vniversall Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour and yet haue beene still the Church You must answer your owne Argument which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe by saying 5. First No particular man or Church may hold any sinfull and damnable errour and yet be a member of the Church vniversall Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants if they vnderstand themselves and as I haue often sayd Potter confesseth that it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian not to disbelieue any point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God and that he who does so is an heretike and that heresy being a worke of the flesh excludes from the kingdome of Heaven And what a Church would you haue that to be which consists of Heretikes 6. Secondly To put a parity between particular men or Churches and the Church vniversall may very well beseeme some Socinian who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason and therfore no wonder if such a Church be subject to corruptions no lesse than private men whose naturall witts and reason must integrate as I may say the whole Authority of and certainty in such a Church and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours the Church cannot be free from them yea she must containe in her bosome or rather bowells such corruptions and errours and so many poysons contradictory one to another and yet not breake A noble latitude of hart and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity But for vs your Argument hath no force at all For we belieue the Church to be the Meanes wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding and to be the Judge of Controversyes as hath beene proved hertofore at large and this being supposed we must make vse of your owne words Pag 35. N. 7. That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth From whence it followes that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion Which is further confirmed by those words of yours Pag 9. N. 6. No consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therfore it is not infallible Therfore say I to affirme that the Church can erre is to say she is not infallible nor can be judge of Controversyes nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding nor could she be a Guide even in matters Fundamentall as we haue proved els where and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good And in a word she would cease to be that Church which we are sure she is 7. Thus you say that Scripture which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith and decider of Controversyes must be vniversally infallible and that any the least errour were enough to blast the whole Authority therof As also if the Apostles who were appointed to teach Divine Truths could by word or writting haue taught any falshood we could not haue relyed on their Authority in any point of faith great or little 8. You say Pag 143. N. 30. There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity 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 haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour These your words prompt vs a ready Answer and disparity between the Church and private persons who if they fall into errour the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church But if the Church erre to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting her errour Nay I do take a forcible Argument by inverting and retorting your owne words For supposing your Doctrine that we belieue Scripture to be true and the word of God for the Authority of the Church and another saying of yours that a proofe must be more knowne to vs than the thing proved otherwise say you it is no proofe I argue thus There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture as for the Church For if false Scripture be obtruded it may be discovered by comparing it with the Tradition and consent of the Church from which we receiue the Scripture as the word of God and consequently all the certainty we haue of the contents therof But if the Church may erre to whom shall we haue recourse for discovering and correcting her errours seing as I sayd to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine will be to no purpose because that very Rule cā be of no force with vs but for the Authority of the Church which therfore must be as great or greater with vs then Scripture it selfe according to your owne saying The proofe must be more knowne than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd Matt 5. Uos est is sal terrae you are the salt of the earth But if the salt leese his vertue wherwith shall it be salted Vpon which words S. Austine L. 1. de serm Domini in monte C. 6. saith Si vos c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned forfeite the kingdome of heaven vpon feare of temporall persecution what other persons shall be found to free you from errour seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others So we may say If the Church which God hath appointed to teach others and deliver them the Scripture should erre who could be found to discover and correct that errour Your Argument is no better than this If a man may be a man though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body as fingers feete c. why may he not remaine a man though he want some parts absolutly necessary for the conservation of him in Being as hart head braine c. For infallibility in the Church is a priviledge necessary and as I may say essentiall to her as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith which office belonging to no private persons infallibility is not necessary for them 9. To your vaine subtility That we say It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church that makes an errour damnable and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church I meane that the present Church should oppose it selfe From whence you would collect that if the Church should erre yet her errour being not damnable as not opposite to the Church herselfe she might still remaine a Church I answer By the same reason you may say the Apostles might erre and yet remaine of the Church and their
not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true vnless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholique cānot erre in Points not fundamētall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmes to erre only in points not fundamētall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamētall This is the Argumēt of Ch Ma and is it not cleare that if the Church Catholique can erre for example in the Doctrines of Purgatory Invocations of Saynts reall presence and the like as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did erre and that they were reformers of such errours seing the Roman Church may and doth hold the same Doctrines the Church vniversall and the Roman Church shall agree in the same pretended errours and so Potter saied not truly that if we agree with the Roman Church for example about Purgatory Praiers to saynts c we cannot agree with the Church Catholique Will you deny the Axiom Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se If then the vniversall and the Roman Church agree in the belief of errours as you falsly terme them do they not agree one with an other And so contrary to Potters affirmation it must be saied If we did dissent from these opinions of the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church Catholique if once it be supposed that the Church holds those or the like vnfundamentall errours as you grant she may And further it would follow that seing Protestants dissent from the Roman Church they cannot agree with the Catholique Church But let vs heare how you make good your censure 69. You say let vs suppose either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church may erre in some few things but that the Roman errs in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches infallibility a man may truly saie vnless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therfore you must retract your imputation laied vpon Dr. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may held some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same tyme with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same tyme to agree with the Roman and the Catholique 70. Answer Your conscience cannot but witness that the Doctor when he saied If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique did not speak of accidentall cases or voluntary suppositions such as you put but meant and spoke absolutely that if we did not dissent from the Present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique For if he meant only of contingent cases without regard to any particular advantage or prerogatiue of the Church vniversall he might haue made suppositions directly contrary to yours that the Roman Church may erre but doth not but the vniversall actually doth or that the Roman Church doth erre in some few things but the Catholique errs in many more For if once it be granted the Catholique Church to erre to say she may erre in many or few is a voluntary vngrounded conjecture or divination and nothing to any purpose Nay seing if once the Catholik Church be supposed to erre she may multiply errours without end and so to day agree with to morrow disagree from the Roman Church and it must follow that according to your explication the Doctours words may be in a perpetuall alteration to day fals to morrow true which either was farre from his meaning or his meaning was not only impertinent but against his owne scope and Intention which was to make the vniversall Church as it were the Modell or Rule to judge of the necessity which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholiques which had bene no good reason if the vniversall Church may erre and erre as much and more than the Roman or any other partioular Church Which appeares also by these words of the Doctor in the same Pag 97. The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations vpon the divine Authority of Gods written word And therfore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded is justly esteemed an Heretique And P 132. he saieth For vs the mistaker nor his he Masters will never prove that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholique Church or any Fundamentall or other truth of Scripture and therefore he doth vnjustly charge vs with Schisme or Herisie Do not these sayings attribute more to the vniversall than to particular Churches and more than a meerely casualty that either she doth not actually erre or els erres in fewer things than the present Roman Church And vpon the whole matter is not that true which Charity Maintayned N. 22. saied That D. Potter must either grant that the Catholique Church cannot erre in Points not Fundamentall or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the saied words If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique Would not Protestants take it in ill parte if one should say If we did not dissent in some opinions from Protestants we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique And yet according to your explication and suppositions it could not be ill taken because either the Church might be supposed not to erre actually or in some few things but that the Protestants erre in many more it being manifest that some of them erre By the way when Potter saieth For vs the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholique Church or any truth of Scripture I would know whom he vnderstand by vs Seing it is evident that of Protestants holding so many contrary Doctrines some must of necessity oppose some Declaration of the Church or truth of Scripture and since they haue no certaine Rule to know which of them be in the wrong and oppose some Declaration of the Church or Scripture we must conclude that no man desirous of his salvation can commit his soule to any of them all Your Conclusion Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid vpon Dr Potter or doe that c. is obscure but I am sure it is answered seing it goes vpon your fals explication of the Doctors words 71. Your proceding N. 69. puts me vpon a necessity of intreating the Reader to peruse the N. 23. of Charity Maintayned which evidently demonstrates that it was wholy impertinent for you to answer the places which He saieth are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of Gods
advice of humility it being time enough for them to know and reflect that S. Peter was their Head by that expresse future declaration of our Saviour Joan 21. 38. Thirdly You would proue that S. Peter was not Head of the rest because the Scripture sayth God hath appointed first Apostles secondly Prophets but sayth not God hath appointed First Peter then the rest of the Apostles which to speake truth is a childish reason it being cleare that the Scripture in that place doth not compare the Apostles among themselves but with other degrees in the Church as Prophets Doctours c. Otherwise you might proue that one Magistrate can not be subordinate and subject to another if one for example should say the commonwealth consists of Magistrates and people because forsooth in that division you doe not expresse the authority of one Magistrate aboue another 39 Fourthly you say S. Paul professeth himself to be nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles and if S. Peter was Head of the Apostles it was a wonder that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himself as that mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour But I beseech you can you belieue that S. Paul would say of himself that he was not inferiour to the chiefest of the Apostles absolutely and in all things He accounted himself to be the first and chiefest amongst sinners and laments that he had bene a persecutor of Christians and will you needs vnderstand him to say that in such respects he was not inferiour to the other Apostles who were innocent of those things He was an Apostle as the others were and that is all you can vnderstand by his words and all that makes just nothing to the purpose But S. Paul mentions S. Peter without any Title of honour No more doth he giue any title to S. James though he were Bishop of Hierusalem which surely deserves some honour if the simplicity of those blessed tymes had bene accustomed to testify honour by titles Yourself say heere S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not haue supreme Authority over them and Protestants easily grant that he had that Priviledg of being first in order and honour how then will your answer your owne objection that it was a wonder S. Paul should mention him without any title of honour seing particular honour was due to him even by our Saviours command For from what other cause could it proceede But shall I disclose to you a mystery on which it seemes you do not reflect Our Saviour whose words are operatiue and deeds by calling S. Peter Cephas or a Rock had also made him such and saied Tues Petrus Thou art a Rock and vpon this Rock I will build my Church so that to name Peter is to call him the Foundation and head of the Church and all Christians and with what greater title of honour could any body mention any Creature we may therefore say of S. Peter as S. Ambrose saieth of the title of Martyr De Uirginibus Lib. 1. Quot homines tot praecones qui Martyrem praedidicant dum loquuntnr To name one a martyr is a title of honour and so it is to name Peter for the foresaied Reason 40. You conclude Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more fooleries say I not probabilities that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgment of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much less by Divine Right Successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the Government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church vniversall Especially seing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundation of the Church were to be the foundation of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in abuilding it is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation so it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 41. Answer If you suppose as for the present you doe that S. Peter by our Saviours institution and consequently by divine right was Head of the Apostles you should not say what incongruity is there but what incongruity is there not if we say that the Bishop of Rome might succeed S. Peter only in the Government of that particular Church For what can be more incongruous and foolish than to imagine that S. Peter was ordained by our Saviour Head of the Apostles and the whole Church only for his life time when there was no need and as we may saie litle vse thereof seing all the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Christians and Power to preach the Gospell through the whole world and so the necessity of such vniversall Power in S. Peter must haue relation to future Ages after the death of the Apostles and if it must still reside in some in whom can you imagine it to be seated except in him whom you deny not to be Successor of S. Peter for the Church of Rome And that Optatus supposed the vniversall Power of S. Peter to remaine in his Successors appeares by his words which I haue pondered aboue as also because he speakes of the Sea or Chaire of Rome as of the Rule whereby to judg of heresies and Schismes not only for the tyme of S. Peter but for ever and therefore he sets downe a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome only and saith Cathedra vnica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino successit Clemens Clementi Anacletus c and so goes on till his owne ayme And I would gladly know by what text of Scripture you can proue that the Power of S. Peter over the whole Church was so particular and personall to him that it ceased with his person Will you haue vs measure matters of Faith with your congruities or incongruities With your Socinian topicall humane vaine discourses What meane you by these words as sure he the Bishop of Rome did even while S Peter was living I will not examine heere whether or in what manner Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before S. Peters death wherof may be seene Baronius Anno 69. who saieth they were not Romanae sedis episcopi but only Coadjutores I beseech you remember what you saied N. 98. and 99. interpreting S. Cyprian and S. Optatus that in one particular Church at once there ought to be but one Bishop and certainly it is no consequence The Bishop of Rome appointed by S. Peter for Rome and supplying
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
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
though he set himselfe to sleepe and leaue things to their owne nature to shew the precise essence of things and what will follow in good consequence vpon such an hypothesis of an impossible thing as in our present case if the true Church were supposed to erre in points not Fundamentall still retaining infallibility in all fundamentalls it followes that it were more safe and less evill and therfore necessary vpon supposition of two vnavoidable evills to remaine in the Church rather than so forsake her for the reasons alledged hertofore wheras that supposition That the Church erres being taken away as indeed de facto it is alwayes taken away that is it is alwayes false and impossible the cleare consequence is that it is not only less evill but absolutely good and absolutely necessary to remaine in her Communion as by reason of the contrary not voluntary and speculatiue but practicall and reall and necessary supposition of errours acknowledged defacto in the Protestants Church without any pretence that she is in fallible in Fundamentalls as the vniversall Church is confessed to be even by our Adversaryes and in reall truth is infallible in all points both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall the Question cannot remaine whether it be less evill to remaine in the Communion of the Protestant Church but it must be believed as a thing certainly true that it is absolutely evill and the greatest evill seing that by aduering to the Catholique Church I am secure from all errours and by aduering to the Protestants I am sure to communicate with a Church stayned with errours by their owne Confession 157. Secondly I take an answer from what you saied aboue Pag. 290. N. 88. That errours not Fundamentall are repugnant to Gods command and so in their owne nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not vnpardonable From these words I say I will take an answer if first I haue told you you should haue sayd they are no sins and being no sins you should not haue sayd they are not vnpardonable but the contradictory they are vnpardonable that is they cannot be pardoned or are not capable of pardon because God cannot be sayd to pardon that with which he was never offended and pardon supposes an offense This very thing is taught by yourselfe Pag 19. where speaking of men who doe their best endeavours to know Gods will and doe it and to free themselves from all errours you say So well I am perswaded of the goodnes of God that if in me alone should meet a confluence of all such errours of all the Protestants in the world that were thus qualifyed I should not be so much afrayd of them all as I should be to aske pardon for them For to aske pardon of simple and purely involuntary errours is tacitly to imply that God is angry with vs for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he gives no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reape where he sowed not Of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe Therfore say I and you must inferr the same such errours are not capable of being pardoned yea you account it a kind of sacriledge to aske pardon for them But yet to shew how you are possessed with a perpetuall spirit vertiginis and contradiction to yourselfe I offer to your consideration what Pag 308. N. 108. you say of our pretended errours We hold your errours as damnable in themselves as you do ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not vnpardonable And Pag 290. N. 86. Having spoken of the erring of the Roman Church you add Which though we hope it was pardonable in them who had not meanes to know their errour yet of its owne nature and to them who did or might haue knowne their errours was certainly damnable Pag 263. N. 26 You cite and approue the saying of Dr. Potter that though our errrours were in themselves damnable and full of great impiety yet he hopes that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned and their soules saved What Mr. Dr. and Mr. Chillingworth Is it great mercy in God to pardon that which cannot possibly be any sin Is not this to vse your owne words Tacitly to imply that he is angry with vs for them and to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he giues no straw c of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe A great mercy not to doe that which were tyranny to doe to forgiue that which is no offense But as I am forced often to say it is no newes in you to contradict yourselfe 158. Now I will performe what I promised and shew that seing invincible ignorance in the opinion of all Philosophers and Divines excuses from sin if we can proue that every judicious man having vsed all diligence◠will find that whosoever joyning himselfe with our Church shall be sure either not to erre or at least not vincibly or culpably the consequence will be cleare that such errours will not be damnable to any such man but that he will be assured of salvation for as much as belongs to matter of Faith from whence it will also follow that none can separate themselves from the Church without damnation 19. First then I obserue That seing the Church according to Protestants cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles for other points not Fundamentall whosoever remaine in her communion are not obliged vnder paine of damnation to chuse the more secure part as they are bound to doe in matters absolutely necessary to salvation necessitate medij as Ch Ma proves Part 1. Chap 7. N. 3. but it is sufficient for them ad vitandum peccatum for avoyding sin if they follow a judgment truly probable and prudent in embracing all the particular objects which the Church proposes to be believed Because they are sure by this meanes not to erre in points absolutely necessary to salvation in which the Church which they follow cannot erre nor to sin in believing all other points which she propoundes supposing they proceede prudently especially considering as I sayd that in not believing Her in all they run hazard to disbelieue her in some Fundamentall and necessary Article which sequele we haue shewed even in your owne opinion to be rationall 160. This being observed I now proue that whosoever embraceth what the Church proposes and particularly for points controverted in these tymes proceeds very prudently and safely For the objects of Faith surpassing the reach of humane reason and for that cause being apprehended obscurely by our vnderstanding do not bring with them evidēce of demonstration to which we haue heard Hooker saying The mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent but yet the vnderstanding may be forcibly drawne by the will to embrace rather one part than another
vpon prudent reasons and extrinsecall considerations which not to be wanting in our case appeares by reflecting That for the points controverted we haue the judgment and Authority of the Churches existent when Luther appeared that is of the vniversall Catholique Church if God had any Church on Earth as you grant he alwayes had And even yourselfe speaking of Councells say Pag 200. N. 18. I willingly confess the judgment of a Councell though not infallible is yet so farr directiue and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake Potter also Pag 165. Speaks fully in these words We say that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on earth that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding out the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least not Fundamentally Behold Councells are not only directiue but obliging they cannot be rejected Their Decrees bind to externall Obedience and may not so much as be questioned but vpon apparent and evident reason nor reversed but by an equall Authority if they be carefull and deligent in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them that they shall not erre at least Fundamentally that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ 161. Here it is reason I make a pause and obserue some points out of our very Adversaryes First The vniversall Church according to Potter and other chiefe Protestants is infallible in fundamentall points and even according to â—hillingworth is infallible as long as she exists which he saith hath been from the beginning and shall last to the worlds end and so de facto she is infallible that is he is as sure that she shall not erre in any fundamentall point as he is sure that Christ shall alwaies haue a Church on earth which ought to be a great inducement not to reject her Authority without evident reason Yea seing he holds Councells to be fallible in fundamentall points aÌ„d yet that they oblige men to an outward submission much more he should say so of the Church which is confessed to be infallible in all Fundamentalls 162. Secondly seing Potter Chilling and Dr. Lawd whom I cited aboue teach that we are bound vnder sin to affoard outward obedience to Generall Councells and that we cannot do this in matters of Faith vnless we belieue as we professe we must belieue them to be infallible in all things least either we sin against Obedience due to them or against our Conscience professe what we do not belieue 163. Thirdly seing their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ their right to be obeyed is de jure Divino of which they were in possession when Luther arose and therfore it is a grievous sin not to obey them vnless it can be demonstrated with evidence that they teach or command somthing clearly repugnant to the law or word of Christ 164. Fourthly seing their Decrees cannot be questioned but vpon evident reason it followes that the reasons are not first purposely to be sought and then found because people prepossessed by passion haue a mind to breake with the Church as it happens in all Schismatiks and Heretikes but their Arguments must be so pressing and irresistible by ceason of their evidence that the vnderstanding cannot by any meanes of contrary reason or command of the will forbeare to assent which to any judicious man must needs appeare to be a strange and no better than an imaginaty kind of evidence and indeed impossible in objects of Faith which are obscure and exceed the naturall light of all humane reason 165. Fiftly Since they cannot be reversed but by an equall Authority and Dr. Lawd delivers the same Doctrine as we haue seene aboue we are assured that the Decrees of Councells before Luther could not be reversed by Luther or any other private person nor by all Protestants Who never could pretend to haue a Generall Councell and in those Colloquiums or Conferences or particular Synods which they held could never establish any vniversall Vnion among themselves but only declared to the world that they had no possible meanes of Vnion and Concord And indeed who should call such a Generall Councell Or who should preside therin Or if they would haue recourse to secular Princes it would make little to their purpose seing absolute Princes are no more subject one to another than different Sects of Protestants will confesse any mutuall subordination 166. Sixtly Seing if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the Truth it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre at least fundamentally they could not be opposed except by reason more than probable but men were to presume that they did not erre Neither should you say if they be carefull c. it is very probable the good spirit will direct them that they shall not erre which may be said of any two or three gathered togeather in Christs name if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth yea the same may be sayd of every particular person but contrarily seing you confesse them to be derived from Christ and that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth and that all are obliged to obey them which none could be in errours against Faith you should say because they cannot erre God will not faile to affoard his effectuall Grace that they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth For accordingly as God hath decreed to bring vs to an End He will not faile to moue vs effectually to apply all those Meanes which on our behalf are necessary for such an End And it were but a most rash vncharitable foolish and false imagination to thinke that Generall Councells before Luther replenished with men of learning sanctity and zeale of the Truth were not carefull in the vâ—â— of all good meanes for finding the Truth and therfore they could not but be assisted by God to find it nor Luther excused from Schisme and Heresy by opposing them and it 167. These things considered it cannot but appeare to any judicious vnpartiall man how impossible it is that any such evidence should offer itselfe against the Faith and decrees of the Church or Generall Councells as can force the
be sure that they attaine the true sense of Scripture vnless they first know what points in particular be Fundamentall because in other they may erte as they say the Church may Besides it hath bene shewed that in the Principles of Protestants it cannot be convinced that Scripture is infallible except only in fundamentall Points and so men cannot rely on Scripture vnless first they be sure what points be Fundamentall Neither is there the same reason for vnderstanding not the bare words but the sense of Scripture intended by the Holy Ghost as there is for vnderstanding som plain place in Aristotle or conceyving some evident naturall truths which are connaturall to humane reason and are not capable of different senses as the words of Scripture are Which may be proved even by the Examples which you bring as evident as I haue shewed hertofore that they are not so Neither can any Protestants learne them from Scripture alone with such certainty as is necessary to an Act of Faith which according to all good Christians must be infallible and therfore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you alledg as evident but your enough is not enough for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith And therfore Charity Maintayned did you no wrong at all and much less a palpable injury as you speak in saying you cannot with certainty learne of Scripture fundamentall Points of Faith which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell and yet it is evident that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning as I haue demonstrated about these sentences God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him that there is no salvation but by Faith in Christ That by Repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body Which are the Instances which here you giue as Truths both Fundamentall and evident 63. Your N. 51. hath bene answered in severall occasions And all that you say N. 52. is directly nothing to the purpose but passes from objects considered in themselves wherof Protestants confess some to be Fundamentall others not to accidentall circumstances as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamentall points or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them but only in accidentall circumstances of ignorance repentance and the like But of this I haue spoken hertofore as also I haue confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients c which therfore I think needless to repeete 64. Your N. 53. I haue answered in diverse places Your N. 54. is nothing but a long digression to which the particular Answer would require a whole Booke or volume directly against the scope of this Work which is only to treate in generall of the Church and Scripture and you know very well that Catholik Writers haue fully answered all your Demands as also you know how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants abovt Scripture which to them is the only rule of Faith if I had a mynd to digrees Your N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65 haue bene answered at large 95. I desire the Reader to peruse the N. 21. of Charity Maintayned and he will finde that you make an argument as his which is nothing like his discourse He saieth not as you N. 66. cited him in these words We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things Therfore we may not depart fram it in any thing which you call an Argument à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid The Argument of Ch. Ma. is Dr. Potter teacheth Pag 75. That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself But if the Church could erre in any points of Faith they may and must forsake her in those and if such errours should fall out to be concerning the Churches Lyturgie Sacraments c. they must leaue her externall Communion which being essentiall to the Church they must divide themselves from her in that which isessentiall to make one a member of the same Church which I hope is more than to argue ad dictum secundum quid For what greater separation can there be from the Church than in that which is essentiall to make one be vnited to her Your saying that a man may leaue the vice of his friend or brother and yet not leaue his friend or brother is impertinent seing vices are not essentiall to men as externall Communion is to make one a member of the Church 66. You object what Dr. Potter saieth of the Catholique Church P. 75. he extends presently after to euery true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any ertour and call this a demonstration too 67. Answer If the Doctour will not contradict himself according to his judgment the Catholique Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth necessary to salvation as a particular Church may and therefore this may but that can never be forsaken or if he will affirme that no particular Church can be forsaken he must say that no such Church can erre in any point necessary to salvation For if she did so erre her Communion must be forsaken and I haue shewed externall Communion to be essentiall to the members of the Church Whereby is answered your N. 67. where you grant that we may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himselfe Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church who disagree from Her in profession of Faith and divide themselves from her externall Communion you must grant that they can no more doe so than they can divide themselves from Christ I know not to what purpose or vpon what occasion you say to Ch Ma In other places you confes his doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in Points not fundamentall which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 68. Your manner of alledging the words of Charity Maintayned in your N. 68. gives me still occasion to wish you had alledged them as you found them You make Charity Maintayned speak thus Dr. Potter either contradicts himself or els must grant the Church infallible because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre And then you say with your vsuall modesty This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intriate nothing I confess that reading the words which you impute to Charity Maintayned I found difficulty to penetrate the force of his Argument But the words of Charity Main are these If saith Dr. Potter we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could
INFIDELITY VNMASKED OR THE CONFVTATION OF A BOOKE PVBLISHED BY Mr. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH VNDER THIS TITLE THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS A SAFE WAY TO SALUATION I would thou wert colde or hote but because thou art luke-warme I will begin to vomitt the out of my mouth Apocal C 3. V. 15. 16. Printed in GANT By MAXIMILIAN GRAET A o. D ni M. DC LII Permissu superiorum TO THE READER 1. THe first thing that I am to request of thee good Reader is to reade this Preface before thou adress thyself to peruse the Booke And then not to reade irregularly beginning with the end or at the middle or with what shall be offered by meere chance but to take the following Introduction and Chapters as they come in order that so the former may be a preparation to the latter and the latter may receyue light and strength from the former For the matters being connected of themselves will growe to be either vnintelligible or obscure or confused if their right Consequences and orderly sequeles be neglected or inverted and will certainly come by that meanes to be perverted and mistaken 2. I cannot doubt but that an Answer to Mr Chillingworths Booke hath bene expected long since But they who are acquainted with the many and long and great and insuperable obstacles of voyages to remote countreyes long frequent and great sicknesses and vnavoidable imployments imposed by Authority which I ought not to resist though some can witness that even in that I strayned obedience more than I should haue adventured to doe vpon any other occasion which haue crossed my earnest and constant desires will not so much marvell that this Work hath bene long in doeing as that finally it is donne This one thing is evident That not any difficulty to answer could haue bene cause of so long delay since whosoever can answer now could haue donne it much sooner if extrinsecall impediments had bene removed 3. As for that vnfortunate man whom I confute Truth obliges me to declare that beside his most contemning disdaining proud bitter and even bloudy waie of answering by seeking to make odious both the Religion and persons of Catholiques as will appeare by what I note in due place I must insist vpon this that in reality his Book is no Confutation of Charity Maintayned who answered Dr Potter according to the grounds of Protestants not of Socinians or any other new Sect. And therefore Mr Chillingworth flying to new Principles hath abandoned Dr Potter and all the elder kind of Protestants and left his Adversary in possession of being vnanswered agreably to his ingenuous acknowledgment when time was that Charity Maintayned could not be defeated by any forces of Protestants and that he had a way to confute him (a) See the Iudgment of an vniversity-man Pag 68 Sect 16. Miserable Protestancy That could find no Advocate except an Enemy to it and all Christianity who tooke this occasion only to vent new Heresies no less repugnant to Protestants than to Catholiques Did not Protestants foretell and in fâ—ct prophecie their owne ruine in preferring this vnhappy man before all England to be Defender of their Faith Who can wonder to behold that Nation swimming in desolation and bloud which indures to behold a Book published approved applauded which purposely and directly teaches Christian Faith not to be infallibly true and consequently that whatsoever Christians haue hitherto believed of Scripture of Christ of all Christian verityes may for ought they can certainly know to the contrary proue fabulous false or no better than dreames If he who omitted to enact any Law or decree any punishment for Paricides gaue the reason thereof by asking whether there could possibly be any such Crime Much more Charity Maintayned had no reason to fetch from Hell this Antichristian doctrine never imagining that any Christian would profess to maintayne so wicked a Tenet the contrary whereof even Dr Potter delivers not as a thing disputable or which needed any proofe but as a first Principle to be supposed among Christians 4. Presently vpon the publication of Mr Chillingworths Book he was by diverse printed Treatises charged with this and other vnchristian Doctrines and expresly conjured to cleare himselfe vnder paine of being esteemed guilty if he were silent as by the Church Conquerant over humane wit The totall summe The judgment of an vniversity-man Christianity Maintayned but never could be induced to answer for himself in any one particular which silence in a matter of this nature could procede only from guiltiness as he was expresly forwarned in the Direction to N. N. Chap 3. 5. If any vndertake a Confutation of my Book he will doe himself manifest wrong vnless he doe me so much right as not to pretend an Answer to mee if he abandon Mr Chillingworth and forsake his grounds and so oppose me by new Principles as Mr Chillingworth injuriously delt with Charity Maintayned Or if he will profess not to defend the particular Tenets or debates of Mr Chillingworth I must exact of him that by declaring so much the world may know that Mr Chillingworth hath bene confuted whom whosoever forsakes he cannot be judged to answer my Book but to commence a new suite or begin a new Work of which I shall not esteame myself obliged to take any notice For as Charity Maintayned confuted Protestants not Socinians so I confute Mr Chillingworths Book and not the Principles of other Men or Sects disagreeing from him 6. It is also desired that he follow not Mr Chillingworth in seeking to draw his Adversary to handle particular Points nothing pertinent to our present generall Controversy That he cite the places of those Authors whose Authorityes he alledges which Mr Chillingworth frequently omitts to doe That he propose my Arguments without fraude disguise or disadvantage as I haue bene so very carefull and even scrupulous to relate with all sincerity Mr Chillingworths Opinions Reasons and Words that not seldome I had recourse to the Errata noted in the end of his Book holding it an vnjust thing to charge him with any over sight of the Print though hee hath not delt so fairely with Charity Maintayned whom he impugnes even in things placed among the Errata of the Printer and corrected 7. I profess with all sincerity and seriousness that I haue not wittingly omitted to answer any one Point in my Adversaries whole Book either particularly and explicitely or els in Principles which involue an Answer to all particulars when they shall be proposed I am necessitated to repeete the same things either to answer my Adversarie in his repetitions or for the connection of the matters which require it or because it is to be feared that not every Reader will remember or know how to apply what is past I am not ignorant that in answering Mr Chillingworth I confute an Academy of Socinians to whom he owes the matter and substance of his Book though it appeare vnder his name only But Truth is
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
other such qualityes and know in scientificall Demonstrations and belieue in Hope and Charity Is not the same truth knowne with more euidence and consequently with more certainty according to his grounds by a perspicatious vnderstanding than by one more dull Which argues that there are degrees in certainty What is more knowne than that Axiom of Aristotle Propter quod vnumquodque tale illud magis tale That for which euery thing is such is it self much more such Chilling himself Pag. 377. N. 59. Saith we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued otherwise it is no proof If then the conclusion be certaine by vertue of the Proof or Premises these must be more certaine which supposes different degrees of perfection euen in certaine and infallible acts of our vnderstanding and then why not in Faith though it be certaine and infallible And his objection that according to vs all true Faith must be most certaine and the most perfect that is cannot be more than most certaine hath no more strength than it receyues from ignorance For when Faith is sayd to be most certaine the comparison goes not betweene different degrees of graduall perfection in Faith it selfe but betweene Faith and naturall knowledg Or els Faith is sayd to be most certaine for its essence because with euery degree of true Faith we must belieue articles reuealed with an assent super omnia aboue all essentially excluding all doubt or dissent from such articles as Hope relyes Vpon God super omnia aboue all and essentially refuses to admitt any voluntary act of desperation and Charity essentially loues God aboue all things appretiatine choosing to loose all things rather than to offend God and therfor effectually moueing vs not to consent vnto any deadly sinne In these essentiall perfections there is an indivisibility and a most or greatest perfection which being taken away the Vertue is destroyed but it passeth not so in Graduall perfections of Faith Hope Charity and other Vertues either infused or acquired 45. What knowledg is so certaine euident and perfect as the Beatificall Vision which may truly be called most perfect but how In respect of other knowledg terminated only to created Objects but in respect to it selfe in order to Graduall perfection it consists not in an indiuisible poynt because one Angell or Saint beholds God intuitiuè with more perfection than another Thus euen your probable Faith must essentially exclude all Doubt Taken in the most proper sense that is not as it signifyes formidinem oppositi some feare least the contrary be true but as it is taken for a suspension of our assent to either side which cannot possibly consist with a probable possitiue assent to one part and in this essentiall notion of excluding all such Doubt all probable judgments must agree and yet you will not deny but there are different Graduall degrees in probable assents and in particular in your probable Faith which you proue to be but probable that so you may as you pretend agree with Scripture mentioning different degrees of Faith 46. Not in this instance only but in others also I conuince you by your owne assertions Pag. 36. N. 9. you say The spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayers and sincere obedience may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher and giue them a certainty of adherence beyend their certainty of euidence And To those that belieue and liue accordingly to their faith he giues by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but belieue And be 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 Heere you speake of certaine persons arriuing by degrees to an absolute certainty and I hope you will not deny but that there might be disserent degrees of perfection among them according to the degrees of their deuout and humble prayers and sincere obedience and that the same man might by degrees be aduanced aboue himself as also that they might pray for such increase Therfore there are degres in certainty for attaining of which one may praye as in your objection you alledg the Apostles prâ—ing to Christ to increase their Faith which is directly for vs against your selfe For Pag. 329. N. 7. you teach that the Apostles for some points had absolute certainty in their faith or an assent which was not pure and proper and meere faith but somwhat more an assent containing faith but superadding to it Therfore certainty may be increased and this increase may be prayed for as the Apostles did and among the Apostles who doubts but that one might belieue with more certainty than an other Surely you will be content that S. Paule enter into the number of those who liuing as they belieue attaine an absolute certainty and yet he made progress in charity as himselfe witnesseth 1. Tim 4. V. 6.7.8 I am euen now to be sacrificed and the tyme of my resolution is at and. I haue fought a good fight I haue consummate my course I haue kept the Faith Concerning the rest there is layd vp for me a crowne of justice which our Lord will render to me in that day a just judge You see this blessed Apostle not long before his death speakes of a crowne due for his Faith and good workes or Charity without exception of any tyme wherin his Faith was fallible which indeed was alwayes most certaine and infallible by the particular appearing of our Sauiour to him and most express reuelation which certainty had bene no favour but a great harme if it had depriued him of all increase in charity notwithstanding his continuall exercise of heroicall good workes and a death glorious by martyrdome the highest pitch of Charity and perfection and yet he sayd Phil. 3.12 Non quod jam perfectus sim not that I now am perfect And the like might I say of all the Apostles and other Saints who liued as they belieued and were eminent in Prayer Obedience and all sanctity 47. But this is not all that may be alledged against you out of your owne doctrine Pag. 330. N. 8. You say that we are to belieue the Religion of Christ we are and may be infallibly certaine and this you endeauour to proue by some arguments which you stile certaine and then conclude from all these premises this conclusion euidently followes that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian ReligoÌ„ Now it cannot be denyed but that in this assent It is infallibly certaine that we are firmily to belieue the truth of Christian Religion there may be degrees of certainty or perfection both in different persons at the same tyme and in the same person at different tymes as he may more and more ponder the Reasons which
Confessionem privatam vrgebat velut necessariam Osiander was the first Minister at Norinberg who required private Confession as a thing necessary 18. Now I argue in this manner Some poyntes in the Opinion both of Catholiques and Protestants are necessary to salvation for every particular Person for example Faith and Repentance after deadly sin And yet we see that Protestants differ both from Catholikes and disagree amongst themselves about the nature of Faith and Repentance and disagree so as that both sydes cannot have true Faith and Repentance For if true Faith must be infallible Chilling and his Associates cannot be saved both because they believe and teach so capitall an Errour and because they practise it being satisfyed with a probable fallible Faith The like I say of that justifiyng Faith which Calvinists hold necessary for justification and salvation against Catholikes and all other Protestants even Socinians who believe it to be a meer pernicious ād presumptuous fancy As also the same may be sayd of Baptisme and the sacrament of Pennance which according to all Catholikes and diuers Protestants are necessary to salvation against many other Protestants Therfor Protestants must confess that all things necessary to salvation are not evident in Scripture vnless they will pronounce an inevitable sentence of damnation against those whom they call Brethren as Teaching an Errour in matters necessary to salvation and practising in conformity to their errour either by omitting themselves or being cause by their Doctrine that others Neglect or ommit things absolutely necessary to salvation which judgment I belieue they will not be hasty to frame against their Brethren but rather will pretend to conceyve of these particular poynts of which we speake as Chilling Pag 41. N. 13. speakes in generall of persons contrary in belief which may be concerning poynts wherin Scripture may with sogreat probability be alledged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and vpright harts true lovers of God and truth such as desire above all things to know Gods will and to doe it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another which kind of opinion if they thinke fitt to frame of their brethren as being men of honest and vpright harts true lovers of God and truth c they must give me leave to infer that scripture is not evident in all poynts even where there is question of Articles absolutely necessary to salvation 19. Which reason taken from their mutuall disagreements in necessary matters doth prove that they are not evident in scripture according to Chilling saying Pag 61. N. 24. The thing is not evident of it selfe which is evident because many do not believe it 20. Nay further I must inferr that seing in points absolutely necessary to salvation Charitas propria the vertue of Charity as it respects our selves obligeth every one to chuse the safer part and that Protestants cannot fynd any evident scripture that the Sacraments of Baptisme and pennance are not necessary for salvation not only all Catholikes but divers chief Protestants holding them to be necessary it followes that prorestants are obliged to believe them to be necessary and accordingly to frame their practise Neither can they be excused by Chilling worths sayinge that it is a sure note of a point not necessary that scripture may with great probability be alledged on both sides because this excuse implies a begging of the Question as if there were no meanes to be assured of what is necessary to salvation except scripture alone yea rather he ought from the difficulty which he apprehends in scripture for these matters of so great moment necessarily to infer that the written word taken alone contaynes not evidently all necessary points 21. Thus even in this first entrance it appeares how not only vntrue but vnreasonable also this common Tenet of Protestants is 22. Which will yet be more manifest if we consider that whatsoever is necessary for the Curch immediatly as it is one community or body the same must be mediatè necessary for every particular member as in a naturall body whatsoever is necessary for preserving the whole is consequētly necessary for every part which would be destroyed by the destruction of the whole as also the destruction of all the parts collectives is the distruction of the whole And so if the scripture be nor evidēt in poynts necessary to salvation for every part immediatè it would follow mediatè that it is not evidēt for all poynts necessary for the whole evē though it wāted nothing immediatly necessary forthe whole as governours c and there is in this a necessary connectiō between these considerations of the whole ād every part It is true every mā is not obliged to be Bishop or a Clergy man to absolue from sins to consecrate the Eucharist jnflict consurs to Gouerne make Lawes Administer Sacraments set downe a Liturgy or publike worship of God and the like yet it is necessary for every one to be a member of the true Church in which all these advantages must be found it being the first principle a mongst Christians that remission of sins and salvation cannot be hoped for out of thetrue church nor many grievous sins avoyded if one be a member of a body governed by vnlawfull superiours guyded by vnjust Lawes destitute of power to punish offenders fed with false Sacramemts tyed to a superstitious or sacrilegious Liturgi c And therfore as it is impossible to prove out of evident scripture all the poynts which concerne immediatly the whole body of the Church so we must even for that same reason infer that it is not possible to prove out of evident Scripture whatsoever is necessary for every particular person 23. I have stayed longer in this entrance than I intented yet I hope not vnprofitably since I have already proved as it were by a generall view the improbability and impossibility that all things necessary should be contayned evidently in scripture taken alone Which by Gods holy assistance I hope to evince more in particular by the reasons following 24. First seeing protestants will haue nothing believed as matter of Faith which is not evident in scripture this very principle of theirs That all things necessary are evidently contayned in Scripture must be evidently proved out of scriptures as the foundation of all their Faith it must I say be proved by some Text evidently affirming not only that all poynts of Faith are contained in scripture but that they are contayned evidently Othetwise if it be but obscure we cannot haue that certainty which is necessary to Faith For this being a poynt not evident to naturall Reason but depending on Gods free Determination we must only know it by Revelation or the Testimony and word of God that is according to protestants only by scripture Now they are not able to produce any such evident Text. Which will appeare by answering and evidently confuting their
and to helpe once self with interpreters c. Is this to make the scripture easy and evident Or is it not to make it evidently true that it is evident few can possibly obserue those Rules without which these men confess that scripture cannot be vnderstood 44. And now to proue that I also spoake truth in saying it is evident that these Ruls though they were observed are not sufficient to make scripture cleare and evident it were abundantly sufficient to reflect on the great and irreconciliable disagreements amongst Protestants themselves which argues that either scripture is not evident or that they are extreamly blind or malitious or dissemble and speaâ—â— against the belief of their owne hart Doth not Chill say Preface N. 30. that there is no more certaine signe that a poynt is not evident than that honest and vnderstanding and indifferent men and such as giue themselues liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it But yet I will proue it out of a Protestant who in generall brings vnaswerable arguments against the pretented evidence of scripture and proves in particular that the Meanes of Rules assigned by Protestants to vnderstand the scripture are not sufficient to convince or make evident the the sense therof I meane Dr. Jeremy Taylor in a Discourse of the liberty of Prophecying printed An 1647. He sect 3. endeavours to proue in generall the difficulty and vncertainty of arguments from scripture First by consideration of scripture it self in regard of different copies translations c. By the many senses of scripture when the Grammaticall sense iâ— found out for there is in very many scriptures a deuble sense a litterall and a spirituall and both these senses are subdivided For the litterall sense is either naturall or Figuratiue and the spirituall is somtymes Allegoricall somtymes Anagogicall nay somtymes there are divers litterall senses in the same sentence This I say first he proves in generall and then Sect 4. directly to my purpose he proves that the meanes which are wont to be assigned for interpreting scripture are but vncertaine Thus he discourses First somtyme the sense is drawne forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what Rule shall asâ—ertaine me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I haue a mynd to apply it another hath not c Secondly An other great pretense is the conference of places which he sayes is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sense alteration of circumstances or difference of style amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing which may be more abused by wilfull people or may more easily deceive the vnwary or that may amuse the most intelligent Observer This he proves by some examples and sayes that it is a fallacy a posse ad esse affirmativè from a possibility of being to an affirmatiue heing that is because a word is somtymes vsed in such a sense therfor it must alwayes be taken in that sense and concludes that this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mynd to defend and any man that reades any controversyes of any side shall fynd as many instances of this vanity almost as he fynds Arguments from Scripture This fault was of old noted by S. Austin De Doctrina Christiana Lib. 3. for then they had got this trick and he is angry at it Neque enim putare debemus esse praescriptum vt quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit hoc etiam semper significare credamus Thus the Doctor 45. And I say in one word This conferring of divers places can produce no certainty vnless you can first giue a certaine and evident Rule why and when this word is to be explicated by that rather than that by this the first by the second rather than the second by the first But who will dreame that any such certaine Rule can be given 46. Thirdly Tailor procedes Oftentymes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason This he impugnes at large and saith it is with reason as with mens tastes When a man doth speake reason it is but reason he should be heard but though he may have the good fortune or the great abilityes to doe it yet he hath not a certainty no regular infallible assistance no inspiration of Arguments and deductions and if he had yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason vnless other mens vnderstandings were of the same ayre the same constitution and ability they cannot be prescribed vnto by an other mans reason especially because such reasonings as vsually are in explication of particular places of Scripture depend vpon minute circumstances and particularityes in which it is so easy to be deceyved and so hard to speake reason regularly and alwayes that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceyved I may say that Faith being aboue Reason Reason must submit to Faith and not Faith be subject to Reason For as S. Bernard excellently saies Ep 190. What is more against Reason than that one should striue to go beyond Reason by force of Reason 47. Fourthly Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogy of Faith This he sayth is but a chimera a thing in nubibus which varyes like the right hand and left hand of a pillar For if by the analogy of Faith be vnderstood the Rule of Faith that is the Creed were it not a fine devise to go to expound all the Scripture by the Creed there being in it so many thousand places which haue no more relation to any Article in Creed than they haue to Tityre tu patulae But if you extend the analogy of Faith further than that which is proper to the rule or Symbol of Faith then every man expounds Scripture according to the analogy of Faith but what His own Faith which Faith if it be questioned I am no more bound to expound according to the analogy of another mans Faith then he is to expound according to the analogy of myne And this is it that is complained on of all sides â—â—at over-value their owne opinions Scripture seemes so clearly to speake what they beheue that they wonder all the world does not see as cleare as they do c In this he speaks what we find by daily experience and the Reason is because evident or obscure probable or improbable being but extrinsecall Denominations in respect of the Objects which are in themselves either so or not so Est or Non taken from the Acts of our vnderstanding which haue great dependance on severall complexions affections education and other prejudices no wonder if one man judg that to be true and evident which another
and S. Austine and Bede Proaemio in Evangelium S. Ioannis Kemnitius also Exam. Pag. 202. confesses that S. John wrote his Gospell after the Apocalyps And Cornel. a Lapide Proaem in Epist 1. S. Joannis speaking of S. Johns three Epistles sayth It seemes that he wrote them about the same tyme that he wrote the Gospell By which account they were written after the Apocalyps Therfor that curse in the Apocalyps cannot be so vnderstood as to exclude all other writings after it 66. But the chiefest place which Protestants are wont to alledg for the sufficiency of scripture alone is that of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 3. V. 16.17 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 I answer First Speaking in rigour Profitable Necessary sufficient are things both different and separable A thing may be profitable and not necessary and a thing may be both profitable and necessary for some effect and yet not sufficient alone to produce it Every line in Gods word is profitable but not every line is either necessary or sufficient Our question is whether scripture alone be sufficient The text alledged saith only that it is profitable but saith not that it is either necessary or sufficient Therfor if we consider this place alone Faith may be conceyved without any scripture because scripture heer is not sayd to be necessary and cannot be conceyved by scripture alone because scripture is not sayd to be sufficient And then the argument comes to be retorted in this manner That which is no more than profitable is neither necessary nor sufficient but in the text alledged which Protestants bring as sufficient to proue the sufficiency of scripture scripture is only sayd to be profitable Therfor it is neither necessary nor sufficient 67. Secondly The words precedent to this text are these but thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned and because from thine infancie thou hast knowen the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the Faith which is in Christ Jesus By which words it appeares that the scripture of which S. Paul speakes is the Old testament which alone Timothy from his infancy had knowen and which could instruct him to salvation And therfor if this Objection be good the Old testament taken alone wil be sufficient for salvation and if it be a good consequence scripture is profitable to instruct therfor it is necessary and sufficient the Old testament which could instruct Timothy to salvation must be necessary and sufficient even for these tymes or if they were sufficient for those but not for these our tymes and that it be cleare that S. Paul spoke of those tymes and only of the Old testament as is confessed by Henoch Clapham Aretius Zwinglius Hooker and Ochinus as may be seene triple Cord. Chap. 7. Sect 5. with what conscience can they apply that text to vs as if the scripture of which that text speakes did signify the scriptures both of the Old and New testament Nay seing S. Paul wrote that Epistle to Timothy about forry yeares before the Canon of scripture was perfited and that Protestants affirme that a living Iudg was necessary till the Canon was complete it followes that the text whith they alledg cannot signify that at that tyme the scripture alone was either necessary because there was then a living Iudg which could determine all Controversyes or sufficient because the Canon was not finished And therfor although it were granted that the Old Testament which was perfited had alone beene evident in all necessary poynts and therby sufficient for the Jewes yet the scripture of the New Testament being not perfited when S. Paul wrote these words it doth not follow that they can signify their sufficiency for Christians As Hooker Eccles Polit. First Booke N. 14. Pag. 43. sayth When the Apostle affirmed vnto Timo thy that the Old was able to make him wise to salvation 2. Timoth. 3.15 it was not his meaning that the Old alone can do this vnto vs which liue sithence the publication of the New Mark how this great man amongst Protestants affirmes that S. Paul speaks only of the Old scripture and that this alone is not sufficient for Christians which he proves because the Apostle sayth that those scriptures were able to make Timothy wise through the Faith which is in Christ V. 15. And this appeares also by the words of S. Paul saying to Timothy in the same Chapter V. 10. But thou hast attayned to my doctrine institution c. And afterward But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned That is of S. Paul his Maister Where we see that S. Paul did not send his scholler to Scripture alone but to his owne Institution Doctrine and interpretation and things committed to him by word of mouth or to scripture taken togeather with an infallible Living Iudg and so the Objection proves what we teach and overthrowes the doctrine of Protestants 68. Thirdly Protestants must shew that all things necessary are evidently contayned in scripture and this they must proue by some evident Text. For if it be not evident the matter will still remayne vncertayne But this Text on which they chiefly rely is not evident Therfor it is not sufficient to proue that which they intend and vpon which the whole Fabricke of their Faith depends The minor That this Text is not evident is evidently proved because it is impossible to shew evidently that profitable in this Text signifyes necessary or if that were freely granted it will remayne more than impossble to proue that profitable or necessary must in this Text signify sufficient For by what Grammer Logick or Divinity can any dreame this to be feceable The like I say of the words All scripture which they interpret not to signify every part or Book of Scripture but the whole body of Canonicall scripture taken togeather wheras Bellarm. de Verbo Dei Lib 4. Cap 10. saith truly In the judgment of all that vnderstand latin that which is sayd of all scripture inspired of God is of sayd every booke which is inspired of God Beside the Apostle by this Vniversall proposition that all scripture is inspired by God proves that every particular scripture is profitable and that the scripture of the Old Testament which Timothy had knowen from his infancy was profitable to instruct him to salvation And therfor as every part of scripture is inspired so also is it profitable And this is more cleare according to the Protestant Englsh Translation Anno 1611. and 1622. and Greeke Text All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine c Where we see that of the same thing or subject and by the same word scripture it is sayd
certaine things by writing and certaine by tradition with vvhom agrees S. Basile de spiritui sancto Cap. 27. saying some things we haue from scripture other things from the Apostles tradition c both which haue like force vnto godlines that Dr. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference 1. conclus Pag. 689. ansvvering to these sayings of S. Epiphanius and S. Basil sayth I took not vpon me to control them but let the Church judge if they considered with advise enough c And for other Fathers both Greek and Latine they are so plaine for tradition against the sufficiency of scripture taken alone that as may be seene in Brierley Tract 1. sect 3. subdivis 12. wheras S. Chrysostome saith in 2. ad Thessal Hom 4. The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing but many things without and these be as worthy of credit as the other Whitaker de Sacra Scriptura Pag 678. in answer therto sayth I answer This is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father And wheras Eusebius Lib 1. Demonstrat Evangel Cap 8. is objected to say That the Apostles published their doctrine partly without writing as it were by a certaine vnwritten law Whitaker Pag 668. saith therto I answer that this testimony is plaine enough but of no force to be receyved because it is against the Scripture And of S. Austine Cartwright saith in Mr. Whitgifts Defence Pag 103. If S. Austines judgment be a good judgment then there be some things commanded of God which are not in the Scriptures Yea not to insist vpon every particular Father Kemnitius Exam Part 1. Pag 87.89.90 reproves for their like testimony of vnwritten Traditions Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Epiphanius Hierome Maximus Theophilus Basil Damascen c Fulk also confesses as much of Chrysostome Tertullian Cyprian Austine Hierome c And Whitaker acknowledgeth the like of Chrysost Epiphanius Tertullian Austine Innocentius Leo Basil Eusebius Damascene c. Now sir are not these Fathers and Ancient Doctours who teach that the Apostles haue not delivered all things in writing directly opposite to your contrary Assertion so often repeated but without any proofe which you know is but to begg the Question Of people without succession of Pastours which is the ground of Tradition we may truly say as Optatus saith of the Donatists Lib. 2. cont Parm. Sunt sine Patribus filii c. They are children without Fathers disciples without maisters and in a prodigious manner begotten and borne of themselves 166. I will make an end of this matter if first I haue noted that it is a false glosse of yours like to that which I haue noted aboue and directly against S. Irenaeus that when he sayth those Heretiks taught that truth cannot be found by those who know not Tradition he must meane sufficient truth as if those heretiks had agreed with Catholikes that all truth is not sufficiently contayned in scripture alone wheras S. Irenaeus expressly declares the doctrine of those Heretiks to haue been that the scriptures were not right and came not from good authority but were various one from another as I haue shewed and yourself affirme in those very words which you translate out of S. Irenaeus and so not only sufficient truth could not be learned in the scriptures but they could not assure vs of any truth at all Wheras you say to haue sayd against those Heretiks that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter was written by S. Mark and some necessary parts of it omitted had been to speake impertinently and rather to confirme than confute their errour I must say that your consequence is no less impertinent than your supposition is false because no body did ever go about to confute those Heretiks by saying that part of the Gospell was written and some part omitted but by proving that the scriptures were true and of infallible authority which they denyed and also that beside scripture there are true Catholique Traditions opposite to the foolish traditions of those Heretiks from which truth may be learned both which Points S. Irenaeus proves and so confutes the double errour of those heretiks that truth could be found neither by the scriptures nor by the Traditions of Catholiques and therby expressly makes good such Traditions and that both out of scripture and Tradition we may learne some Points of Christian Faith which is directly against that very thing for which you alledge him and proves my chief intent that scripture is not the only Rule of Faith To which purpose I beseech you heare your owne words Pag 345. N. 29. where you bring S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 2. speaking thus to those Heretiks Your calumnyes against Scripture are most vnjust but yet moreover assure yourselves that if you will be tryed by Tradition even by that also you will be overthrowne For our Tradition is farr more famous more constant and in all respects more credible than that which you pretend to It were easy for me to muster vp against you the vninterrupted Successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles all conspiring in their testimonyes against you But because it were too long to number vp the Successions of all Churches I will content my self with the Tradition of the most Ancient and most glorious Church of Rome which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine c Thus you And though you render very imperfectly both the words and meaning of S. Irenaeus and in some words following those which I haue sett downe falsify his sense And therfor I beseech the Reader to examine the place yet this is sufficient to shew by your owne confession what was the judgment of this glorious Saint and Martyr concerning Traditions and the no-necessity that all Poynts of Faith should haue bene written since we may receyue them from the Church 167. By the way For what mystery do you goe about to proue that S. Mark hath written all things necessary because S. Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 1. saith Mark S. Peters disciple delivered to vs in writing those things which S. Peter had preached and yet do not apply the same proof to S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus in the same place saith Luke a follower of Paul wrote downe the Gospell which had bene preached by him S. Paul To what purpose would you goe the further way about first proving that S. Mark hath all necessary points and from the nce inferring that S. Luke whose Gospell is larger than that of S. Mark must needs haue written all such things When as you might haue immediatly proved the same thing of S. Luke of whom S. Irenaeus speaks in the very same manner as he speaks of S. Mark 168. From S. Mark you passe to S. John whom Pag. 211. N. 42. you would proue to haue written all necessary points because he saith Many other signes also did Iesus in the sight of his disciples which are not written in this Booke But these
to vvhat purpose you say in your second Ansvver that it is one thing to be a perfect Ruâ—e of Faith an other to be proved so vnto vs seing your adversary expressly spoke of scripture in order to vs affirming Pag 41. N. 6. that it could not be proved vnto vs to be the word of God by its owne saying so which you also grant vnless it were to giue a blow to Protestants who calumniate vs as if we did subject the word of God to the judgment of the Church wheras we say no more then here you acknowledg that Scripture is in it self true but not knowen or proved so to vs otherwise than only by Tradition which say you is a thing credible of it self against other Protestants who hold the Church to be only the first externall Motiue or inducement and direction to belieue scripture as Potter speakes Pag 193. and 141. but not that for which we chiefly belieue it which they hold to be either the privat Spirit or the Majesty or other signes found in scripture it self 190. Object 6. That all may vnderstand in Scripture enough for their salvation you endeavour to proue Pag 93. N. 105. out of S. Austine whose words you cite thus Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in Sacris Scripturis omnta continent quae pertinent ad Fidem moresque vivendi The place you cite not which is your ordinary custome I conceiue you meane de Doctrina Christiana Lib 2. Cap 9. Where S. Austine speaking of the Bookes of Holy Scripture sayth Illa quae in eis apertè posita sunt vel praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi solertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt Quae tanto quisque plura invenit quanto est intelligentiâ capacior In iis enim quae apertè in Scriptura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent Fidem moresque vivendi spem scilicet atque charitatem 191. Answer You know very well that S. Austine believed we are obliged to belieue more then can be clearly and certainly and particularly proved out of scripture taken alone without the authority and Declaration of Gods Church Did he not belieue and most zealously defend the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretikes and taught it as a Point to be believed and practised by all And yet de vnit Eccles Cap. 22. he teacheth expressly that we must in this Point rely vpon the authority of the Church as we haue seene by his words This Testimony of S. Austine was alledged by Cha Ma Part 1. Ch 2. N. 27. Pag 74. and you take notice of it in your Page 118.119 N. 163. and yet returne to alledg against vs the words of the same saynt in iis quae apertè posita sunt c which shewes that I was not rash in saying you could not but know that S. Austine held that more points are to be believed and practised then can be proved out of scripture Nay your owne Answers to this authority of S. Austine demonstrate that you believed what I say about his judgment For 192. You answer First you say to Catholiques In many things you will not be tryed by S. Austines judgment this you proue by instances which are answered by an absolute denyall that S. Austine is contrary to vs in those points and therfor can with no reason or equity require vs to do so in this matter 2. To S. Austine in heate of disputation against the Donatists and ransaking all places for Arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heate delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderately where he sayes In ijs que apertè posita sunt c. 193. Answer It is strang or rather ridiculous I will not say Boyes-play as you thought good to speake that you should except against our allegation of S. Austine because say you in many things we will not be tryed by him and that you in this very place alledg S. Austine against vs you I say who togeather with your fellow Socinians speak more contemptibly of that holy learned glorious Saint than of any other Father And no wonder seing you find that zealous Doctour to be most direct cleare and efficacious for the Visibility Splendour Amplitude Perpetuity Succession and Infallibility of Gods Church and vnwritten Traditions which is our present Question This spirit you discover Pag 152. N. 44. where you speake in this manner To deale ingenuously with you and the world I am not such an idolater of S. Austine as to thinke a thing proved sufficiently be cause he sayes it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs haue come from the Apostles But good Sr. what play is this To bring for an Argument and proofe against vs a saying of S. Austine and yet to professe not to thinke a thing proved sufficiently because he sayes it And which is most strang to bring for an Argument against vs a place of S. Austine to proue by his authority the contrary of that which you acknowledg him to affirme namely that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme must needs come from the Apostles as if with reason and equity you may require vs to beleeue S. Austine when you bring him against vs and yet yourselfe not belieue him when in the very selfe same matter for which you alledg him against vs yourself acknowledg him to stand for vs to wit that whatsoeuer the vniversall Church holds must be believed to come from the Apostles and consequently to be believed although it be not expressed in Scripture which is directly against that for which you alledg him even here that all necessary Points of Faith are set downe in scripture alone But of your little respect to B. Saint Austine more may beseene through your whole Booke particularly Pag. 258. N. 16. Pag 259 N. 20.21 Pag 301. N 101. c 194. In your second answer you do not only slight S. Austines judgment but wickedly taxe his will and piety as if he had overlashed out of heate or had bene more excessiuely earnest in impugning heresyes than zealous in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity as you speake out of which Book you cite his words against vs or as if that can be called heate of disputation which is delivered in writing at leasure vpon mature study and never rétracted But as I sayd you cannot endure that B. Saint because he is so great a defender of Gods Church and you could not haue done a service more acceptable to the Divell and pernitious to soules than to giue a ground for every one to despise S. Austines Writings against the Donatists as being but exaggerations and effects of heate in disputation wheras of all those holy learned and pious volumes of his none can be of greater profit to Gods Church then those which he wrote against the Donatists who were Schismatikes
practicè and effectually we judg the Articles of Christian Faith to deserue and require of vs vnder payne of damnation a most certaine infallible belief beyond all precedent Motives of credibility which judgment being the beginning of supernaturall Faith and of it self an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace 72. 4. If we receyue Scripture vpon this your fallible Tradition we shall haue greater certainty of the Bookes of prophane Authours that they were written by such men than that the Books of Scripture were written by those whom we belieue to haue written them because the Tradition is more full for those than for these as I sayd aboue as also there are many works of those men which never any Christian or other called in question wheras scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not bene questioned even by Christians as they are despised and denyed by all the enemyes of Christian Religion It will also follow for the like reason that we are more certaine that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England Coesar Pompey c. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ as I haue shewed already and yet what Christian can heare such blasphemyes without just indignation and horrour 73. 5. Protestants are wont to object that we giue greater credit to men than to the word of God because we belieue the scripture for the authority of Gods church This is of no force against vs who belieue the church to be infallibly assisted and inspired by the Holy Ghost and that God speakes by the church and consequently that the voyce of the church is the voice of God and so we belieue the word of God for the authority and Testimony of God as all must acknowledg the Primitiue of Christians to haue receyved and believed the Scriptures vpon the authority of the Apostles who yet were men but men inspired and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost But the Objection turned against you is vnanswerable because you ground the belief of scripture and all the contents therof vpon men expressly as they are fallible and subject to Errour whose words you must belieue more than the word of God according to your owne Rule Pag. 377. N. 59. we must be surerof the Proofe than of the thing proved otherwise it is no Proofe 74. This Argument I confirme by your words Pag. 143. N. 30. There is not 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 haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour Againe 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 fail 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 therfor their stability in Reason ought to be greater then the Churches which is built vpon them Again a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streigness of the Rule Therfor the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles This is your discourse which I pray you apply to our present purpose in this manner There is not the same reason for the Scriptures infallibility as for Tradition For if some Apocryphall Scripture be obtruded for Canonicall it may be reformed by comparing it with vniversall Tradition But if vniversall Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture to whom or to what shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting that errour of proposing Apocryphall Scripture Againe if but wise men haue the ordering of a building they will make it a much surer thing that the Foundation shall not faile the building then that the building shall not fall from the foundation Now vniversall Tradition of men subject to errour is to you the Foundation of Scripture therfor their authority in your reason ought to be greater then the Scripture which is built vpon them Againe a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends But the infallibility of Scripture depends vpon the infallibility of vniversall Tradition of men Therfor the Scriptures infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Tradition of men that is neither the one nor the other is certaine What say you to this application and to your Doctrine which forces vs to make it But this application rests not here For as you haue told vs that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater then that of the Church so for the same reasons the infallibility of the Church must be to vs greater then that of the Apostles yea of Christ himself seing you belieue the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to haue bene infallible and to haue proved their infallibility with Miracles only by your vniversall Tradition of the Church which therfor is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour depends and consequently their infallibility is not so certaine to you as the fallible Tradition of men For we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and workes of the Apostles and our Saviour by Tradition and not Tradition by them because Tradition to you is a Principle in nature and precedent to our belief of Christ the Apostles and Scripture which depend on it as the streightness of the thing regulated vpon the streightness of the Rule 75. 6. Before we belieue Scripture in your way there is no Principle but Reason placed between Motives which you confess make it only probable that Scripture is the Word of God and Arguments which seeme very strong and convincing that the Mysteries contained in Scripture are contrary to the sayd only Principle Reason besides the difficultyes which to the same Reason seeme great and insuperable in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to it self which are so many and so intricate as certainly they will appeare to any judicious Man vnanswerable without submission to some infallible Authority as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them as appeares by the great paynes taken by learned men and the difference of wayes in satisfying such difficultyes and finally by a true confession that when they haue done their vttermost the last and best refuge is to captivate their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith and one thing is most certaine and evident that Protestants reject divers Bookes of Scripture receyved by Catholikes for Canonicall vpon incomparably less seeming difficultyes or
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
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
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