannot hold any hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church mark heere also that the and a are applied to the same Church Dr. Lawd Sect 10. Pag 36. Whatsoever is Fundamentall to Faith is Fundamentall to the Church which is one by vnity of Faith It is then apparent that there is great difference between Faith and charity for as much as concernes the constituting one a member of the Church and the contrary is of dangerous consequence as if by deadly sin every Bishop Prelate Pastour Priest Prince c. must necessarily cease to be members of Christs Church 86. But here I must obserue two things First If entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ be essentiall to the Church If the true Church cannot fall into Heresy and that it is an impudent slander to affirme that Protestants say so if the Church cannot hold any Hereticall Doctrine and yet be a Church as we haue heard out of Dr. Lawd Whitaker Fulke and Field respectivè it followes that the Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God whether it be of itselfe Fundamētall or not because every such errour is Heresy as contrarily we exercise a true Act of Faith by believing a Truth because it is testifyed by God though the thing of itselfe might seeme never so small And Pag 101. N. 127. you speake to this very purpose saying Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and an oppōsition to the Faith And Potter Pag 97. saith The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written Word And therfore whosoever willfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretik◠not properly because he disobeyes the Church but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded or cleared vnto him And 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 Heretike And Pag 247. If a man by reading the Scriptures or hearing them read be convinced of the truth of any such Conclusion This is a sufficient proposition to proue him that gain-saieth any such truth to be an Heretike and obstinate opposer of the Faith Field Lib 2. of the Church Cap 3. sayth freedome from Fundament all errour may be found among Heretiks From whence it followes that errour against any Point of Faith though not Fundamentall is Heresy and yourselfe Pag 23. N. 27. say There is as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture which are not Fundamentall as those that are If then every errour against any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God be Heresy and that according to Fulke the true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy and that as Whitaker saith the Church cannot hold any Hereticall doctrine and yet be a Church it followes that either the Church cannot fall into any errour even not Fundamentall and so Protestants are Schismatiks for leaving Her vpon pretence of errours or that it is no impudent slander to say that Protestants say the Church may fall into Heresy as Fulke affirmes it to be seing she may fall into errours against Faith and all such errours are Heresyes Besides seing we haue heard Potter confesse Pag 97. that the Catholique Church is carefull to ground all Her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written word how can they avoide the Note of Heresy by opposing Her Declarations or of Schisme by leaving Her Communion By all which it is manifest that Heretiks haue no constancy in their doctrine but are forced to affirme and deny and by perpetuall contradictions overthrow their owne grounds and Assertions Howsoever for our present purpose we haue proved even out of Protestants themselves that your parity between errours against Faith and sins against Charity is repugnant to all Divinity seing externall profession of Faith is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church but Charity is not and chiefly I inferr that the Catholique Church is not subject to any errour though not Fundamentall since it is confessed that shee cannot fall into Heresy and every errour against any revealed Truth is Heresy 87. The second thing I was to obserue breifly is this Charity Maintayned speaking expressly of errours in Faith which are incompatible with the being of a true Church you to disguise the matter aske why errour may not consist with the holyness of this Church as well as many
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
men may be saved why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained being as experience shewes not necessary But the Answer to this objection hath been given already For some thing may be necessary for some persons at some tyme in some Circumstances which are not necessary vniversally for all Persons Tymes and Circumstances as I specifyed in the Councell of the Apostles in Canonicall writings which written vpon some particular occasion yet require an vniversall beliefe and in generall Councells which you and Potter affirme to oblige as we haue seene aboue Indeed your peremtory wild demand Why should or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall Meanes to determine all Controversyes be necessary c might well by your leaue beseeme some Jew asking why should or how can Christian Religion be necessary to salvation if for many Ages it was not in Being and yet in the meane tyme men were saved Or why should or how can the believing and obeying the Definition of the Apostles in their Councell or the beliefe of the Gospells and other Canonicall writings be necessary to salvation if for many ages such beliefe was not required and in the meane tyme men were saued Or why should or how can infallibility be necessary to write the Scripture if the writing of Scripture was not necessary but that men were sayed without it You say in the same N. 7. I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes of Faith and Religion must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing Which words seeme not to agree with what you add against Charity Maintayned in his N. 7. 8. that an vniversall infallibility must be granted to that meanes wherby controversyes in Faith are to be determined vnless men haue a mynd to reduce Faith to opinion of which words you say you do not perceyue how from the denyall of any of the grounds which Charity Maintayned layd it would follow that Faith is Opinion or from the granting them that it is not so For my part I do not perceyue how it was possible for you not to perceyue it since you confess that without an vniversall infallibility we could yield vnto such a meanes but wavering and fearfull assent a and what is this but opinion or a meere humane Faith As contrarily if the Meanes or Motiue for which I assent be infallible and I belieue it to be so and assent with an act proportionable to that motiue my assent must needs be certaine and infallible and not a wavering and fearfull assent If this be not so why do you require infallibility in the said meanes Certainly infallibility is not necessary to beget a wavering and fearfull assent 13. You would gladly free yourselfe of that just imputation that you confound Divine Faith with opinion But your tergiversation argues you guilty You bring I know not what parityes betwen Faith and Opinion but decline the maine difference That Divine Faith is absolutely certaine and infallible Opinion not You being conscious of your Antichristian Doctrine That Christian Faith exceeds not probability dissemble the chiefe difference which I haue declared and you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of that griēvous but just accusation that you change Divine Faith into opinion Wheras you say that as opinion so Faith admitts degrees and that as there maybe a strong and weake opinion so there may be a strong and weake Faith and add that Ch Ma if he be in his right mynd will not deny it I answer that still you sticke to your false ground that Christian Faith is not infallible Otherwise you would not make this comparison between the weakness and strength of Opinion and Faith which in its essence excludes all falshood As contrarily Opinion is not free from all feare least it be false 14. The confutation of your N. 8. about the infallibility of Christian Faith is the subject of my first Chapter and therfore I need say no more here except only to aske what you can vnderstand by these words of yours But though the essence of Faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection yet may it be enquired whether any certainty of Faith vnder the highest degree may be sufficient to please God and attaine salvation Can the very essence of Faith be weake and imperfect and yet the degrees therof be certaine in the highest degree and exclude that weakness and imperfection which the essence doth not exclude is not the whole essence of Faith in every degree or graduall perfection therof But as I sayd directly contrary to that which your words seeme to sound the very essence of Faith excludes all weaknesse that is all falshood and doubtfulnesse and every graduall entity therof includes such a certainty though one mans Faith within the compasse of the same essence may exceed the Faith of another in graduall perfections as contrarily though Opinion may haue many graduall entityes yet none of them can exclude formidinem oppositi a feare that the contrary may proue true which if any particular degree of intension did exclude it were not Opinion but a certaine knowledge and so could not be a degree of intension vnder the species or essence of Opinion but an assent essentially distinct from all Opinion 15. In your N. 9. I obserue that you do not only grant the possibility of a certainty of adherence in the will beyond the certainty of evidence in the vnderstanding but also a certainty of knowledge in the vnderstanding aboue the strength of probable Motives or Arguments of Credibility For you say they know marke this word know what they did but belieue and are as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares which saw it with their eyes which looked vpon it and whose hands handled the word of life If God can do this with his Grace seing Christian Faith requires the Grace of God why do you deny that by it we are no less assured that the Objects of Faith are true than if we had seene them with our eyes c The rest of this number is answered Chap 1. 16. You are pleased N. 10. to delight yourselfe and deceiue others with a wild collection as you stile it fathered on Ch Ma being only a brood of your owne braine The case stands thus Ch Ma N. 8. hath these words Out of the Principles which I haue layd That there must be in Gods Church some meanes for deciding Controversyes in Faith and that it must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propounds as spoken by God it vndeniably followes that of two men dissenting in matters of Faith the
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
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
tyme are not you true blasphemers by whose Doctrine Caiphas may be excused from blasphemy And ò impiety our Saviour had blasphemed in making himselfe the Son of God if your horrible Doctrine were true 39. Secondly you answer that Dr. Potter mght say very well not that the high Priest was infallible for certainly he was not but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed But then how could the Doctor say that the high Priest had a certaine priviledge from errour wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction Is not that to be not only obeyed but of necessity believed which proceeds from an absolutly infallible derection Or how could the high Priests determination be of necessity obeyed if his determination had beene repugnant to any Point of Faith as it might haue happened if he had no infallible direction Or will you now grant that one may and must dissemble in matters of Religion If you grant this last the ground for which you excuse Protestants from schisme falls to the ground 40. Thirdly you answer It is one thing to say that the living judge in the Iewish Church had an infallible direction another that he was necessitated to follow this direction This is the Priviledge which you chalenge But it is that not this which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes As a man may truly say the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it and could not doe otherwise This Answer is no more solid and no lesse repugnant to Dr. Potter than the former For he saith If any such promise from God to assiste the Pope could be produced his decisions might then justly passe for oracles without examination Now how could any mans decisions passe for oracles if the promise from God to assist him be not effectuall but that he may actually resist or reject such an assistance and so teach the contrary of that towards which he is assisted by God Therfore the Doctor must be vnderstood of such an assistance as it is certaine the party assisted will follow which is the very Priviledg which you say we chalenge though we say not that we are necessitated as you misreport vs for we know very well that there is a great difference betwixt an absolute necessity and infallibility of an effect as I haue declared hertofore And indeed to say that the high Priest had an infallible assistance which in fact might be resisted is to attribute no more to him than to every man for performing his Duty if he concurre with Gods inspirations and directions or sufficient Grace Yourselfe say N. 148. That the whole depositum of truth was commtted to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I thinke will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole inviolate by every man and euery Church Which words confirme my saying that by your interpretation the Doctor attributes no more to the high Priest than to every man which yet we haue seene to be directly against his words and meaning and that he ascribes that to the high Priest which he denyes to the Pope to whom he professes that if he granted as much as God promised to the high Priest his the Popes decisions might justly passe for oracles without examination Which surely is more than is granted to every man neither would either he or you deny to the Pope that sufficient Grace and assistance to performe his Duty which Assistance you grant to every man To your example of the wise men I answer if God did efficaciously decree that the birth of our B. Saviour should be published to the world by their eye-witnessing he gaue them such direction as in his infinite wisdome he saw they would follow de facto though without either constraint or necessity as you would not deny to be very possible if you had beene versed in solide Divinity or read and vnderstood our Catholike Authors vpon the matter of Grace 41. All that you haue from the N. 125. till 136. inclusiuè is answered already Only I will say that we do not proue the Church to be infallible because so it seemes to vs most fitt as you doe who rely meerly vpon humane discourse but seing the Question between vs is whether the Church or Scripture alone be the infallible Rule or Judge of Faith if we proue that the Church is vsefull for such a purpose and that the Scripture alone cannot possibly be such a Rule it followes that not the Scripture can be such a Rule but that the Church must be a Judge of Controversyes Thus all your roving arguments through diverse numbers vanish into nothing 42. In the end of your N. 126. you say that Charity Maintayned inferred vainly that with monthes and yeares as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published the Church altered Her Rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversyes which yet is a true consequence if as Charity Maintayned expressly sayes as the Church by little and litle received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility Protestants grant that after the canon was perfited infallibility ceased to be in the Church and why must they not say that as Bookes of Scripture were written so she by degrees lost her infallibility as being needeless for those points which grewe to be evidently declared by those Bookes For which cause they teach that when the whole Scripture was written the Church wholy lost infallibility and heere enters your conceypt that to him to whom the way is cleare a guide is not necessary Therfore the evidence of Scripture made infallibility in the Church vnnecessary 43. In your N. 137. 138. you dissemble the force of Ch Ma his Argument which is the Church was once indued with infallibility therfore you cannot affirme that she lost it without alledging some evident Text of Scripture for your assertion which with you who rely vpon Scripture alone ought to be a convincing Argument Your fond instance about the King of Sweden with the rest of that N. 138. hath beene answered already 44. I need say little to your N. 139.140 having confuted at large your distinction between being infallible in Fundamentalls and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls And to your words N. 140. directed to Charity Maintayned For the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of infallibility in some Points and not in others that is a wild notion of your owne which we haue nothing to doe with I Answer if you meane to defende the cause of Potter or other Protestants and not of Socininians only you must of necessity haue to doe with that wild notion For seing it must be granted that before Scripture was written the Church was infallible in all matters belonging to Faith both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall because otherwise we
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 than Apostolique Preaching How I say could you speake thus your doctrine considered that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall and so we cannot know whether Churches be at an agreement in them and consequently cannot from such an agreement in Fundamentalls haue a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from the fountaine of Apostolique Preaching Every where you are found clearly to contradict yourselfe 59. In answer to your N. 149.150.151.152.153 I will first set downe the words of Charity Maintayned and then answer what you object Thus saith Charity Maintayned Part 1. Pag 71. N. 25. The doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of itselfe For either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficiēt ground for infallible Faith nor a meete Judge of Controversyes If they haue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interterpretations of Scripture then they are able with infallibility to heare examine and determine all Controversyes of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversyes although they vse the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their owne doctrine they constitute another Judge of Controversyes beside Scripture alone 60. Against this discourse you object with great pompe of words If we Catholiks haue certaine and infallible meanes for the choyse of the Church then we are able with infallibility to determine all Controversyes of Faith although we pretend to make the Church our Guide And then say you N. 149. We constitute another Iudge of Controversyes besides the Church alone nay every one of vs makes himselfe a chooser of his owne Religion and of his owne sense of the Churches decrees which very thing we so highly condemne in Protestants 61. Answer we haue certaine meanes to belieue with an infallible Faith that the Catholique Church is an infallible Judge of controversyes as we haue proved hertofore at large in diverse Occasions But then to say that by this meanes i.e. by believing the Church to be the Judge of controversyes we are able of our selves with infallibility to determine all controversyes and do constitute another Iudge of controversyes besides the Church alone I am so farr from vnderstanding it that to me it seemes no better than non-sense as a man who in some cause makes choyse of a Iudge whom he believes to be just wise and in every respect fit for such an office cannot be sayd to constitute another judge beside him of whom he makes choise nor to make himselfe Iudge Do you not teach that the Church proposes to vs Canonicall Scripture and that Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith wherby all controversyes are determined and yet you will not inferr from thence that the Church is a Rule of Faith wherby all controversyes are determined and not Scripture alone It is you who here N. 153 say for the latter part of this inference that every one makes himselfe judg of controversyes we acknowledge and embrace it We do make ourselves Iudges of controuersyes And this you must grant not only for the choyse of your Religion but for the sense of Scripture and consequently for determining all controversyes of Faith and so you are Iudges of controversyes as Ch Ma inferred wheras Catholikes in all controversyes hold themselves obliged to follow the determination of the Church and not of their owne vnderstanding as you doe How farr we may and do make vse of Reason in matters of Religion we haue declared aboue And even yourselfe Pag 376. N. 56. speaking of Scripture say Propose me any thing out of this Booke and require whether I belieue it or not and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe with hand and hart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this God hath sayd so therfore it is true Which words though they cannot be spoken sincerely and with consequence by you who resolue Faith into humane probable Arguments of reason yet they shew that even in reason Reason ought to submitt to Authority We haue also shewed the difference between the Scripture which is always the same and the Decrees of the Church which in all occasions can clearly declare Her meaning if any difficulty occurre about her former Decrees or Definitions 62. But I pray where did Charity Maintayned frame this Argument which you N. 150. terme a transparent fallacy Protestants haue no meanes to interpret without errour obscure and ambiguons places of Scripture therfore plaine places of Scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of Faith You know there neither is nor can be any Question at all whether plaine places be not plaine to those to whom they are plaine nor whether such plaine places may not be a sufficient ground of Faith in respect of persons to whom and Matters wherin they are plaine The Point is and you know it to be so whether scripture be plaine in all Points necessary to be believed which we deny and you often affirme but can never be able to proue and I haue demonstrated that even those Texts which you pretend to be most plaine and expresly alledge for instances of such plainesse are not such but containe difficulty if we respect the sense and not the bare words which may be plaine to Pagans Jewes Turkes and to all who vnderstand the language in which Scripture was written And therfore you do not satisfy your owne Demand wherin you speake thus to Charity maintayned If you aske me how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these plaine places I aske you againe can you be sure that you vnderstand what I or any man else sayes They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach could they haue sufficient assurance that they vnderstood at any tyme what they would haue them doe If not to what end did they heare them If they could why may not we be as well assured that we vnderstand sufficiently what we conceiue plaine in their writings 63. Answer If he who speakes be not sufficiently vnderstood he may be asked and he who askes may be satisfyed by a further declaration of the speaker which holds not in Scripture as I am forced often to repeate Besides when things are spoken the present Tyme Place Argument and other circumstances may giue much more light than when they are barely written devested of such helpes In which case if a word can be found but once in the whole Bible to signify such or such a thing perhaps it may breede a doubt whether in other places it be not so taken of which no doubt would haue beene made in case that in all places it had the same signification Yea we see
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
a small than in a great matter as your selfe here affirme expressly that Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him But you say this sense is impertinent which you must giue me leaue to deny For if it be alike damnable to reject Gods testimony whether the matter be in itselfe great or small it followes that whosoever dissents from the least Point sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God sins damnably and is not capable of salvation without repentance so that of two dissenting in an Object knowne to be a divine truth one of them cannot be saved without repentance And it is strang that still you will be altering the state of the Question notwithstanding that Cha Ma expressly declared that we speake of persons to whom the Divine Revelation is sufficiently propounded for such Where now are the false Propositions the disorder of forme the inconsequence of the Conclusion which you so contemptuously objected to Cha ma But chiefly where shall we find in all these your diversions and tergiversations a direct Answer to the discourse of Cha ma that the Essence and vnity or diuersity of Faith is chiefly to be attended in order to the Formall object which is Divine Revelation and not in respect of the matter of Fundamentall or not Fundamentall Points and consequently that it is impossible that when two disagree in matters sufficiently declared to them to be divine truths both can be saved Your N. 25. hath beene answered at large hertofore 27. For the answer which in your N. 26 you giue to the N. 9.10.11 of Ch Ma if the Reader will take the paines to peruse those numbers in Ch Ma he will find that there is a great difference to take things from the Originall itselfe and to receaue them from a Coppy drawne by a partiall hand of an vnsincere Adversary Cha Ma proves the Church Catholique to be vniversally infallible because otherwise she might either propose things contrary to divine Revelation or els propose for a revealed Truth that which is not such which were a damnable sin and Dr. Potter confesses that the Church cannot erre damnably 28. To this you answer that the Church may do these things by Ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sin But this answer is confuted by what hath beene sayd hertofore For if it be evident in Scripture that the Church may erre in some Points she cannot but know that she exposes Herselfe to danger of errour against the divine Testimony and consequently sins damnable vnless she hath evident Scripture for what she proposes which cannot happen when she proposes a falshood If it be not evident in Scripture that she may erre in some Points then you who take Scripture for the sole Rule of Faith cannot be sure that she may erre especially if we reflect that Scripture assures vs as Protestants grant that she is Infallible in some namely in Fundamentall Points and doth not tell vs what those Points in particular be Besides you teach Pag 277. N. 61. that there is promised to the Church not only an assistance not to erre in things absolutely necessary but a farther assistance is conditionally promised even such an Assistance as shall lead vs if we be not wanting to it and ourselves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guarde vs from all not only destructiue but also hurtfull errours And therfore to Char Maint saying that a Church not erring in Fundamentalls doth as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands as much as lyes in her power to doe you answer This is manifestly vntrue For Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote Her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condit on that when it is offered in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it Which words do not well agree with your answer that the Church may erre by Ignorance or Mistake and so without damnable sin seing on the one side every errour against Divine Revelation is of itselfe a damnable sin and on the other the Church wants not sufficient assistance not to erre and in fact shall be sure not to erre if she be not negligent to follow Gods Assistance when it is offered in the divine directions of Scriptuae and reason and therfore her Errours must needs be culpable as proceeding only from her owne negligence In this very N. 26. which I confute yourselfe assirme that she cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of Faith if it be vnderstood of such vnfundamentall Points as she is not warranted to propose by euident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of Faith certainly true she may well be questioned quo warranto She builds without a foundation and says Thus saith the Lord whâ—n the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excused froÌ„ rashnesse and high presumption But though she may erre in some pointe not Fundamentall yet may she haue certainty enough in proposing others evidently and vndeniably set downe in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashnesse proposed by the Church as certaine divine revelatioÌ„s These be your words which clearly overthrow your owne Answer For I argue thus If the Church proceed vpon evident Scripture she cannot erre in those things If not she always exposes herselfe to danger of errour for the matter which may proue false and to certaine actuall errour for the manner by proposing as a Point of Faith certainly true which yet is always vncertaine if she in such things may be deceaved as you say she may whensoever she is not warranted by evident Text of Scripture Thus by your owne grounds the Church is either certaine that she errs not as relying vpon evident Scripture or if she haue not such evidence she is certaine that she exposes herselfe and others to errour against Divine Revelation which cannot be excused from a great sin of rashnesse and high presumption And then when will your excuse of ignorance or mistake haue place which cannot happen when she hath evidence of Scripture and will not excuse when she wants such evidence And so there is no meane betweene certainty that she errs not and committing a sin by exposinge Herselfe to a knowne danger of errour against the Divine Revelation 29. By the way I would know how your Doctrine That God hath promised to the Church such an assistance as shall lead vs into all not only necessary but very prositable truth if we be not wanting to it agree with what you say in your Answer to the Direction N. 32. It is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther then to bring her to salvation Is it not necessary that God keepe his promise And how do you find fault with Cha. Ma. for saying that if the Church
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
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
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
other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints vnto the work of the Ministery vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ Vntill we meete all into the vnity of Faith and knowledg of the Sonne of God into a perfect mā into the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ That now we be not children wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wickednes of men in craftines to the circumvention of Errour Out of which words it appeares that God hath left to his Church Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of Saynts which comprises the whole space of this world vntill all be brought to the vnity of Faith which is necessary not only for the tymes of the Apostles but also afterward and in such manner as that we be not wavering but haue some firme infallible Ground on which to relie in matters of Faith 94. To this place you answer that He gaue is not to be vnderstood He promised that he would giue vnto the worlds end but that not the infallibility of any Church but Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists c which Christ gaue vpon his Ascention were designed by him for the compassing all these excellent purposes by their preaching while they lived and by their writings for ever 95. But this interpretation and restriction of yours is not only repugnant to the Text itself but against all Protestants and I may saie against all Christians of whom not any deny that our Saviour promised to giue Pastors Doctors Preachers Ministers c to the worlds end if not for contributing infallibility to the Church at least for other good and necessary purposes and effects as teaching preaching governing enacting Lawes inflicting Censures punishing administring Sacraments c Calvin Instit Lib. 4. Cap 1. N. 5. proves this at large out of this same Text of S. Paul Your Socinian Brother Volkelius de vera Relig Lib 6. Cap 5. cites even this place and sayeth Remansit Doctorum Pastorumue officium nec non alia quaedam The same is the doctrine of other learned Protestants as I haue set downe heretofore in particular out of Brereley Tract 2. Cap 2. Sect 1. In so much as Doctor Saravia in defens Tract de diversis Ministrorum gradibus Pag 10. Professes to wonder with amazement that any Question should be made thereof And who are you to oppose yourself against all other and limit He gaue tothe tyme of the Apostles Is any thing more common amongst Protestants than that Preaching of the word and Administration of Sacraments and consequently Preachers and Ministers of Sacraments are essentiall to the true Church 96. You object that by he gaue to vnderstand he promised that he would giue to the worlds end is an interpretation of which you say to Charity Maintayned What reason haue you for this conceypt Can you shew that the word edoke hath this signification in other places and that it must haue it in this place Or will not this interpretation driue you presently to this blasphemous absurdity that God hath not performed his promise Vnless you will say which for shame I think you will not that you haue now and in all ages since Christ haue had Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists For as for Pastors and Doctors alone they will not serue the turne For if God promised to giue all these then you must say he hath given all or els that he hath broken his promise Neither may you pretend that the Pastors and the Doctors were the same with the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and therefore having Pastors and Doctors you haue all For it is apparent that by these names are denoted seuerall Orders of men clearely distinguished and diversifyed by the Originall Text but much more plainly by your owne Translations for so you read it some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors And yet more plainly in the paralell place 1. Cor 12. to which we are referred by your vulgar Translation God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you 97. Answer this which you are pleased to stile a conceypt is the conceypt of all Protestants as I haue shewed That the word dedit hath the signification of a Promise in other places will appeare to any that can but read the Concordance of the Bible as Joan Epist 1. Cap 5. N. 11. Dedit nobis vitam aeternam which word dedit saieth Cornelius à Lapide vpon this place significat firmitatem certtudinem Promissionis divinae Quod scilicet ita certi simus de vita aeterna si in Fide obedientia Christi perseveremus perinde ac si actu ea nobis data esset eamque reipsa possideremus And S. Austine in Psalmo 60. N. 6. vpon these words Dedisti haereditatem timentibus nomen tuum saieth Perseveremus in timore nominis Dei aeternus Pater non nos fallit where it is cleare the word dedisti signifyes a Promise of things as Bellarmine also explicates the same dedisti by firmiter promisisti S. John C. 10. V. 28. saieth Ego vitam aeternam do eis where Cornelius a Lapide saieth Do ijs quia nimirum promitto eis vitam aeternam And so we see that Dedit Apostolos c expresses the certainty of Gods Promise more thā if he had expressly saied I will giue But to what purpose should I say more seing there can be no more plaine signification of dedit than appointed or constituted for his Church Apostles c as appeares by the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter from the beginning which was to exhort Christians to Charity and keeping the vnity of Spirit in the bond of peace as one body ād one Spirit which exhortatiō as it is was directed to the Church of all ages so the meanes to performe it must extend to the worlds end and this meanes S. Paul declares to be the Authority and offices of Apostles Pastors c to the consummation of Saints and meeting in vnity of Faith And the same intention of the Apostle appeares in that which you call the pararell place 1. Cor 12. where that as he saied V. 24. there might be no Schisme in the Body he shewes that every one ought to be content with his owne degree seing God will haue it so that in his Church there should be different Degrees functions and Offices and then Vers 27. specifies Apostles Prophets c All which declares that he spoke of the Church for ever to the worlds end as Vnity is ever necessary against Division and Schisme 98. And now who is found guilty of blasphemous absurdity We haue heard your Volkelius say Remansit Pastorum Doctorumque officium nec non alia quaedam and the same is the Doctrine of other Protestants How then hath God performed his Promise if for the performance therof it be
Truly I cannot imagine that any man would haue dreamed that Dr. Potter did not intend by those interrogations to proue that the Creed containes all fundamentall points whether we consider the only question in hand or the clear connexion and thread of his words as I haue shewed and that all his interrogations tended to make good that no Christian can be obliged to belieue more as necessary then the Apostles believed to be necessary of which necessary points you say N 65. the Creed is a full comprehension and consequently that he intended to proue so much by his interrogations though I grant he faild in his proofes and performance of his intention which he perceiving did afterward seeke to corroborate them with other reasons which consideration beside what hath been sayd doth evidently declare that in his interrogations he intended to perswade vs that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith For let vs suppose with you that his purpos was only to proue that no Christian is bound to belieue more then the Apostles believed and not that no Christian is bound to belieue more then the 〈◊〉 with what connexion or sense could Potter say immediatly after those interrogations All that can be replyed to this discourse is that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed which 〈◊〉 all one as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the Apostles and the Church of their times in giving it this name do◠they not plainely tell vs that the Summe and Substance of their Credenda is comprized in it If Potter in his interrogations meant only to proue that no Christian is bound to belieue more thē the Apostles believed how did he imagine that it could be replyed against that discourse ād those interrogations of his that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed if I say his discourse according to your interpretation aymed at no such matter Or to what purpos doth the Doctour as soone as he had sayd that nothing could be replye to his discoursed except that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed instantly set himselfe to proue that the Creed containes the Summe and substance of the Credenda of the Apostles and Church of their times As if by proving this that reply were confuted and his Interrogations made good which yet had been good if they were vnderstood of the whole extent of the Apostles beliefe though it were supposed that the Creed containes not all fundamentall points of Faith For whether it contained them or no it is most true that no Christian is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed of things contained and not contained in the Creed Looke now whether I may not retort the words which you direct against Charity Maintayn Consider I pray a litle better and then I hope you will acknowledge that there was no Petitio principij in Dr. Potter but rather Ignoratio Elencht in you 59. You doe but loose time in proving that S. Paul Act 20. spoke to the Pastours yet that he spoke of what he taught not only them but also the Laity as well as them And you wonder Charity Maintayned should read the Text so negligently as not to obserue it Ch. Ma. never sayd that the Apostle spoke to the Pastors only or that he instructed them only but that the sayd words were directed particularly to the Pastors or Governours of the Church and yourselfe grant the Apostle did all these things of which he speakes to the Pastours among the rest nay aboue the rest ād therfor C Ma did clearly deduce that the Doctour could not collect from those words that the Apostle spoke of things necessary for all sortes of persons to belieue seing Pag 244. He acknowledges that more knowledge is necessary in Bishops and Priests to whome is committed the government of the Church then in vulgar Laicks as Charity Maintayned observes and consequently he could not gather out of those words what points be necessary for all and much lesse that all necessary points are contained in the Creed In a word the Apostle spoke of more then all are obliged to belieue and more then is contained in the Creed and therfor Potter could not prove by those words that if it were necessary for every one to belieue more than is contained in the Creed every one must belieue more or as much as the Pastors are obliged to belieue 60. No wonder if those Reasons of Dr. Potter which you mention N 74. were not particularly answered being so clearly false as they are answered by a meere denyall For that the Ancient Church appointed her infants to be instructed for matters of simple beliefe only in the Creed and admitted her Catechumens vnto baptisme and strāgers to her communion vpon their only profession of the Creed is evidently false For how many notorious heretiks pretēd to belieue the Creed Which therfor alone without other knowledge and circūstances of the persons c. could not be sufficiēt to admit strangers into the communion of the Church and who knows not that Catechumens are instructed in many more points of Faith then are exprest in the Creed Infants if you speake properly cannot be instructed in the Creed or any other part of Christian Faith Their Patrini surely know more points of Faith then the Creed alone But why did you not confute the answer which you confesse Ch Ma gives to Potters Fourth Reason about the letters called formatae which containe more then the Creed as may be seene in Charity Maintayned Par 2. P 171. and it will be found that you had reason to dissēble his discourse which proves that more was required to be belieued then only the Creed as appeares even by Potter himselfe speaking of those letters Pag 224. in these words If in those letters he did professe entirely to adhere to the Catholick Creeds his profession and person was accepted as sound and Orthodox Wher you see the beliefe of more Creeds was required then of the Apostles Creed only 61. Although the rest of the numbers in this Chapter containe no particular difficulty which may not be solved by our former grounds and therfor might well be omitted especially seeing you and the Doctor grant as much as is more then sufficient for our maine purpos that in vaine Protestants alledge their beliefe of the Creed to shew that they agree in all Fundamentall points of Faith and it appeares very cleare of it selfe seing it containes not all essentiall points of Christian practice yet I will cast an eye on your Numbers 75.76.77.78.79.80.81.82.83.84 as they lye in order Divers Points which haue connexion or were circumstances of the Articles set downe in the Creed might haue been exprest besides those which are specified in it and therfor Ch. Ma. may still aske why some such are exprest and others are not and you must finally
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
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
to giue vp his owne And when or where did all Churches vnitedly and joyntly offer vp this vniversall supreme Authority to the Bishop of Rome 32. To the authority cited by Ch Ma out of S. Cyprian Epist 55. Heresies haue sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause than for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God You answer that S. Cyprian spoke not of Cornelius but of Himself and yet you confess N. 91. that Goulartius a learned Protestant grants that it is meant of Cornelius and Pamelius in his Annotations vpon this Epistle of S. Cyprian brings divers Arguments to proue the same Neither can it be denyed but that in his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae he affirmes Heresies to spring from not acknowledging one Head S. Peter vpon whom our Saviour builded his Church Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam Primatus Petro datur vt vna Christi Ecclesia Cathedra vna monstretur Which is so manifest that the Protestant Chroniclers cent 3. col 84. lin 59. say Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse vr Lib. 1. Epist 3. which is the Epistle cited by C. Ma. and of which we now speak And Lib 4. Epist 9. c. But although it were granted that S. Cyprian in his Epist 55. did speak of a particular Church it is cleare that for avoiding Schisme in the whole Church there is a necessity of one Head if for that cause one Head be necessary in every particular Church as heretofore we cited out of S. Hierom that among the Apostles one was chosen vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio And even Dr. Covell a learned Protestant in his examination c. saieth How can they think that equality would keepe all the Pastors in the world in peace and vnity For in all Societies Authority which cannot be where all are equall must procure vnity and obedience Otherwise the Church should be in a farre worse case then the meanest commonwealth To which purpose he alledges that Sentence which we mentioned out of S. Hierom vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio You say whether the words of S. Cyprian condemne Luther is another Question Answer If those words condemne Luther of Schisme for withdrawing his Obedience from the Pope which Ch Ma affirmes and you for the present do not deny it evidently implies that the Pope was Superiour to him and all other Christians 33. In your N. 99.100 you labour to elude these words of S. Optatus alledged by C. Ma in the same N. 36. Thou canst not deny but that thou knowest that in the Citty of Rome there was first an Episcopall chaire placed for Peter wherin Peter the head of all the Apostles sat whereof also he was called Cephas in which one chaire vnity was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire aÌ„d that he should be a Schismatique and a sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect an other lib 2. cont Parmen You tell vs That the Donatists had set vp at Rome a Bishop of their faction and that Optatus proves them Schismatikes for so doing vpon this ground of one Bishop in one Church But whosoever reads Optatus will clearly see that he expresly speaks of the Catholique not of a particular Church which he saieth hath quinque ornamenta or dotes the first whereof is a chaire on which chaire of the Catholique and vniversall Church he saith S. Peter first sat whom he calls the Head of all the Apostles whereof he was called Cephas in which one Chaire vnity was to be kept by all Now I beseech you is it not cleare that Optatus speaks of S. Peter and of his Sea not as of a particular Bishop of a particular Church but as Head of the Catholique Church by whose meanes vnity was to be conserved and that Schisme and Heresie are to be discovered by opposition to that chayre which he calls singularem cathedram and may well signify not only a single or particular or individuall chaire but indeed singular by reason of singular preeminence and priviledg aboue all other Churches For this cause he speaks thus to the Donatist Parmenian Contra quas portas inferorum claves salutares accepisse legimus Petrum cui a Christo dictum est Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum portae inferorum non vincenteas Vnde est ergo quod claves regni vobis vsurpare contenditis qui contra cathedram Petri vestris presumptionibus audacijs sacrilegio militatis To what purpose should he insist vpon these priviledges of S. Peter and his Chaire if he meant no more than what is common to all particular Churches Or how doth he afterward proue that they whom the Donatists opposed were â—in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est But why do I labour to proue that which our Adversaries your Brethren are forced to grant For the Centurists cent 4. col 556. lin 17. alledg Optatus calling Peter Apostolorum caput vnde Cephas appellatur And indeed not only in the place alledged but also lib 7. he calls S. Peter caput Apostolorum And Fulk in his Retentiue Pag 248. chargeth Optatus with absurdity for saying of Peter Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit c He deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles You say When Optatus stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and sayes that from thence he was called Cephas Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greek word Kephale wheras it is a Syriack word and signisies a stone But what imports it vpon what ground he called him head seing he called him so and believed him to be such Beside that which is the stone Rock or Foundation in a materiall Building in a mysticall Body is the Head as the vulgar saying is Homo est arbor inversa The roote is to a tree as the Head is to a man and therefore our Saviour sayd I will build my Church vpon this Rock after he had saied to S. Peter that he was a Rock In this manner the Centurists Cent 3. col 85. say that Origines Tract 5. in Matth dicit Petrus per promissionem meruit fieri Ecclesiae fundamentum and yet that Hom 17 in Lucam Petrum vocat Apostolorum Principem where we see that S. Peter is called both a Foundation and a Prince Chiefe or Head 34. But now giue me leaue to say plainly that it is intollerable in you to impugne by Reasons which you expressie only call probabilityes a matter delivered clearly in Scripture testifyed by Antiquity embraced by Nations and corroborated by the great Plea of Possession peacefull and tyme out of mynd against all which what wisdom is it to oppose meere Topicall Socinian conjectures You saie First That S. Peter should haue authority
judgment and discourse as Ch. Ma. does when he sayes mans vnderstanding must be enabled to apprehend that End and Meanes by a supernaturall knowledg you do not distinguish it from knowledg in generall or as it is common to all the particular species of acts in the vnderstanding evident obscure certaine probable c. and then you fall into that very thing which you object against your adversary that Faith is knowledg taking knowledg in generall as I explicated aboue Yet all this is nothing to the Philosophy which you deliver in these words Faith is not knowledg no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it But if you consider well you will find that three taken materially is contained formally in foure or if you take them as they are distinct species the one is not contained in the other but are indivisibly distinct in nature and essence and exclusiue one of another and therfore your inference so that he that knowes believes ād something more but he that believes many times does not know cannot be good taking knowledg as you doe and vpon which acception you ground your objection for an evident knowledg as if an evident assent did necessarily and vniversally include belief that is an obscure or inevident assent either formally as is manifest it doth not or eminently seing an humane naturall knowledg though it be evident is not more perfect than an inevident certaine and supernaturall act of divine Faith and yourself pretend that you are ready to renounce all evidence of whatsoever human reason in comparison of any truth revealed in Scripture You say a knowledg of a thing absolutely vnknownen is a plain implicancy but you say so to no purpose since Ch. Ma. never saied that Faith is knowledg as knowledg is taken for any particular species of knowledg which is evident But in the meane time looke how you can reconcile your owne words he that knowes believes and something more whereof I haue spoken already Finally Faith must be an evident knowledg in your opinion who hold it to be an evident conclusion clearly deduced from evident premisses and so you impugne yourself not your adversary Your N. 3.4.5 haue bene answered already Only I obserue that Hooker cited in your margent for any thing that can be gathered by his words vnderstands no more than that Faith is not so absolutely certain as knowledg speaking of certainty joynd with evidence wherein all men cannot but agree whereas the certainty of Faith is of a different kind of certainty derived from the Diviue Testimony and speciall motion of the Holy Ghost and such as doth not necessitate vs to an assent because it implies obscurity which makes nothing for your purpose who teach that Faith hath no absolute certainty either evident or obscure 5. In answer to your N. 6. you know C. Ma never resolves Faith into Tradition in your sense as it signifies meere humane testimony but teaches that the infallible Proposer of Divine Uerityes is the Church of every age and other arguments of credibility are of themselves only preparations and dispositions to an act of Faith but the Church we belieue to be infallible by the same meanes whereby the Apostles proved themselves to be infallible as I shewed Chap 5. Thus the first contradiction which you impute to C. Ma. is of no force as also the second which goes vpon a very fals and injurious assertion that Charit Ma professes to haue no assurance but that Protestants dying Protestants may possibly die with Contrition and be saved whereof I treated Chap 8. 6. Your N. 7. gives vs a strang kind of Philosophy while you say That obscure and evident are affections not of our assent but of the object of it not of our belief but of the thing believed whereas the direct contrary is true For objects or things in thēselves are neither evidēt nor obscure but by acts of ours and from thē receyue an extrinsecall denomination of evident obscure certaine or probable Otherwise the same object should be in itself at the same tyme obscure evident certaine probable doubtfull confused distinct perfect imperfect as at the same tyme it may chance to terminate different kinds of acts and even God who is infinite Light should be obscure yea imperfect because in this life we can know him only ex parte and imperfectly Yourself in this very next N. 8. say We cannot be infallibly certain of the Truth of the things which we belieue vnless our evidence of it were of the highest degree where you declare that evidence is ours and not inherent in the objects as green or blew are and therefore our sight is not green or blew as you N. 7. infer it must be if our assent itself could be called obscure and yet it is more abfurd to say our sight is greene ther that the object v.g. God himself is obscure probable vncertaine confused imperfect because he may be knowne by such different acts And this your example is retorted against yourself For as the same object without any alteration in itself may beseene clearly and dimly by different acts of our Eye which makes it cleare that the more or less cleareness is in the act of seeing not in the thing seene so we must say of our vnderstanding which is the Eye of our soule that evidence probability c. are in the Acts of that Eye and not in the objects which are vnderstood Whereby it appeares that you had no reason to please yourself so much in this ignorance of yours as to vpbraied Ch. Ma. and saye In other places I answer your words but heere I must answer your meaning The word vnknowne as I noted aboue which you cite out of Ch. Ma. should haue bene put to the Errata and corrected vnknowing as it appeares by the word with which he joynes it and by which he declares it saying or inevident and by the words which follow that Faith absolutely should be obscure in itself The rest of this Number hath bene answered at larg heretofore neither is there any particular difficulty in your N. 8. 7. In your N. 9.10 you say to Ch. Ma. For your making Prudence not only a commendation of a believer but also essentiall to it and part of the definition of it in that Questionlesse you were mistaken Answer C. Ma. sayes not that Prudence is essentiall to Faith and parte of the definition of it nor in the definition which he gives N. 8. prudence is so much as mentioned Yet for the thing itselfe seing I haue proved in the Introduction that Faith is supernaturall in essence and cannot be produced but by the speciall grace of the holy Ghost whatsoever you may thinke to the contrary and that the Holy Ghost cannot moue to an action all things considered imprudent it followes that an act of Faith cannot be imprudent as it is impossible it should be supernaturall in essence and not involue an order or reference to a supernaturall
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
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
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
48 p. 880. The commandements may be kept with the grace of God but not without it J. n. 26. p. 20. 2. No communion in Divine service can be lawfull with those of a different Faith c. 7 n. 82 p. 511 VVho leaves to communicate in what all agree leaves the communion of all And in what all otherwise devided doe agree must be true n. 118 p. 538. 539. Communion of Protestants is composed of contradictory members and consistent with all sorts of Heretiques n. 67 p. 501 sequen In what sense a Community can oblige it selfe c. 11. n. 47 p. 680 Private Confession averred by Protestants to be necessary and that otherwise Christ had given the power of the eyes in vaine c. 2 n. 17 p. 128 It is a Divine precept c. 16 n. 17 p. 943 Consequences probably only deduced out of points of Faith are not points of Faith c 10 n. 21 p. 646 Contradictoryes not vnderstood to be such may be be beleeved c. 1. n. 54. p. 76. Concerning centradictoryes Chill Doctâ—ine is discussed disproved and the bad consequences of it shewed c. 13. n. 20. p. 802. sequentibus The Councell of Trent sufficient to convince the truth of Catholique Religion J. n. 10. p. 7. Generall councells if not infallible cannot end controversies of Faith c. 2. n. 45. p. 483. The Doctrine of Lawd concerning Generall Councells and sequels drawne from it in favour of Catholiques c. 7. n 40. p. 481. sequen Also from the Doctrine of I hil and Potter concerning the same n. 160. P. 579 sequen aÌ„d n 48 p. 48â— Of the Creed through all the c. 13. It is averred by Chil. to be receaved by vniversall tradition independent of Scripture and that the principles of Faith may be knowne by it independent also of Scripture and yet teaches that only Scripture is receaved by vniversall Tradition and that it is necessary to know the principles of Faith c. 13. n. 5. p. 791. Proved that it cannot be a sufficient Rule of Faith seeinge Potter graunts it needs a new declaration for emergent heresies n. 6. p. 792. D Doctrine may be taught effectually and yet resistibly c. 12. n. 79. p. 766. The Donatists had a Bishop at Rome to seeme true Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome c. 15 n. 11. p. 894 Their hatted to Catholiques imitated by Protestants n. 12. p. 895. They were justly sayd to be confind to Africa having no where else any considerable number n. 36. it should haue been 35. p. 916. which is put 816. They had no Divine Faith c. 16. n. 19. p. 943. 944. Their heresy of rebaptization Ibid A doubt properly taken destroyes probability c. 1. n. 53. p. 75. 76. Reflected vpon and embraced it is not vnvoluntary n. 54. p. 76. Apprchended but rejected is no voluntary doubt Ibid E Errours in themselves not damnable cannot be damnable to be held c. 14. n. 44. p. 877. 878. The Evangelists did not themselves put the Titles of their Gospells c. 2. n. 158. p. 235. Evangelists alwayes in the Church c. 12. n. 100. p. 783. Eucharist altered in matter and forme by heretiques c. 2. n. 40. p. 147. 148. Never held necessary by the Church to be given to Infants n. 207. p. 273. If in the Eucharist Christ be present Protestants expose theÌ„selves more to sinne then Catholiques if he be not present c. 4. n. 65. p. 394. 395. Evidence of things contained in Scripture diversly vnderstood e. 2. n. 6. p. 123. seq In what sense Catholiques may affirme that all things necessary for the church are evidently contayned in Scripture n. 9. p. 125. Evidence to Sectaryes is what they fancye c. 7. n. 56. p. 491. Of Evils the lesser may and must be to llerated for avoiding greater c. 12. n. 57. p. 751. And n. 59. p. 753. Uide Perplexity Excommunicaton doth not first separate a Schismatique from the church but presupposes his owne voluntary separation which also may remaine a though the excommunication were taken of c. 7. n. 64. p. 499. deinceps Chilling must separate from the church of England which exeommunicates whosoever affirmes that the 39. Articles containe superstâ—â—â—oÌ„ or errour n. 66. p. 501. The difference betwixt excommunication and Schisme n. 64. p. 499. and n 104. p. 529. F Faith of Christians proved infallible c. 1. per totum VVithout a circle c. 5. per tonum Infallible Faith strictly commanded as the first stepp to all merit c. 1. n. 95. p. 103 The infallibility of it is taught by the light of reason and instinct of nature as that there is a God n. 2. 3. 4. p. 38. 39. Acknowledged by Protestants n. 5. p. 39. sequent It is proved by Scripture by Fathers by reason n. 9. p. 30. sequen It is required for acts of supernaturall vertues and consequently it selfe is supernaturall n. 98. p. 105. It takes its essence from Diuine Revelation c. 12. n. 20 it is put 14 p. 720. It is of its essence indivisible but divisible in intension c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq It is an intellectuall vertue repugnant to errour n. 28 p. 59 It determines to truth and corrects reason c. 1. n. 29 p. 60 Compared with naturall science an act of Faith is most certaine but the acts of Faith compared amongst themselves may exceed one another in graduall perfection c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 seq Supernaturall Faith may be without Charity but cannot overcome the world without it n. 61 p. 80 Nor is it an efficient cause of the habit of Charity n. 67 p. 83 84 The certainty of it takes not away free will n. 62 p. 81 seq The infallibility of Faith is only requisit for the generall groundsâ— for the particular applicatioÌ„ or matter of fact a morall certainty suffices c. 4 n. 11 p. 357 seq and n. 30 p. 376 377 what is necessary for the eâ—ercising a true act of Faith n. 13 p. 359 Heretiques opposit doctrines about Faith c. 1 n. 1 p. 38 Potter and I hil directly opposit about the infallibility of it n. 6 p. 40 The Faith of I hil and the sequels of it in his owne grounds paraleld with the Catholique and convinced to be most preiudiciall to salvation n 75 p. 88 89 90 Fallibility of Christian Faith is scandalous to Iewes Turks and Painims n. 1 p. 37 It brings to Athisme Ib and n. 100 p. 107 casts into agonyes and perplexityes Those that hold it dare not declare themselves Ib I hil would seeme to admitt of infallibility n. 39 p. 66 67 and supernaturality n. 93 p. 103 His examples to shew that fallible Faith is sufficieÌ„t for salvation are examined and convinced to proue the contrary A nu 102 p. 109 ad finem capit Fallible Faith is alwayes ready to destroy it selfe n. 105 p. 111 112 It was cause of I hil so often changes Ibid He acknowledges that in such a Faith nothing caÌ„ be settled n. 22 p. 54 55 He
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
still goes vpon that ground that there are no Degrees of perfection in Faith which I haue demonstrated to be euidently false and that all Faith is of the same kind but not of the same Degree besides that it hath the imperfection of obseurity and for that cause doth not so conuince the vnderstanding but that it may be resisted and the contrary belieued And therfor you cannot inferr vpon equality of faith in all true Belieuers that our victory of the world must be equally perfect in all 60. Thirdly if you had cited the testimony of S. Iohn as you ought the weakness and impertinency of your Argument would haue clearly appeared His words are 1. Ioan 5. V. 3.4.5 This is the Charity of God that yee keepe his commandements and his commandements are not heauy Because all that is borne of God ouercomes the world and this is the victory that ouercomes the world our faith Who is it that ouercomes the world but he that belieues that Iesus is the son of God Where it is cleare that S. Iohn speakes of faith with Charity which is called by Diuines Fides formata faith informed with Charity by which we keepe the commamdements as he sayth V. 3. This is the Charity of God that yee keepe his commandements And V. 4. All that is borne of God ouercomes the world Now we are borne or regenerated to a new life or Being by justifying Grace and the Gifts which are giuen with it of Faith Hope and Charity and therfor he adds This is the victory which ouercomes the world our faith that is such a faith as the Regenerate or they who receyue a new life haue or a liuing faith working by Charity 61. Fourthly according to this true sense your Objection is wholy impertinent as speaking of a naked faith taken alone as it goes before Charity as like wise it doth not proue that such a naked faith doth necessarily bring with it Charity and so is the victory ouer the world For what consequence is it to say Faith as informed with Charity cannot be without Charity or is the victory ouer the world Therfor Faith taken by it selfe and considered only according to its owne nature and essence and abstracting from Charity is inseparable from Charity and the victory ouer the world An Argument no better than this The Body with the soule liues and makes a man Therfor the Body of it selfe liues and makes a man which is directly against S. Iames C. 2. V. 26. saying Euen as the body without the spirit is dead so also faith without workes is dead This appeares also by what S. Iohn sayth V. 5. Who is he that ouercometh the world but he that belieueth that Iesus is the son of God Which must be vnderstood of him who so belieues in our Sauiour as that he loues him and keepes his commādements For meerly to belieue Christ is the son of God is but that Faith which Protestants call Historicall and unanimously teach that it doth not justify nor is inseparable from Charity nor is the victory ouer the world And therfor interpreters vnderstand this Text of a liuing Faith or joyned with Charity And so this place makes against you and proues that Faith of it selfe though neuer so infallible is not the victory ouer the world But the weakness of this mans Socinian probable Faith forces him to reele from faith to faith From Historicall to Faith of working Miracles From justifying faith to Historicall From both to a No-faith that is to a faith so weake that by it a man may belieue Christian Faith not to be true as we noted against you by occasion of the text of S. Paule about receyuing him who is Weake in faith 62. Fistly the whole force of your Argument must rely vpon the truth of this Proposition Whatsoeuer the vnderstanding proposes to the will with absolute certainty as a thing to be done the will cannot but follow the prescript of the vnderstanding and therfor if Christian Faith be infallible certaine our will must embrace what it proposes and so ouercome the world and sinne and be perfect in Charity which Principle to be palpably false is euident by Reason Experience Faith and by the Doctrine of all Protestants at least for as much as concernes that kind of Faith wherof we speake that is Historicall Faith Reason dictates that notwithstanding the certainty of Faith the vnderstanding may propose profitable and delightfull objects For these thinges haue no repugnance but do consist togeather It is certaine that this object is honest and that the same object is vnpleasant repugnant to sence honour profit c and therfore the will placed betweene these different motiues the vnderstanding which proposeth them all hath no power to necessitate the will to any of them it being represented with as great certainty that such an object is difficult vnpleasant or vnprofitable as it appeares honest and Vertuous Neither doth certainty in the vnderstanding necessitate vs more to embrace it as honest than the like certainty doth necessitate vs to fly from it as vnpleasant especially considering that Faith is obscure and alluring objects are cleare euen to sense Faith respects things to come or els aboue the reach of our vnderstanding humane objections and objects are of things present or not farr of Befides if certainty did impose a necessity it must follow that at the same tyme we must effectually embrace the same object as honest and fly from it as vnpleasant which is impossible We must therfor say that it remaynes in the will to determine it selfe to which part it pleaseth hauing sufficient direction from the vnderstanding for either side Sinnes were wont to be diuided into sinnes of Ignorance and of Knowledg that is committed by Ignorance or with knowledge but now if certaine knowledg of good necessitate our will to embrace it no sinne can consist with certaine Knowledg of good and so all sinnes are sinnes of ignorāce and that old distinction of Philosophers and Diuines must be corrected by this your new Philosophy and Diuinity 63. As for Experience who knowes not or rather who teeles not that vulgar saying Video meliora proboque Deteriora sequor I see that which is better and like it well but follow that which is worse 64. Lastly Faith teaches that we are indued with Free-will which may embrace or reject what is proposed by the vnderstanding Wherin all Protestants for our present purpose agree with Catholikes both in regard that they yeald Freedom of will to Angels and Adam before their fall who yet belieued by an infallible assent that there was a God and other mysteryes reuealed to them as also because they profess that Historicall Faith and of that Faith we speake doth not justify nor infallibly bring with it Charity Therfor it doth not necessitate our will Yea euen those Protestants who deny Free-will hold not that the will is necessitated by the Act of Faith which directs but by the effectuall
ground of Protestāts which being well pondered will make it a hard task for them to alledge any text of scripture to the purpose in hand They teach that only after the Canon of scripture was perfited it became a sufficient Rule of Faith and consequently before that tyme we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therin Therfor do I infer no scripture could affirme that scripture contaynes all necessary poynts except that book yea text which was written last and did make vp the whole Canon and all precedent parts of scripture could only speake in the future tense and as it were by way of prophecy that other books of scripture were to be written and that then the scripture would be sufficiēt for all necessary points For which propheticall kind of meaning Protestants do not alledg scripture as for example that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New or that one part of the new contaynes a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow which to affirme were groundless and ridiculous And who can say that the scripture which was written last affirmes the sufficiency of scripture alone If Protestants haue any such assurance let them shew vs in that last booke or text the words which evidently contayne such a meaning and asseveration For on that last text alone they must rely for the reasons alledged that without that text the Canon was not complete Add yet further that it being not certaine what part of Canonicall scripture was the last they cannot with certainty alledg any one text of the whole Bible to proue their purpose And much will be added to their difficulty if we consider that Protestants do not agree whether some of those scriptures which were the last or among the last be Canonicall or no for example the Apocalips the second and third Epistle of S. John which by some Protestants are expressly put out of the Canon And then how can they so much as offer vs any proofe from the old Testament since it is impossible to be done out of the new as hath bene proved 60. Tenthly Although what I haue sayd were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants to alledg any text of scripture for their purpose yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader in a matter of such moment mēt I will as I sayd aboue examine the texts vsually alledged ādshew that they are neither evidēt nor probable nor pertinent Wherby I shall not only confute all their proofes but joyntly bring a convincing argument for vs against them whose Doctrine must needs fall if they be demonstrated to faile in their allegation of scripture for this maine poynt And it is to be observed that Chilling seemes in effect to acknowledg that it is hard to alledg any effectuall text for his purpose while he is very sparing in producing scripture but makes perpetually vse of Topicall arguments and discourses as for example if scripture were not evident in all things necessary we could not be obliged to belieue them ād the like being indeed conscious that the places of scripture commonly alledged by Protestants are of small force 61. To the words objected out of Deut 4.2 You shall not add to the word which I speak to you I answer they cannot signify that all things which the Iewes were obliged to belieue or practise were contayned evidently in scripture alone as if the writing of Moyses did exclude the ordinary living Rule permanent amongst the Iewes to witt the Definition of the Priest of which it is sayd Deut 17.8 If thou perceyue that the judgmēt with thee be hard and doubtfull c or as if it excluded Moyses himself or the rest of this veryfourth chapter out of which the objection is taken or other chapters which he wrote afterward even in that book of Deuteronomy which hath in all 34. Chapters or the last Chapter which could not be written by Moyses but Esdras or Iosue disciple ād successour to Moyses as appeares by the same Chapter V. 5.6 where the death and buriall of Moyses is described and it is sayd Deuter 34.6 no man hath knowne his sepulcre vntill this present day or the commāds which the Prophets somtyme gaue as 1. Reg. 15. or some solemnityes or Feast instituted for thāksgiving for some benefit or as if after those words of Moyses ād after his death no scripture could be written by Iosue and other Canonicall writers amongst the Iewes in the Old or Christians in the New Law for feare of transgressing You shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you Therfor ethose words You shall not add to the word c must haue some other meaning then these mē would violently giue them against the express words themselves which are not You shall not add to the writing which I write to you but to the word which I speak to you which if we respect the letter signifyes rather vnwritten tradition than any thing written in scripture And that the Jewes had vnwritten traditions see Brierly Tract 1. sect 4. subdivis 6. citing both ancient Fathers and Protestant writers and so this text makes for tradition against the objectours rhemselves Besides You shall not add to the word may signify contrary to it by declining to the right or left hand as is sayd Cap 5. V. 32. especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor as it followes V. 3. or of some other new Deity or Idoll For Moyses in all this Chapter and frequently in deuter intends to exclude new Gods and Rites Thus the Hebrew al that is ad is taken for contra Psalm 2.2 and numbers 14.2 so Gal. 1.8 S. Paul denounces an anathema to those who evangelize aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit praeter beside that is contra against for he treates of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme This appeares in the words of the same verse you shall not add to the word which I speak to you neither shall you take away from it keepe the commandements of your God which I command you Which latter words signify that to add or take away from Gods word is to breake or doe somthing against his commādemēts ād not to doe somthing which is not commāded so it be not forbidden and otherwise may tend to Gods glory Otherwise the Iewes added many things to the Law of God as engravings the ornaments of the temple Dayes of lottes Esth 9.31 the Feast of fire given the Feast of the Dedication c. All which considered who doth not see what a strange Argument this is Moyses sayth to the Iewes thou shall not add to the word which I speake Therfor nothing must be believed or practised by Iewes or Christians which is not exprest in writing or scripture yea in the scripture of the old Law and what is this but to condemne the Law of Christ 63. Toar those words search the Scriptures spoken by
errour and the same Heaven cannot containe them both wherby your Question why should any errour exclude any from the Churches Communion which will not depriue him of eternall salvation Is clearly inverted and retorted by saying Why should not any errour exclude any man from the Churches communion which will depriue him of eternall salvation The Arguments which you bring in this Number and N. 41.42.43 to proue that every one of the foure Gospells containes all points necessary to be believed haue been confuted at large hertofore 19. To your N. 44. and 45. I answer that Dr. Vshers words are as vniversall as can be whÌ„ he speakes of Propositions which without all controversie are vniversally receaved in the whole Christian world And if you will needs haue his other words the sevrrall professions of Christianity that hath any large spread in any part of the world to be a Limitation of those other which you haue now cited I am content vpon condition that you confesse it to be also a contradiction to those former words of his As for the thing itselfe Cha Ma names places of large extent in which the Antitrinitarians are rife and I feare he might haue added too many in England Holland and other places wher Heresy raignes and even Dr. Porter cites Hooker and Morton teaching that the deniall of our Saviours Divinity is not a Fundamentall heresy destructiue of a true Church neither doth the Doctor disproue them Paulus Ueridicus I grant names the B. Trinity among coinopista not as if Dr. Vsher had affirmed it to be such but as in Truth it is necessary for all or rather indeed he affirmes nothing but only as they say exempligratia by way of supposition which abstracts from the Truth of the thing itselfe For thus you cite his words To consider your coinopista or communiter credenda Articles as you call them vniversally believed by these severall professions of Christianity which haue any large spread in the world These Articles for example may be the vnity of the Godhead the Trinity of Persons the Immortality of the soule c Where you see he speakes only exempli gratia or by a may be according to the Doctrine of Catholiks without regarding whether or no in the opinion of Dr. Vsher the denyall of the Trinity exclude salvation But it is both ridiculous and vnjust in you to call this the greatest objection of Charity Maintayned which he touched only by the way and in order to Dr. Vâ—shers words For concerning the thing itselfe Protestants who deny the infallibility of Gods Church will not I feare hold the denyall of the Trinity to be a fuÌ„dameÌ„tall errour seing so many old heretiques haue denied the Truth of that Article and you with your Socinian brethren doe the same at this day and pretend many texts â—f Scripture for your Heresy If 〈◊〉 had at hand Paulus Ueridiâ—us perhaps I could discover somewhâ—t more against you For I remember he shewes how according to Dr. Vshers discourse and grounds divers Articles of Christian Faith may be cassiered and cast out of the Church and he finds so much matter against the Doctor as it is no wonder if he in his short examination tooke no notice of the contradiction which Charity Maintayned touches as he Charity Maintayned takes not notice of all the advantages or other contradictions which perhaps he might haue found and which Paulus Ueridicus observes but that was not the ayme of Ch Ma in his answer to Potter 20. In your N. 46. you say There is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions Which N. 47. you declare or temper in this manner Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions and that it is vnreasonable to doe soe I willingly grant But to say it is impossible to be done is against every mans experience and almost as vnreasonable as to doe the thing which is saied to be impossible For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition to perswade themselves vpon slight and triviall grounds that these or these though they seeme contradictions yet indeed are not so and so to belieue them or if the plaine repugnance of them be veiled and disguised a little with some empty vnintelligible non-sense distinction or if it be not exprest but implyed not direct but by consequence so that the parties to whose Faith the propositions are offered are either innocently or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions he that denies it possible must be a meer stranger in the world Thus you after your fashion involuing things in obscurity that one cannot penetrate what you would say but that you may haue an evasion against whatsoever may be obsected As for the thing it selfe There is no doubt but that men may belieue things which in themselves are contradictions wherof we need no other proofe then to shew that it happeneth so to yourselfe if you belieue what you affirme even in this matter wherin I shall demonstrate to be implied plaine contradiction But when men say with one voyce that we cannot assent to contradictions it is to be vnderstood if they be apprehended as such and therfore it might seeme needlesse to spend many words in confutation of this heresie as I may call it against the first principle of Reason Yet because your reasons may perhaps seeme to some to proue more since even in your explication or modification you saie only perhaps and may be of that which all the world holds for certaine and for the ground of all certainty in humane Reason and because if they be well considered they strike at the sublime mysteries of Christian Religion and in regard this is an age of Academiks and Sceptiks who willingly put all things to dispute wherby vnder pretence of freedome in Reason they take liberty against Religion as also to shew how little reason you had to take this vaine occasion of a fond flourish to shew a Socinian wit and lastly because by this occasion I may examine some other points I will both confute your reasons and shew that you contradict yourselfe 21. Only I cannot for beare to reflect how he who resolves Faith into Reason so much extold by him that he relyes theron as Catholiks doe vpon the infallibility of Gods Church or Calvinists vpon the private spirit or on the Grace of God which both Catholiks and Protestants against Pelagius belieue to be necessary for every Act of Divine Faith how I say this man doth now so extenvate Reason that if it indeed were so miserable and foolish as he makes it we might better belieue our dreames than our reason wherby he destroies all that himselfe builds vpon Reason and consequently Faith it selfe which in
his principles must be resolved into Reason just as I sayd hertofore that although he seeme in words to extoll Scripture as a Perfect Rule the only ground of our Faith containing evidently all necessary points and the like yet indeed by his wicked Tenets concerning it he deprives it of all authority and makes it vnable to deliver vs any thing with absolute certainty A just judgment of God to bring provd men to confusion and intrap them in their owne snares and proue their wisdome to be but foolishness even by crossing and contradicting themselves and overthrowing the maine foundations of their pretended friends or clients as this man destroyes the maine ground of Socinians Reason and the only Rule of Protestants Scripture If contradictions may be true you or any other may write Books with much security and without feare of being confuted For when you are brought to the hard exigent of acknowledging contradictions your answer will be that one may assent to contradictions and so one by all his paines taken to confute you shall only proue what you grant and seeke to proue And in particular it will be impossible to confute the Reasons whereby you endeavour to proue this your assertion because whatsoever is alledged can inferr no greater absurdity than that which you grant that contradictoryes may be true And on the other side it will not be in your power to confute any man seing the most you can doe will be to driue him vnto contradictions which he being taught by you will say is no absurdity and so all will be at a stand and become silent disputants And it may be true that euen this your assertion contradictions may be true may be saied both to be true and fals or not true And by what Logick can you or any who holds this Doctrine be confuted Not ostensiuè as Logicians speak because this is primum principium of all other nor deducendo ad absurdum or impossible seing the greatest absurdity that one can be brought to is that which you grant And there fore Christianity maintayned Pag 62. saied truly that your Reasons if you hold them for good must proue the contrary of that which you intended that is your proofes that we may assent to contradictions must suppose that we cannot assent to them which if you do not suppose you will never be able to convince any man in any thing Besides if your Reasons proue any thing they proue that one may assent to formall contradictions which yet you pretend to deny and therefore even in this respect you in fact hold contradictions But let vs heare your Reasons 22. Your first is this Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must belieue But there haue bene some who haue believen and taught that contradictions might be true against whom Aristoile disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks Therefore it is not impossible that a man may belieue contradictions 23. Answer 1. We haue heard you saying N. 47. Perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction Now I ask whether those men whom Aristotle impugnes were in their right wits or no If they were Then your Argument if it proue any thing proves that it is possible for men in their right wits to belieue contradictions expressed in termes for Aristotle speaks of such cōtradictions And then how do you say It is difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction Seing in our case it is all one to be difficult and impossible since that which the light of reason tells vs is that it is impossible and not only difficult and if you deny it to be impossible you will not be able to proue it difficult neither did they whom Aristotle impugnes make any distinction between being difficult and impossible So that this parte of the Answer to my Dilemma which supposes those men to be in their wits doth indeed put them our of their wits because according to your owne doctrine they could not assent to contradictions if they were in their wits But if those men were out of their wits surely you ought not to take mad men for Maisters in Metaphysicks which is no better than to suborne sleeping witnesses as the Jewes did against our Saviours resurrection and as you doe to proue your chimericall Assertion 2. If you belieue that one may belieue contradictions how will you proue this consequence some haue believed and taught that contradictions might be true Therfore he may and must belieue contradictions If you say It implies contradictions that one should belieue a thing to be true and yet that it is impossible for him to assent to it it will be answered what then Do you not suppose and teach even this which in this answer you take to be absurd that one may assent to contradictions will you haue it possible that one may assent to contradictions when you affirme it and not possible when an other sayes the same 3. If any saied and believed that contradictions might be true they erred against the first and most knowne Principle of nature and so as you inferr Contradictoryes were believed to be true therfore they might be believed to be true I take the contrary truth It is knowne by the light of nature that contradictories cannot be true and infer Therefore it is impossible to belieue them being conceived to be Contradictoryes if men be in theyr wits If you conceyue Aristotle did sufficiently confute those men why do you alledg theyr confessed fals doctrine to proue that which you pretend to be true Certainly this is neither an honest kind of proceeding nor a good way of proving If your opinion be that he did not refell them effectually without doubt it had bene a Work beseeming your wit to haue confuted Aristotle and defended those men whose doctrine vnless you maintaye your Argument taken from theyr conceypts can be of no force at all Neither had it bene needfull for you to haue studied what Title had bene fittest for such a Work For you might haue remembred that Simon Magus is saied to haue written Books which he called Contradictorios Uid Baron Ann. Christi 35. N. 23. A Title most agreable to your genius both because in this place you expressly defend Contradictions and in regard that through your whole Booke you do indeed fall into them more frequently than I could haue imagined Yet as for those men whom Aristotle impugnes it is one thing that they saied they believed Contradictions might be true and an other that indeed they could belieue them if they were in their right wits and vnderstood what were true contradictories In which respect Aristotle Metaphys Lib 4. Cap 3. saieth Nonenim necesse est quaecumque quis dicat ea etiam putare But this is not the first tyme that you confound the first and second operation of the