commits them Not you will say if he Die in them without repentance and such Protestants you speak of who without Repentance Die in their Errors Yea but what if they Die in their Errors with Repentance than I hope you will have Charity enough to think they may be saved Charity Mist takes it indeed for granted In the place above quoted that this supposition is distructive of it self and that it is impossible and incongruous that a Man should repent of those Errors wherein he Dies or Die in those whereof he repents But it was wisely done of Him to take it for granted for most certainly He could not have spoken one word of sense for the confirmation of it For seeing Protestants believe as well as you Gods infinite and most admirable perfections in himself more than most worthy of all possible love seeing they believe as well as you his infinite goodness to them in Creating them of nothing in Creating them according to his own Image in Creating all things for their use and benefit in streaming down his Favours on them every moment of their Lives in designing them if they serve him to infinite and Eternal Happiness in Redeeming them not with corruptible things but the Pretious Blood of his beloved Son seeing they believe as well as you His infinite goodness and Patience towards them in expecting their Conversion in Wooing Alluring Leading and by all means which his Wisdom can Suggest unto him and Mans nature is capable of drawing them to Repentance and Salvation Seeing they believe these things as well as you and for ought you know consider them as much as you and if they do not it is not their Religion but they that are to blame what can hinder but that the consideration of Gods most infinite goodness to them and their own almost infinite wickedness against him Gods Spirit cooperating with them may raise them to a true and sincere and a cordial love of God And seeing sorrow for having injured or offended the Person beloved or when we fear we may have offended him is the most natural effect of true love what can hinder but that love which hath oftimes constrained them to lay down their lives for God which our Saviour assures us is the noblest Sacrifice we can offer may produce in them an universal sorrow for all their sins both which they know they have committed and which they fear they may have In which number their being negligent or not dispassionate or not unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth and the effect thereof their Errors if they be sins cannot but be compriz'd In a word what should hinder but that that Prayer Delicta sua quis intelligit who can understand his faults Lord cleanse thou me from my secret sins may be heard and accepted by God as well from a Protestant that Dies in some Errors as from a Papist that Dies in some other sins of Ignorance which perhaps he might more easily have discovered to be sins than a Protestant could his Errors to be Errors As well from a Protestant that held some Error which as he conceived Gods Word and his Reason which is also in some sort Gods Word led him unto as from a Dominican who perhaps took up his opinion upon trust not because he had reason to believe it true but because it was the opinion of his Order for the same man if he had light upon another Order would in all probability have been of the other Opinion For what else is the cause that generally all the Dominicans are of one Opinion and all the Jesuits of the other I say from a Dominican who took up his Opinion upon trust and that such an Opinion if we believe the writers of your Order as if it be granted true it were not a point matter what Opinions any man held or what actions any man did for the best would be as bad as the worst and the worst as good as the best And yet such is the partiality of your Hypocrisie that of disagreeing Papists neither shall deny the truth testified by God but both may hope for Salvation but of disagreeing Protestants though they differ in the same thing one side must deny Gods Testimony and be incapable of Salvation That a Dominican through culpable negligence living and dying in his Error may repent of it though he knows it not or be saved though he do not But if a Protestant do the very same thing in the very same point and Die in his Error his case is desperate The Sum of all that hath been said to this Demand is this 1. That no Erring Protestant denys any truth testified by God under this formality as testified by him nor which they know or believe to be testified by him And therefore it is a horrible Calumny in you to say They call Gods Veracity in question For Gods undoubted and unquestioned Veracity is to them the ground why they hold all they do hold neither do they hold any Opinion so stifly but they will forgoe it rather than this one That all which God says is true 2. God hath not so clearly and plainly declared himself in most of these things which are in controversie between Protestants but that an honest man whose heart is right to God and one that is a true lover of God and of his truth may by reason of the conflict of contrary Reasons on both sides very easily and therefore excusably mistake and embrace Error for Truth and reject Truth for Error 3. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any Error by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many Millions are such Error is as the cause of it sinful and damnable yet not exclusive of all hope of Salvation but pardonable if discovered upon a particular explicite repentance if not discovered upon a general and implicite repentance for all Sins known and unknown in which number all sinful Errors must of necessity be contained 27. Ad 19. § To the Ninth Wherein you are so urgent for a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals I answer almost in your own words that we also constantly urge and require to have a particular Catalogue of your Fundamentals whether they be written Verities or unwritten Traditions or Church Definitions all which you say integrate the material Object of your Faith In a word of all such Points as are defined and sufficiently proposed so that whosoever denys or doubts of any of them is certainly in the state of damnation A Catalogue I say in particular of the Proposals and not only some general definition or description under which you lurk deceitfully of what and what only is sufficiently proposed wherein yet you do not very well agree This great diversity of Opinions among you touching this matter if any man doubt of it let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula in l. Theorem in Exposit Theor quarti and Tho. Waldensis Tom. 3. De
43. is as great and as good a Truth and as necessary for these miserable times as can possibly be uttered For this is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Unity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hindrance to their Unity in Communion 40. Now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle unless that could be done which is impossible to be performed though it be often pretended that is unless it could be made evident to all men that God hath appointed some visible Judge of Controversies to whose judgment all men are to submit themselves What then remains but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high points of Faith and obedience wherein they agree than upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ and understand that agreement in those ought to be more effectual to joyn them in one Communion than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them When I say in one Communion I mean in a common Profession of those articles of Faith wherein all consent A joynt worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful and a mutual performance of all those works of Charity which Christians owe one to another And to such a Communion what better inducement could be thought of than to demonstrate that what was Universally believed of all Christians if it were joyned with a love of truth and with holy obedience was sufficient to bring men to Heaven For why should men be more rigid than God Why should any Error exclude any man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of Eternal Salvation Now that Christians do generally agree in all those points of Doctrine which are necessary to Salvation it is apparent because they agree with one accord in believing all those Books of the Old and New Testament which in the Church were never doubted of to be the undoubted Word of God And it is so certain that in all these Books all necessary Doctrines are evidently contained that of all the four Evangelists this is very probable but of S. Luke most apparent that in every one of their Books they have comprehended the whole substance of the Gospel of Christ For what reason can be imagined that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary and yet as apparently all of them have done put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary What wise and honest man that were now to write the Gospel of Christ would do so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospel of Christ for the Indians think you he would have left out any Fundamental Doctrine of it If not I must beseech you to conceive as well of S. Matthew and S. Mark and S. Luke and S. John as you do of Xaverius Besides if every one of them have not in them all necessary Doctrines how have they complied with their own design which was as the Titles of their Books shew to write the Gospel of Christ and not a part of it Or how have they not deceived us in giving them such Titles By the whole Gospel of Christ I understand not the whole History of Christ but all that makes up the Covenant between God and Man Now if this be wholly contained in the Gospel of Saint Mark and Saint John I believe every considering man will be inclinable to believe that then without doubt it is contained with the advantage of many other very profitable things in the larger Gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke And that Saint Marks Gospel wants no necessary Article of this Covenant I presume you will not deny if you believe Irenaeus when he says Matthew to the Hebrews in their Tongue published the Scripture of the Gospel When Peter and Paul did Preach the Gospel and found the Church or a Church at Rome or of Rome and after their departure Mark the Scholar of Peter delivered to us in writing those things which had been Preached by Peter and Luke the follower of Paul compiled in a Book the Gospel which was Preached by him And afterwards John residing in Asia in the City of Ephseus did himself also set forth a Gospel 41. In which words of Irenaeus it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Hereticks Lib. 3. c. 2. that pretended as you know who do now adaies that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospel were unwritten and that out of the Scriptures truth he must mean sufficient truth cannot be found by those which know not Tradition Against whom to say that part of the Gospel which was Preached by S Peter was written by S Mark and so other necessary parts of it omitted had been to speak impertinently and rather to confirm than confute their Error It is plain therefore that he must mean as I pretend that all the necessary Doctrine of the Gospel which was Preached by Saint Peter was written by Saint Mark. Now you will not deny I presume that Saint Peter Preached all therefore you must not deny that S. Mark wrote all 42. Our next inquiry let it be touching S. Johns intent in writing his Gospel whether it were to deliver so much truth as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to Eternal Life or only part of it and to leave part unwritten A great man there is but much less than the Apostle who saith that writing last he purposed to supply the defects of the other Evangelists that had wrote before him which if it were true would sufficiently justifie what I have undertaken that at least all the four Evangelists have in them all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ Neither will I deny but S. Johns secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three Gospels in some things very profitable But he that pretends that any necessary Doctrine is in S. John which is in none of the other Evangelists hath not so well considered them as he should do before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter And for his prime intent in writing his Gospel what that was certainly no Father in the World understood it better than himself Therefore let us hear him speak Many other signs saith he also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and that believing you may have Life in his name By these are written may be understood either these things are written or these signs are written
Take it which way you will this conclusion will certainly follow That either all that which S. John wrote in his Gospel or less than all and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with lively Faith would certainly bring them to Eternal Life 43. This which hath been spoken I hope is enough to justifie my undertaking to the full that it is very probable that every one of the four Evangelists has in his Book the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ But for Saint Luke that he hath written such a perfect Gospel in my judgment it ought to be with them that believe him no manner of question Consider first the introduction to his Gospel where he declares what he intends to write in these Words For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a Declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us even as they delivered unto us which from the beginning were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word it seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of things from the first to write to thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast heen instructed Add to this place the entrance to his History of the Acts of the Apostles The former Treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and teach until the day in which he was taken up Weigh well these two places and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands 1. Whether S. Luke does not undertake the very same thing which he says many had taken in hand 2. Whether this were not to set forth in order a Declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians 3. Whether the whole Gospel of Christ and every necessary Doctrine of it were not surely believed among Christians 4. Whether they which were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word from the beginning delivered not the whole Gospel of Christ 5. Whether he does not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first 6. Whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole Gospel of Christ 7. Whether he doth not undertake to write to Theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed 8. And whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ 9. Whether in the other Text All things which Jesus began to do and teach must not at least imply all the principal and necessary things 10. Whether this be not the very interpretation of your Rhemish Doctors in their Annotation upon this place 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith without the belief whereof no man can be saved be not the principal and most necessary things which Jesus taught 12. And lastly whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospel be not less principal and less necessary than all and every one of these When you have well considered these proposals I believe you will be very apt to think if S. Luke be of credit with you That all things necessary to salvation are certainly contained in his writings alone And from hence you will not choose but conclude that seeing all the Christians in the world agree in the belief of what S. Luke hath written and not only so but in all other Books of Canonical Scripture which were never doubted of in and by the Church the Learned Arch-Bishop had very just and certain ground to say That in these Propositions which without Controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Salvation and that we have no cause to doubt but that as many as walk according to this rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable Heresie thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation peace shall be upon them and upon the Israel of God 44. Against this you object two things The one that by this Rule seeing the Doctrin of the Trinity is not received universally among Christians the denial of it shall not exclude Salvation The other that the Bishop contradicts himself in supposing a man may believe all necessary Truths and yet superinduce some damnable Heresies 45. To the first I answer what I conceive he would whose words I here justify that he hath declared plainly in this very place that he meant not an absolute but a limited Universality and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all Professions of Christianity that are but only by all those several Professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world By which words he excludes from the universality here spoken of the denyers of the Doctrin of the Trinity as being but a handful of men in respect of all nay in respect of any of these professions which maintain it And therefore it was a great fault in you either willingly to conceal these words which evacuate your objection or else negligently to oversee them 46. Now for the foul Contradiction wherein I pray does it lie In supposing say you a man may believe all Truths necessary to salvation and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie I answer It is not certain that his words do suppose this neither if they do does he contradict himself I say it is not certain that his words import any such matter For ordinarily men use to speak and write so as here he does when they intend not to limit or restrain but only to repeat and press and illustrate what they have said before S. Athanasius in his Creed tells us The Catholick Faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance and why now do you not tell him that he contradicts himself and supposes that we may worship a Trinity of Persons and one God in substance and yet confound the Persons or divide the Substance which yet is impossible because Three remaining Three cannot be confounded and One remaining One cannot be divided If a man should say unto you he that keeps all the Commandments of God committing no sin either against the love of God or the love of his neighbour is a perfect man Or thus he that will live in constant health had need be exact in his diet neither eating too much nor too little Or thus he that will come to London must go on straight forward in such a way und neither turn to the right hand or to the left I verily believe you would not find any contradiction in his words but confess them as coherent and consonant as any in your Book And certainly if you would look upon this saying of the Bishop with any indifference you
Sacraments Commandments c. for that is not here the point to be proved but only that they taught them all things necessary so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them But how much of this they put into their Creed whether all the necessary points of simple belief as we pretend or only as you say I know not what is another Question now to be examined 73. We urge against you That if all necessary points of simple belief be not comprized in the Creed it can no way deserve the name of the Apostles Creed as not being their Creed in any sense but only a part of it To this you say That the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent than their Creed Answer It is very true that their whole Faith was of a larger extent but that was not the Question but whether all points of simple belief which they taught as necessary to be explicitely believed be not contained in it And if thus much at least of Christian Religion be not comprized in it I again desire you to inform me how it could be called the Apostles Creed 74. To other Reasons grounded upon the practice of the Ancient Church appointing her Infants to be instructed for matters of simple belief only in the Creed From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptism and of Strangers unto her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed you have not that I perceive thought fit to make any kind of answer 75. Ad § 26. In this Section you practise that trick of a Caviller which is to answer Objections by other Objections an excellent way to make Controversies endless D. Potter desires to be resolved Why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed and be altogether silent of others Instead of resolving him in this difficulty you put another to him and that is Why are some points not Fundamental expressed in it rather than others of the same quality Which demand is so far from satisfying the former doubt that it makes it more intricate For upon this ground it may be demanded How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Articles simply necessary and put in others not necessary especially if their intention were as you say it was to deliver in it such Articles as were fittest for those times Unless which were wondrous strange unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times than necessary But now to your Question the Answer is obvious These unnecessary things might be put in because they were circumstances of the necessary Pontius Pilate of Christs passion The third day of the Resurrection neither doth the adding of them make the Creed ever a whit the less probable the less fit to be understood and remembred And for the contrary reasons other unnecessary things might be left out Besides who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affection And therefore not so great a fault nor deserving such a censure as the omission of any thing essential to the work undertaken and necessary to the end proposed in it 76. You demand again as it is no hard matter to multiply demands why our Saviours descent into Hell and Burial was expressed and not his circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings and working of Miracles I answer His Resurrection Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God are very great Miracles and they are expressed Besides S. John assures us That the Miracles which Christ did were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed but for a further end that we might believe that Jesus was the Christ and believing have eternal life He therefore that believes this may be saved though he have no explicite and distinct Faith of any Miracle that our Saviour did His Circumcision and Manifestation to the Wise men for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings are neither things simply necessary to be known nor have any near relation to those that are so As for his Descent into Hell it may for ought you know be put in as a thing necessary of it self to be known If you ask why more than his Circumcision I refer you to the Apostles for an answer who put that in and left this out of their Creed and yet sure were not so forgetful after the receiving of the Holy Ghost as to leave out any prime and principal foundation of the faith which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus Cont. 2. c. 10. num 10. Likewise his Burial was put in perhaps as necessary of it self to be known But though it were not yet hath it manifestly so neer relation to these that are necessary his Passion and Resurrection being the Consequent of the one and the Antecedent of the other that it is no marvel if for their sakes it was put in For though I verily believe that there is no necessary point of this nature but what is in the Creed yet I do not affirm because I cannot prove it that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary You demand thirdly Why did they not express Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamental points of faith tending to practice as well as those which rest in Belief I answer Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary points which rest in belief which appears because of practical points there is not in it so much as one 77. We affirm That if your Doctrin were true this short Creed viz. I believe the Roman Church to be Infallible would have been better that is more effectual to keep the believers of it from Heresie and in the true Faith than this Creed which now we have A proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your Religion or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it Yet because you make a shew of doing so or else which I rather hope do not rightly apprehend the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of these several supposed Creeds 78. The former Creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the believers of it An impossibility of being in any formal Heresie A necessity of being prepared in mind to come out of all Error in Faith or material Heresie which certainly you will not deny or if you do you pull down the only pillar of your Church and Religion and deny that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole Book 79. The latter Creed which now we have is so uneffectual for these good purposes that you your self tell us of innumerable gross damnable Heresies that have been are and may be whose contrary Truths are neither explicitly nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed So that no man by the belief of this
devise to dissuade him from this Resolution And if you can devise none what reason then or sense is there but that a probable hope of infinite and Eternal Happiness provided for all those that obey Christ Jesus and much more a firm Faith though not so certain in some sort as sense or science may be able to sway our will to obedience and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Blood can suggest to avert us from it Men may therefore talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty but did they generally believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a City as Constantinople nay but as much as Caesars Commentaries or the History of Salust I believe the lives of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are Thus therefore out of your own Words I argue against you He that requires to true Faith an absolute and infallible certainty for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overbear our will c. imports that if a less degree of Faith were able to do this then a less degree of Faith may be true and Divine and saving Faith But experience shews and reason confirms that a firm Faith though not so certain as sense or science may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections And therefore it follows from your own reason that Faith which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge may be true and Divine and saving Faith 6. All these Reasons I have imployed to shew that such a most certain and infallible Faith as here you talk of is not so necessary but that without such a high degree of it it is possible to please God And therefore the Doctrines delivered by you § 25. are most presumptuous and uncharitable viz. That such a most certain and Infallible Faith is necessary to Salvation necessitate Finis or Medii so necessary that after a man is come to the use of reason no man ever was or can be saved without it Wherein you boldly intrude into the judgment seat of God and damn men for breaking Laws not of Gods but your own making But withal you clearly contradict your self not only where you affirm That your Faith depends finally upon the Tradition of Age to Age of Father to Son which cannot be a fit ground but only for a Moral Assurance nor only where you pretend that not alone Hearing and Seeing but also Histories Letters Relations of many which certainly are things not certain and infallible are yet Foundations good enough to support your Faith Which Doctrine if it were good and allowable Protestants might then hope that their Histories and Letters and Relations might also pass for means sufficient of a sufficient Certainty and that they should not be excluded from Salvation for want of such a Certainty But indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compelled you to speak here what I believe you will not justifie and with a pretty tergiversation to shew D. Potter your means of moral certainty whereas the Objection was that you had no means or possibility of infallible certainty for which you are plainly at as great a loss and as far to seek as any of your Adversaries And therefore it concerns you highly not to damn others for want of it lest you involve your selves in the same condemnation according to those terrible Words of S. Paul Inexcusabilis es c. In this therefore you plainly contradict your self And lastly most plainly in saying as you do here you contradict and retract your pretence of Charity to Protestants in the beginning of your Book For there you make profession that you have no assurance but that Protestants dying Protestants may possibly die with contrition and be saved And here you are very Peremptory that they cannot but want a means absolutely necessary to Salvation and wanting that cannot but be damned 7. The third Condition you require to Faith is that our assent to Divine Truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernatural evidence Which words must have a very favourable construction or else they will not be sense For who can make any thing of these words taken properly that Faith must be an unknown unevident assent or an assent absolutely obscure I had always thought that known and unknown obscure and evident had been affections not of our Assent but the Object of it not of our belief but the thing believed For well may we assent to a thing unknown obscure or unevident but that our assent it self should be called therefore unknown or obscure seems to me as great an impropriety as if I should say your sight were green or blew because you see something that is so In other places therefore I answer your words but here I must answer your meaning which I conceive to be That it is necessary to Faith that the Objects of it the points which we believe should not be so evidently certain as to necessitate our understandings to an Assent that so their might be some merit in Faith as you love to speak who will not receive no not from God himself but a penny-worth for a penny but as we some obedience in it which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not where the understanding does all and the will nothing Now seeing the Religion of Protestants though it be much more credible than yours yet is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration therefore I might let this Doctrine pass without exception for any prejudice that can redound to us by it But yet I must not forbear to tell you that your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to the merit but yet not to the essence of Faith without it Faith were not an act of obedience but yet Faith may be Faith without it and this you must confess unless you will say either the Apostles believed not the whole Gospel which they preached or that they were not eye-witnesses of a great part of it unless you will question S. John for saying that which we have seen with our Eyes and which our hands have handled c. declare we unto you nay our Saviour himself for saying Thomas because thou seest thou believest Blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed Yet if you will say that in respect of the things which they saw the Apostles assent was not pure and proper and meer Faith but somewhat more an assent containing Faith but superadding to it I will not contend with you for it will be a contention about words But then again I must crave leave to tell you that the requiring this condition is in my judgment a plain
lib. 10. in Joan. c. 13. lib. 11. c. 27. This corruptible nature of our body could not otherwise be brought to life and immortality unless this body of natural life were conjoyned unto it The very same things saith Gregory Nyssen Orat. Catech. c. 37. And that they both speak of our conjunction with Christ by the Eucharist the Antecedents and Consequents do fully manifest and it is a thing confessed by learned Catholicks Cyprian de coena Domini and Tertullian de resur carnis speak to the same purpose But I have not their Books by me and therefore cannot set down their words S. Chrysostom Hom. 47. in Joh. on these words nisi manducaveritis has many pregnant and plain speeches to our purpose As the words here spoken are very terrible verily saith he if a man eat not my flesh and drink not my blood he hath no life in him for whereas they said before this could not be done he shews it not only not impossible but also very necessary And a little after he often iterates his speech concerning the holy mysteries shewing the necessity of the thing and that by all means it must be done And again what means that which he says my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed either that this is the true meat that saves the soul or to confirm them in the faith of what he had spoken that they should not think he spoke Enigmatically or parabolically but knew that by all means they must eat his body But most clear and unanswerable is that place lib. 3. de Sacerdotio where he saith If a man cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven unless he be born again of water and the holy spirit and if he which eats not the flesh of our Lord and drinks not his blood is cast out of eternal life And all these things cannot be done by any other but only by those holy hands the hands I say of the Priest how then without their help can any man either avoid the fire of hell or obtain the Crowns laid up for us Theophylact. in 6. Joan. when therefore we hear that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of man we cannot have life we must have faith without doubting in the receiving of the divine mysteries and never inquire how for the natural man that is he which followeth humane that is natural reasons receives not the things which are above nature and spiritual as also he understands not the spiritual meat of the flesh of our Lord which they that receive not shall not be partakers of eternal life as not receiving Jesus who is the true life S. Austin de pec mer. Remis c. 24. Very well do the puny Christians call Baptism nothing else but salvation and the Sacrament of Christs Body nothing else but Life from whence should this be but as I believe from the Ancient and Apostolical Tradition by which this Doctrin is implanted into the Churches of Christ that but by Baptism and the participation of the Lords Table not any man can attain neither to the Kingdom of God nor to salvation and eternal life Now we are taught by the learned Cardinal that when the Fathers speak not as Doctors but as witnesses of the Customs of the Church of their times and do not say I believe this should be so holden or so understood or so observed but that the Church from one end of the earth to the other believes it so or observes it so then we no longer hold what they say for a thing said by them but as a thing said by the whole Church and principally when it is in points whereof they could not be ignorant either because of the condition of the things as in matters of fact or because of the sufficiency of the persons and in this case we argue no more upon their words probably as we do when they speak in the quality of particular Doctors but we argue thereupon demonstratively I subsume But S. Austin the sufficientest person which the Church of his time had speaking of a point wherein he could not be ignorant says not that I believe the Eucharist to be necessary to salvation but the Churches of Christ believe so and have received this doctrin from Apostolical Tradition Therefore I argue upon his words not probably but demonstratively that this was the Catholick doctrin of the Church of his time And thus much for the Thesis That the Eucharist was held generally necessary for all Now for the Hypothesis That the Eucharist was held necessary for Infants in particular Witnesses hereof are S. Cyprian Pope Innocentius I. and Eusebius Emissenus with S. Austin together with the Author of the Book intituled Hypognostica Cyprian indeed does not in terms affirm it but we have a very clear intimation of it in his Epistle to Fidus. For whereas he and a Council of Bishops together with him had ordered that Infants might be baptized and sacrificed that is communicated before the eighth day though that were the day appointed for Circumcision by the old Law There he sets down this as the reason of their Decree that the mercy and grace of God was to be denied to no man Pope Innocent the first in Ep. ad Epis Conc. Milev quae est inter August 93. concludes against the Pelagians that Infants could not attain eternal life without Baptism because without Baptism they were uncapable of the Eucharist and without the Eucharist could not have eternal life His words are but that which your Fraternity affirms them to Preach that Infants without the grace of Baptism may have the rewards of eternal life is certainly most foolish for unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood they shall have no life in them Now that this sense which I have given his words is indeed the true sense of them and that his judgment upon the point was as I have said it is acknowledged by Maldonate in Joan. 6. v. 54. by Binius upon the Councils Tom. 1. p. 624. by Sanctesius Repet 6. c. 7. and it is affirmed by S. Austin who was his Contemporary held correspondence by Letters with him and therefore in all probability could not be ignorant of his meaning I say he affirms it as a matter out of Question Epist 106. and Cont. Julian lib. 1. c. 4. where he tells that Pelagius in denying this did dispute contra sedis Apostolicae authoritatem against the authority of the Sea Apostolick and after but if they yield to the Sea Apostolick or rather to the Master himself and Lord of the Apostles who says that they shall not have life in them unless they eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood which none may do but those that are baptized then at length they will confess that Infants not baptized cannot have life Now I suppose no man will doubt but the belief of the Apostolick Sea was then as S.
if it could be justified But besides that it is confuted by my whole Book and made ridiculous by the Approbations premised unto it it is very easie for me out of your own Mouth and Words to prove it a most injurious calumny For what one Conclusion is there in the whole Fabrick of my Discourse that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle That all things necessary to Salvation are evidently contained in Scripture Or what one Conclusion almost of importance is there in your Book which is not by this one clearly confutable Grant this and it will presently follow in opposition to your first Conclusion and the argument of your first Ch that amongst men of different opinions touching the obscure and controverted Questions of Religion such as may with probability be disputed on both Sides and such as are the disputes of Protestants Good men and lovers of truth of all Sides may be saved because all necessary things being supposed evident concerning them with men so qualified there will be no difference There being no more certain sign that a Point is not evident than that honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it 31. Grant this and it will appear Secondly that the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith necessary to be determined may be for any thing you have said to the contrary not a Church but the Scripture which contradicts the Doctrine of your Second Chapter 32. Grant this and the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental will appear very good and pertinent For those truths will be Fundamental which are evidently delivered in Scripture and commanded to be Preached to all men Those not Fundamental which are obscure And nothing will hinder but that the Catholick Church may Err in the latter kind of the said points because Truths not necessary to the Salvation cannot be necessary to the being of a Church and because it is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring Her to Salvation neither will there be any necessity at all of any Infallible Guide either to consign unwritten Traditions or to declare the obscurities of the Faith Not for the former end be cause this Principle being granted true nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consigned Nor for the latter because nothing that is obscure can be necessary to be understood or not mistaken And so the discourse of your whole Third Chap will presently vanish 33. Fourthly for the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of simple belief though I see not how it may be deduced from this principle yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the Creed necessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be clearly contained in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed 34. Fifthly let this be granted and the immediate Corollary in opposition to your Fifth Chap. will be and must be That not Protestants for rejecting but the Church of Rome for imposing upon the Faith of Christians Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary and for disturbing the Churches Peace and dividing Unity for such matters is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismatical 35. Grant this sixthly and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Hereticks seeing they believe all things evidently contained in Scripture which are supposed to be all that is necessary to be believed and so your Sixth Chapter is clearly confuted 36. Grant this Lastly and it will be undoubtedly consequent in contradiction of your Seventh Chapter that no Man can shew more Charity to himself than by continuing a Protestant seeing Protestants are supposed to believe and therefore may accordingly practice at least by their Religion are not hindered from practising and performing all things necessary to Salvation 37. So that the position of this one Principle is the direct overthrow of your whole Book and therefore I needed not nor indeed have I made use of any other Now this principle which is not only the Corner-stone or chief Pillar but even the base and adequate Foundation of my Answer and which while it stands firm and unmovable cannot but be the supporter of my Book and the certain ruin of yours is so far from being according to your pretence detested by all Protestants that all Protestants whatsoever as you may see in their Harmony of Confessions unanimously profess and maintain it And you your self C. 6. § 30. plainly confess as much in saying The whole Edifice of the Faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation 38. And thus your Venom against me is in a manner spent saving only that there remain two little impertinences whereby you would disable me from being a fit advocate for the cause of Protestants The first because I refuse to subscribe the Artic. of the Ch. of England The second because I have set down in writing motives which sometime induced me to forsake Protestantism and hitherto have not answered them 39. By the former of which objections it should seem that either you conceive the 39 Articles the common Doctrine of all Protestants and if they be why have you so often upbraided them with-their many and great differences Or else that it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England and not the common cause of all Protestants which is here undertaken by me which are certainly very gross mistakes And yet why he who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet be fit enough to maintain that those who do subscribe them are in a saveable condition I do not understand Now though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all Error destructive of Salvation or in it self damnable And this I think in reason may sufficiently qualifie me for a maintainer of this assertion that Protestancy destroys not Salvation For the Church of England I am persuaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no Error in it which may necessitate or warrant any Man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription and thus much if you conceive me not ready to subscribe your Charity I assure you is much mistaken 40. Your other Objection is yet more impertinent and frivolous than the former Unless perhaps it be a just
to have disagreed from you in many things Which I am so certain of that I will venture my Credit and my Life upon it 20. Ad 13. § To the Third Whether seeing there cannot be assigned any Visible true Church distinct from the Roman it follows not that She Erred not Fundamentally I say in our sense of the word Fundamental it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny Or because She was a Part of the Whole which we grant And if She were a true Part of the Church than She retained those truths which were simply necessary to Salvation and held no Errors which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholick In our sense therefore of the Word Fundamental I hope She erred not Fundamentally but in your sense of the word I fear she did That is She held something to be Divine Revelation which was not something not to be which was 21. Ad 14. § To the Fourth How it could be damnable to maintain her Errors if they were not Fundamental I answer 1. Though it were not damnable yet if it were a fault it was not to be done For a Venial sin with you is not damnable yet you say it is not to be committed for the procuring any good Non est faciendum malum vel minimum ut eveniat bonum vel maximum 2. It is damnable to maintain an error against Conscience though the error in it self and to him that believes it be not damnable Nay the profession not only of an error but even of a truth if not believed when you think on it again I believe you will confess to be a mortal sin unless you will say Hypocrisie and Simulation in Religion is not so 3. Though we say the Errors of the Roman Church were not destructive of Salvation but pardonable even to them that Dyed in them upon a general repentance yet we deny not but in themselves they were damnable Nay the very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therefore in themselves were damnable damnable meritoriously though not effectually As a poyson may be deadly in it self and yet not kill him that together with the Poyson takes an Antidote or as Fellony may deserve Death and yet not bring it on him that obtains the Kings Pardon 22. Ad 15. § To the Fifth How they can be excused from Schism who forsook her Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable I answer All that we forsake in you is only the Belief and Practice and profession of your Errors Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion And then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous Hypocrisie complain that we forsake it As if a man should thrust his friend out of doors and then be offended at his departure But for us not to forsake the belief of your Errors having discovered them to be Errors was impossible and therefore to do so could not be damnable believing them to be Errors Not to forsake the practice and profession of them had been damnable Heresie supposing that which you vainly run away with and take for granted those Errors in themselves were not damnable Now to do so and as matters now stand not to forsake your Communion is apparently contradictious seeing the condition of your Communion is that we must profess to believe all your Doctrines not only not to be damnable Errors which will not content you but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths So that to demand why we forsake your Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable is in effect to demand why we forsook it upon our forsaking it For to pretend that there are Errors in your Church though not damnable is ipso facto to forsake your Communion and to do that which both in your account and as you thinâ— in Gods account puts him as does so out of your Communion So that either you must free your Church from requiring the belief of any Error whatsoever damnable and not damnable or whether you will or no you must free us from Schism For Schism there cannot be in leaving your Communion unless we were obliged to continue in it Man cannot be obliged by Man but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the Eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a Divine truth that is to Err nor to profess a known Error which is to lie So that if you require the belief of any Error among the conditions of your Communion our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth and so the imputation of Schism to us vanisheth into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our separation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your Communion Hereafter therefore I intreat you let not your demand be how could we forsake your Communion without Schism seeing you Erred not damnably But how we could do so without Schism seeing you Erred not at all which if either you do prove or we cannot disprove it we will I at least will for my part return to your Communion or subscribe my self Schismatick In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we continue where we are 23. Yet notwithstanding all your Errors we do not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave Communicating with you in the practice and profession of your Errors The tryal whereof will be to propose some form of worshiping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to joyn with you then and not till then may we justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion 25. Ad 17. § To the Seventh Whether Error against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Unity of Faith or at least is not a grievous â—ffence excluding Salvation I answer if you suppose as you seem to do the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinced that it is from God so that the denyal of it involves also with it the denial of Gods veracity any such Error destroys both Faith and Salvation But if the Proposal be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinced but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinced of the Divine verity of the Doctrine proposed The crime then is not so great for the belief of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Error Yet a fault I confess it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the proposal
Sacramentalibus doct 3. fol. 5. and he shall be fully satisfied that I have done you no injury For many of you hold the Popes Proposal Ex Cathedra to be sufficient and obliging Some a Council without a Pope Some of neither of them severally but only both together Some not this neither in matter of manners which Bellarmine acknowledges and tells us it is all one in effect as if they denyed it sufficient in matter of Faith Some not in matter of Faith neither think this Proposal Infallible without the acceptation of the Church Universal Some deny the Infallibility of the Present Church and only make the Tradition of all Ages the Infallible Propounder Yet if you were agreed what and what only is the Infallible Propounder this would not satisfie us nor yet to say that All is Fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him For though agreeing in this yet you might still disagree whether such or such a Doctrine were propounded or not or if propounded whether sufficiently or only insufficiently And it is so known a thing that in many points you do so that I assure my self you will not deny it Therefore we constantly urge and require a particular and perfect Inventory of all these Divine Revelations which you say are sufficiently propounded and that such a one to which all of your Church will subscribe as neither redundant nor deficient which when you give in with one hand you shall receive a particular Catalogue of such Points as I call Fundamental with the other Neither may you think me unreasonable in this demand seeing upon such a particular Catalogue of your sufficient Proposals as much depends as upon a particular Catalogue of our Fundamentals As for example Whether or no a man do not Err in some point defined and sufficiently proposed and whether or no those that differ among you differ in Fundamentals which if they do One Heaven by your own Rule cannot receive them All. Perhaps you will here complain that this is not to satisfie your demand but to avoid it and to put you off as the Areopagites did hard Causes ad diem longissimum and bid you come again a Hundred Years hence To deal truly I did so intend it should be Neither can you say my dealing with you is injurious seeing I require nothing of you but that what you require of others you should shew it possible to be done and just and necessary to be required For for my part I have great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other For whereas the Verities which are delivered in Scripture may be very fitly divided into such as were written because they were necessary to be believed Of which rank are those only which constitute and make up the Covenant between God and Man in Christ and then such as are necessary to be believed not in themselves but only by accident because they were written Of which rank are many matters of History of Prophecy of Mystery of Policy of Oeconomy and such like which are evidently not intrinsecal to the Covenant Now to sever exactly and punctally these Verities one from the other what is necessary in it self and antecedently to the writing from what is but only profitable in it self and necessary only because written is a business of extream great difficulty and extream little necessity For first he that will go about to distinguish especially in the story of our Saviour what was written because it was profitable from what was written because necessary shall find an intricate peice of business of it and almost impossible that he should be certain he hath done it when he hath done it And then it is apparently unnecessary to go about it seeing he that believes all certainly believes all that is necessary And he that doth not believe all I mean all the undoubted parts of the undoubted Books of Scripture can hardly believe any neither have we reason to believe he doth so So that that Protestants give you not a Catalogue of Fundamentals it is not from Tergiversation as you suspect who for want of Charity to them always suspect the worst but from Wisdom and Necessity For they may very easily Err in doing it because though all which is necessary be plain in Scripture yet all which is plain is not therefore written because it was necessary For what greater necessity was there that I should know S. Paul left his Cloak at Troas than those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were never written And when they had done it it had been to no purpose There being as matters now stand as great necessity of believing those truths of Scripture which are not Fundamental as those that are You see then what reason we have to decline this hard labour which you a rigid Task-master have here put upon us Yet instead of giving you a Catalogue of Fundamentals with which I dare say you are resolved before it come never to be satisfied I will say that to you which if you please may do you as much service and this it is That it is sufficient for any Mans Salvation that he believe the Scripture That he endeavour to believe it in the true sense of it as far as concerns his Duty And that he conform his Life unto it either by Obedience or Repentance He that does so and all Protestants according to the Doctamen of their Religion should do so may be secure that he cannot Err Fundamentally And they that do so cannot differ in Fundamentals So that notwithstanding their differences and your presumption the same Heaven may receive them All. 28. Ad 20. § Your Tenth and last request is to know distinctly what is the Doctrine of the Protestant English Church in these points and what my private Opinion Which shall be satisfied when the Church of England hath expressed her self in them or when you have told us what is the Doctrine of your Church in the Question of Predetermination or the Immaculate Conception 29. Ad 21. and 22. § These answers I hope in the judgment of indifferent men are satisfactory to your Questions though not to you For I have either answered them or given you a reason why I have not Neither for ought I can see have I flitted from things considered in their own nature to accidental or rare Circumstances But told you my Opinion plainly what I thought of your Errors in themselves and what as they were qualified or malignified with good or bad Circumstances CHAP. I. The ANSWER to the First CHAPTER Shewing that the Adversary grants the Old Question and proposeth a New one And that there is no reason why among Men of different Opinions and Communions one Side only can be saved 1. AD 1. § Protestants are here accused of uncharitableness while they accuse you of it and you make good this charge in this manner Protestants charge the Roman Church with many and great Errors judge reconciliation of their
Doctrine and ours impossible and that for them who are convicted in Conscience of her Errors not to forsake her in them or to be reconciled unto her is damnable Therefore if Roman Catholicks be convicted in Conscience of the Errors of Protestants they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable and consequently to judge so is no more uncharitable in them than it is in Protestants to judge as they do I HIL All this I grant nor would any Protestant accuse you of want of Charity if you went no further If you be perswaded in Conscience that our Religion is erroneous the profession of it though in it self most true to you would be damnable For it is no uncharitableness to judge Hypocrisie a damnable Sin Let Hypocrite then and Dissemblers on both Sides pass It is not towards them but good Christians not to Protestant Professors but Believers that we require your Charity What think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our Religion that they are resolved to Die in it and if occasion were to Die for it What Charity have you for them What think you of those that in the Days of our Fathers laid down their Lives for it are you content that they shall be saved or do you hope they may be so Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errors there is good hope they might Die with Repentance and if they did so certainly they are saved If you will do so this Controversie is ended No man will hereafter charge you with want of Charity This is as much as either we give you or expect of you while you remain in your Religion But then you must leave abusing silly People with telling them as your fashion is that Protestants confess Papists may be saved but Papists confess not so much of Protestants therefore yours is the safer way and in Wisdom and Charity to our own Souls we are bound to follow it For granting this you grant as much hope of Salvation to Protestants as Protestants do to you If you will not but still affirm as C. M. does that Protestants not dissemblers but believers without a particular Repentance of their Religion cannot be saved This I say is a want of Charity But I pray Sir what dependance is there between these Propositions We that hold Protestant Religion false should be damned if we should profess it Therefore they also shall be damned that hold it true Just as if you should conclude Because he that doubts is Damned if he Eat Therefore he that does not doubt is damned also if he Eat And therefore though your Religion to us or ours to you if professed against Conscience would be damnable yet may it well be uncharitable to define it shall be so to them that profess either this or that according to Conscience 3. Ad 3.4.5.6 § C. M. Our meaning is not that we give Protestants over to reprobation that we offer no Prayers in hope of their Salvation that we hold their Case desperate God forbid c. I HIL I wish with all my Heart that you had expressed your self in this matter more fully and plainly Yet that which you say doth plainly enough afford us these Corollaries 1. That whatsoever Protestant wanteth Capacity or having it wanteth sufficient means of instruction to convince his Conscience of the falshood of his own and the truth of the Roman Religion by the confession of his most rigid Adversaries may be saved notwithstanding any Error in his Religion 2. That nothing hinders but that a Protestant Dying a Protestant may Die with contrition for all his Sins 3. That if he Die with Contrition he may and shall be saved 4. All these acknowledgments we have from you while you are as you say stating but as I conceive granting the very point in question So that according to your Doctrine the heavy sentence shall remain upon such only as either were or but for their own fault might have been sufficiently convinced of the truth of your Religion and the falshood of their own and yet Die in it without contrition Which Doctrine if you would stand to and not pull down and pull back with one hand what you give and build with the other this controversie were ended and I should willingly acknowledge that which follows in your fourth paragraph That you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter allows you But then I must intreat you to alter the argument of this Chapter and not to go about to give us reasons why amongst Men of different Religions one side only can be saved absolutely which your Reasons drive at But you must temper the crudeness of your Assertion by saying One Side only can be saved unless want of Conviction or else Repentance excuse the other Besides you must not only abstain from damning any Protestant in particular but from affirming in general that Protestants Dying in their Religion cannot be saved for you must always remember to add this caution unless they were excusably ignorant of the falshood of it or Died with contrition And then considering that you cannot know whether or no all things considered they were convinced sufficiently of the truth of your Religion and the falshood of their own you are obliged by Charity to judge the best and hope they are not Considering again that notwithstanding their Errors they may Die with contrition and that it is no way improbable that they do so and the contrary you cannot be certain of You are bound in Charity to judge and hope they do so Considering thirdly and lastly that if they Die not with Contrition yet it is very probable they may Die with Attrition and that this pretence of yours that Contrition will serve without actual Confession but Attrition will not is but a Nicety or Phansie or rather to give it the true name a Device of your own to serve ends and purposes God having no where declared himself but that wheresoever he will accept of that Repentance which you are pleased to call Contrition he will accept of that which you call Attrition For though he like best the bright Flaming Holocaust of Love yet he rejects not he quenches not the smoaking Flax of that Repentance if it be true and effectual which proceeds from hope and fear These things I say considered unless you will have the Charity of your Doctrine rise up in judgment against your uncharitable Practice you must not only not be peremptory in damning Protestants but you must hope well of their Salvation and out of this hope you must do for them as well as others those as you conceive Charitable offices of Praying giving Alms and offering Sacrifice which usually you do for those of whose Salvation you are well and Charitably persuaded for I believe you will never conceive so well of Protestants as to assure your selves they go directly to Heaven These things when you do I shall believe you think as Charitably as you speak
cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relator 9. Yet all this I say not as if I doubted that the Spirit of God being implored by devout and humble Prayer and sincere obedience may and will by degrees advance his servants higher and give them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence But what God gives as a reward to believers is one thing and what he requires of all men as their duty is another and whathe will accept of out of grace and favour is yet another To those that believe and live according to their Faith he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation which makes them know though how they know not what they did but believe And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospel of Christ as those which heard it from Christ himself with their Ears which saw it with their Eyes which looked upon it and whose hands handled the Word of Life He requires of all that their Faith should be as I have said proportionable to the motives and Reasons enforcing to it he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of Faith if it be living and effectual unto true obedience For he it is that will not quench the smoaking Flax nor break the bruised Reed He did not reject the Prayer of that distressed man that cried unto him Lord I believe Lord help my unbelief He commands us to receive them that are weak in Faith and thereby declares that he receives them And as nothing avails with him but Faith wich worketh by love So any Faith if it be but as a grain of Mustard seed if it work by love shall certainly avail with him and be accepted of him Some experience makes me fear that the Faith of considering and discoursing men is like to be crackt with too much straining And that being possessed with this false Principle that it is in vain to believe the Gospel of Christ with such a kind or degree of assent as they yield to other matters of Tradition And finding that their Faith of it is to them undiscernable from the belief they give to the truth of other Stories are in danger either not to believe at all thinking not at all as good as to no purpose or else though indeed they do believe it yet to think they do not and to cast themselves into wretched agonies and perplexities as fearing they have not that without which it is impossible to please God and obtain Eternal happiness Consideration of this advantage which the Devil probably may make of this Phansie made me willing to insist somewhat largely upon the Refutation of it 10. I return now thither from whence I have digressed and assure you concerning the grounds afore-laid which were that there is a Rule of Faith whereby controversies may be decided which are necessary to be decided and that this rule is Universally infallible That notwithstanding any Opinion I hold touching Faith or any thing else I may and do believe them as firmly as you pretend to do And therefore you may build on in Gods name for by Gods help I shall always embrace whatsoever structure is naturally and rationally laid upon them whatsoever conclusion may to my understanding be evidently deduced from them You say out of them it undeniably follows That of two disagreeing in matter of Faith the one cannot be saved but by Repentance or Ignorance I answer by distinction of those terms two dissenting in a matter of Faith For it may be either in a thing which is indeed a matter of Faith in the strictest sense that is something the Belief whereof God requires under pain of damnation And so the conclusion is true though the Consequence of it from your former premisses either is none at all or so obscure that I can hardly discern it Or it may be as it oftens falls out concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith is yet overvalued by the Parties at variance and esteemed to be so And in this sense it is neither consequent nor true The untruth of it I have already declared in my examination of your Preface The inconsequence of it is of it self evident for who ever heard of a wilder Collection than this God hath provided means sufficient to decide all Controversies in Religion necessary to be decided This means is Universally infallible Therefore of two that differ in any thing which they esteem a matter of Faith one cannot be saved He that can find any connection between these Propositions I believe will be able to find good coherence between the Deaf Plantiff's Accusation in the Greek Epigram and the Deaf Defendants Answer and the Deaf Judges Sentence And to contrive them all into a formal Categorical Syllogism 11. Indeed if the matter in agitation were plainly decided by this infallible means of deciding Controversies and the Parties in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissention this were in one of them direct opposition to the Testimony of God and undoubtedly a damnable sin But if you take the liberty to suppose what you please you may very easily conclude what you list For who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable Postulates that every emergent Controversie of Faith is plainly decided by the means of dicision which God hath appointed and that of the Parties litigant one is always such a convicted Recusant as you pretend Certainly if you say so having no better warrant than you have or can have for it this is more proper and formal uncharitableness than ever was charged upon you Methinks with much more Reason and much more Charity you might suppose that many of these Controversies which are now disputed among Christians all which profess themselves lovers of Christ and truly desirous to know his Will and do it are either not decidable by that means which God hath provided and so not necessary to be decided Or if they be yet not so plainly and evidently as to oblige all men to hold one way or Lastly if decidable and evidently decided yet you may hope that the erring part by reason of some Vail before his Eyes some excusable ignorance or unavoidable prejudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes not that which He doth know to be the word of God but only that which You know to be so and which he might know were he void of prejudice Which is a fault I confess but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often and not of such a gigantick disposition as you make it to fly directly upon God Almighty and to give him the Lie to his Face 12. Ad 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. § In all this long discourse you only tell us what you will do but do nothing but reserve them to the Chapters following and there they shall be examined The Sum of all collected by
be true which sutes best with my ends by fear of mens ill opinion or any other worldly fear or any other worldly hope I betray my self to any Error contrary to any Divine revealed Truth that Error may be justly stiled a sin and consequently of it self to such a one damnable But if I be guilty of none of these faults but be desirous to know the Truth and diligent in seeking it and advise not at all with Flesh and Blood about the choice of my opions but only with God and that Reason that he hath given me if I be thus qualified and yet through human infirmity fall into Error that Error cannot be damnable Again the party erring may be conceived either to die with contrition for all his sins known and unknown or without it If he die without it this Error in it self damnable will be likewise so unto him If he die with contrition as his Error can be no impediment but he may his Error though in it self damnable to him according to your Doctrine will not prove so And therefore some of those Authors whom you quote speaking of Errors whereunto men were betrayed or wherein they were kept by their Fault or Vice or Passion as for the most part men are Others speaking of them as Errors simply and purely involuntary and the effects of human infirmity some as they were retracted by Contrition to use your own phrase others as they were not no marvel though they have past upon them some a heavier and some a milder some an absolving and some a condemning sentence The least of all these Errors which here you mention having malice enough too frequently mixed with it to sink a man deep enough into Hell and the greatest of them all being according to your Principles either no fault at all or very Venial where there is no malice of the will conjoyned with it And if it be yet as the most malignant poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerful Antidote so I am confident your own Doctrine will force you to confess that whosoever dies with Faith in Christ and Contrition for all sins known and unknown in which heap all his sinful Errors must be comprized can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent Error than S. Paul by the Viper which he shook off into the fire Now touching the necessity of Repentance from Dead works and Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the World they all agree and therefore you cannot deny but they agree about all that is simply necessary Moreover though if they should go about to choose out of Scripture all these Propositions and Doctrines which integrate and make up the Body of Christian Religion peradventure there would not be so exact agreement amongst them as some say there was between the 70. Interpreters in Translating the Old Testament yet thus far without Controversie they do all agree that in the Bible all these things are contained and therefore that whosoever does truly and sincerely believe the Scripture must of necessity either in Hypothesi or at least in thesi either formally or at least virtually either explicitely or at least implicitely either in Act or at least in preparation of mind believe all things Fundamental It being not Fundamental nor required of Almighty God to believe the true sense of Scripture in all places but only that we should endeavour to do so and be prepared in mind to do so whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a Medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in Opinion about it some of them telling him that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtful Yet all with one accord agreeing in this That the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made use of it he should infallibly find it successful what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health Just so these Protestant Doctors with whose discords you make such Tragedies agreeing in Thesi thus far that the Scripture evidently contains all things necessary to Salvation both for matter of Faith and of practice and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conform his Life unto it shall certainly perform all things necessary to Salvation and undoubtedly be saved agreeing I say thus far what matters it for the direction of men to Salvation though they differ in opinion touching what points are absolutely necessary and what not What Errors absolutely repugnant to Salvation and what not Especially considering that although they differ about the Question of the necessity of these Truths yet for the most part they agree in this that Truths they are and profitable at least though not simply necessary And though they differ in the Question whether the contrary Errors be destructive of Salvation or no yet in this they consent that Errors they are and hurtful to Religion though not destructive of Salvation Now that which God requires of us is this That we should believe the Doctrines of the Gospel to be Truths not all necessary Truths for all are not so and consequently the repugnant Errors to be falshoods yet not all such falshoods as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them for all do not so 53. Yea but you say it is very requisite we should agree upon a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points for without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he hath Faith sufficient to Salvation This I utterly deny as a thing evidently false and I wonder you should content your self magisterially to say so without offering any proof of it I might much more justly think it enough barely to deny it without refutation but I will not Thus therefore I argue against it Without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals I may be assured of the Truth of this Assertion if it be true That the Scripture contains all necessary points of Faith and know that I believe explicitely all that is exprest in Scripture and implicitely all that is contained in them Now he that believes all this must of necessity believe all things necessary Therefore without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals I may be assured that I believe all things necessary and consequently that my Faith is sufficient I said of the truth of this Assertion if it be true Because I will not here enter into the Question of the truth of it it being sufficient for my present purpose that it may be true and may be believed without any dependence upon a
request too unreasonable for modest men to make or for wise Men to grant CHAP. IV. The ANSWER to the Fourth CHAPTER Wherein is shewed that the Creed contains all necessary points of meer Belief AD § 1 2 3 4 5 6. Concerning the Creeds containing the Fundamentals of Christiany this is D. Potters assertion delivered in the 207. p. of his Book The Creed of the Apostles as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Catholick Church is esteemed a sufficient summary or Catalogue of Fundamentals by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquity 2. By Fundamentals he understands not the Fundamental rules of good Life and Action though every one of these is to be believed to come from God and therefore virtually includes an Article of Faith but the Fundamental Doctrines of Faith such as though they have influence upon our lives as every essential Doctrine of Christianinity hath yet we are commanded to believe them and not to do them The assent of our understandings is required to them but no obedience from our wills 3. But these speculative Doctrines again he distinguishes out of Aquinas Occham and Canus and others into two kinds of the first are those which are the Objects of Faith in and for themselves which by their own nature and Gods prime intention are essential parts of that Gospel such as the Teachers in the Church cannot without Mortal sin omit to teach the Learners such as are intrinsecal to the Covenant between God and Man and not only plainly revealed by God and so certain truths but also commanded to be preacht to all men and to be believed distinctly by all and so necessary truths Of the second sort are Accidental Circumstantial Occasional objects of Faith Millions whereof there are in Holy Scripture such as are to be believed not for themselves but because they are joyned with others that are necessary to be believed and delivered by the same Authority which delivered these Such as we are not bound to know to be Divine Revelations for without any fault we may be Ignorant hereof nay believe the contrary such as we are not bound to examine whether or no they be Divine Revelations such as Pastors are not bound to teach their Flock nor their Flock bound to know and remember no nor the Pastors themselves to know them or believe them or not to disbelieve them absolutely and always but then only when they do see and know them to be delivered in Scripture as Divine Revelations 4. I say when they do so and not only when they may do For to lay an obligation upon us of believing or not disbelieving any Verity sufficient Revelation on Gods part is not sufficient For then seeing all the express Verities of Scripture are either to all men or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God it should be a damnable sin in any learned men actually to disbelieve any one particular Historical verity contained in Scripture or to believe the contradiction of it though he knew it not to be there contained For though he did not yet he might have known it it being plainly revealed by God and this revelation being extant in such a Book wherein he might have found it recorded if with dilligence he had perused it To make therefore any points necessary to be believed it is requisite that either we actually know them to be Divine Revelations and these though they be not Articles of Faith nor necessary to be believed in and for themselves yet indirectly and by accident and by consequence they are so The necessity of believing them being inforced upon us by a necessity of believing this Essential and Fundamental Article of Faith That all Divine Revelations are true which to disbelieve or not to believe is for any Christian not only impious but impossible Or else it is requisite that they be First actually revealed by God Secondly commanded under pain of damnation to be particularly known I mean known to be Divine Revelations and distinctly to be believed And of this latter sort of speculative Divine Verities D. Potter affirmed that the Apostles Creed was a sufficient summary yet he affirmed it not as his own opinion but as the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers and your own Doctors And besides he affirmed it not as absolutely certain but very probable 5. In brief all that he says is this It is very probable that according to the judgment of the Roman Doctors and the Ancient Fathers the Apostles Creed is to be esteemed a sufficient summary of all those Doctrines which being meerly Credenda and not Agenda all men are ordinarily under pain of Damnation bound particularly to believe 6. Now this assertion you say is neither pertinent to the question in hand nor in it self true Your Reasons to prove it impertinent put into form and divested of impertinencies are these 1. Because the question was not what points were necessary to be explicitely believed but what points were necessary not to be disbelieeved after sufficient proposal And therefore to give a Catalogue of points necessary to be explicitely believed is impertinent 7. Secondly because Errors may be damnable though the contrary truths be not of themselves Fundamental as that Pontius Pilate was our Saviours Judge is not in it self a Fundamental truth yet to believe the contrary were a damnable Error And therefore to give a Catalogue of Truths in themselves Fundamental is no pertinent satisfaction to this demand what Errors are damnable 8. Thirdly because if the Church be not Universally infallible we cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed which we must receive upon the Credit of the Church and if the Church be Universally Infallible it is damnable to oppose her declaration in any thing though not contained in the Creed 9. Fourthly Because not to believe the Articles of the Creed in the true sense is damnable therefore it is frivolous to say the Creed contains all Fundamentals without specifying in what sense the Articles of it are Fundamental 10. Fifthly because the Apostles Creed as D. Potter himself confesses was not a sufficient Catalogue till it was explained by the first Council nor then until it was declared in the second c. by occasion of emergent Heresies Therefore now also as new Heresies may arise it will need particular explanation and so is not yet nor ever will be a compleat Catalogue of Fundamentals 11. Now to the first of these objections I say First that your distinction between points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is more subtil than sound a distinction without a difference There being no point necessary to be believed which is not necessary not to be disbelieved Nor no point to any man at any time in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same time in the same circumstances necessary to be believed Yet that which I believe you would have said I acknowledge true
that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely are yet necessary to be believed upon a supposition that they are known to be revealed by God that is become then necessary to be believed when they are known to be Divine Revelations But then I must needs say you do very strangly in saying that the question was what points might lawfully be disbelieved after sufficient Proposition that they are Divine Revelations You affirm that none may and so does D. Potter and with him all Protestants and all Christians And how then is this the question Who ever said or thought that of Divine Revelations known to be so some might safely and lawfully be rejected and disbelieved under pretence that they are not Fundamental which of us ever taught that it was not damnable either to deny or so much as doubt of the Truth of any thing whereof we either know or believe that God hath revealed it What Protestant ever taught that it was not damnable either to give God the lie or to call his Veracity into question Yet you say The demand of Charity mistaken was and it was most reasonable that a list of Fundamentals should be given the denial whereof destroys Salvation whereas the denial of other points may stand with Salvation although both kinds be equally proposed as revealed by God 12. Let the reader peruse Charity Mistaken and he shall find that this qualification although both kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God is your addition aâ—d no part of the demand And if it had it had been most unreasonable seeing he and you know well enough that though we do not presently without examination fall down and worship all your Churches proposals as Divine Revelations yet we make no such distinction of known Divine Revelations as if some only of them were necessary to be believed and the rest might safely be rejected So that to demand a particular minute Catalogue of all points that may not be disbelieved after sufficient Proposition is indeed to demand a Catalogue of all points that are or may be in as much as none may be disbelieved after sufficient Proposition that it is a Divine Revelation At least it is to desire us Frst to Transcribe into this Catalogue every Text of the whole Bible Secondly to set down distinctly those innumerous Millions of negative and positive consequences which may be evidently deduced from it For these we say God hath revealed And indeed you are not ashamed in plain terms to require this of us For having first told us that the demand was what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposition that they are Divine Truths you come to say Certainly the Creed contains not all these And this you prove by asking how many Truths are there in Holy Scripture not contained in the Creed which we are not bound to know and believe but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject as scon as we come to know that they are found in Holy Scripture So that in requiring a particular Catalogue of all points not to be disbelieved after sufficient Proposal you require us to set you down all points contained in Scripture or evidently deducible from it And yet this you are pleased to call a reasonable nay a most reasonable Demand whereas having ingaged your self to give a Catalogue of your Fundamentals you conceive your engagement very well satisfied by saying all is Fundamental which the Church proposes without going about to give us an endless Inventory of her Proposals And therefore from us instead of a perfect particular of Divine Revelations of all sorts of which with a less hyperbole than S. John useth we might say If they were to be written the World would not hold the Books that must be written methinks you should accept of this general All Divine Revelations are true and to be believed 13. The very truth is the main Question in this business is not what Divine Revelations are necessary to be believed or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed for all without exception all without question are so But what Revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the belief of Christians so that that Society which does propose and indeed believe them hath for matter of Faith the essence of a true Church that which does not has not Now to this question though not to yours D. Potter's assertion if it be true is apparently very pertinent And though not a full and total satisfaction to it yet very effectual and of great moment towards it For the main question being what points are necessary to Salvation and points necessary to Salvation being of two sorts some of simple belief some of Practice and Obedience he that gives you a sufficient summary of the first sort of necessary points hath brought you half way towards your Journies end And therefore that which he does is no more to be slighted as vain and impertinent than an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a House because he does it not all himself Sure I am if his assertion be true as I believe it is a Corollary may presently be deduced from it which if it were imbraced cannot in all reason but do infinite service both to the truth of Christ and the peace of Christendom For seeing falshood and Error could not long stand against the power of truth were they not supported by Tyranny and worldly advantages he that could assert Christians to that liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must need do Truth a most Heroical service And seeing the overvaluing of the differences among Christians is one of the greatest maintainers of the Schism of Christendom he that could demonstrate that only these points of Belief are simply necessary to Salvation wherein Christians generally agree should he not lay a very fair and firm Foundation of the peace of Christendom Now the Corollary which I conceive would produce these good effects and which flowes naturally from D. Potters Assertion is this That what Man or Church soever believes the Creed and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily cannot possibly if also he believe the Scripture be in any Error of simple belief which is offenfive to God nor therefore deserve for any such Error to be deprived of his Life or to be cut off from the Churches Communion and the hope of Salvation And the production of this again would be this which highly concerns the Church of Rome to think of That whatsoever Man or Church does for any Error of simple belief deprive any man so quallified as above either of his temporal life or livelyhood or liberty or of the Churches Communion and hope of Salvation is for the first unjust cruel and Tyrannous Schismatical presumptuous and uncharitable for the second 14. Neither yet is this as you pretend to take away the necessity of believing those Verities of
Council of Trent so accordingly on the other side by the Religion of Protestants I do not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechism of Heidelburg nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherein they all agree and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions that is The Bible The Bible I say The Bible only is the Religion of Protestants Whatsoever else they believe besides it and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the belief of it of others without most high and most Schismatical presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe and hope impartial search of the true way to Eternal Happiness do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one Age against a Consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Fountain but may be plainly proved either to have been brought in in such an Age after Christ or that in such an Age it was not in In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon This therefore and this only I have reason to believe This I will profess according to this I will live and for this if there be occasion I will not only willingly but even gladly lose my life though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me Propose me any thing out of this Book and require whether I believe it or no and seem it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with Hand and Heart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this God hath said so therefore it is true In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgment from him neither shall any man take mine from me I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian I will love no man the less for differing in opinion from me And what measure I mete to others I expect from them again I am fully assured that God does not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this To believe the Scripture to be Gods word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it 57. This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily persuaded that I have chosen wisely much more wisely than if I had guided my self according to your Churches authority For the Scripture being all true I am secured by believing nothing else that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith And if I mistake the sense of Scripture and so fall into Error yet am I secure from any danger thereby if but your grounds be true because endeavouring to find the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my Error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me And then all necessary truth being as I have proved plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary Truth And he that does so if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should fail of Salvation 58. Besides whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide all that and much more may be said for the Scripture Hath your Church been Ancient The Scripture is more Ancient Is your Church a means to keep men at Unity So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and will obey it in Unity of belief in matters necessary or very profitable and in Unity of Charity in points unnecessary Is your Church Universal for time or place Certainly the Scripture is more Universal For all the Christians in the World those I mean that in truth deserve this name do now and always have believed the Scripture to be the Word of God whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God and all Christians besides you deny it 59. Thirdly following the Scripture I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have or what notion could we have and by so doing tacitely confess that your selves are surer of the Truth of the Scripture than of your Churches authority For we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved otherwise it is no proof 60. Fourthly following the Scripture I follow that which must be true if your Church be true for your Church gives attestation to it Whereas if I follow your Church I must follow that which though Scripture be true may be false nay which if Scripture be true must be false because the Scripture testifies against it 61. Fifthly to follow the Scripture I have Gods express warrant and command and no colour of any prohibition But to believe your Church infallible I have no command at all much less an express command Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to do so in these Words call no man Master on Earth They fell by infidelity Thou standest by Faith Be not high minded but fear The Spirit of truth The World cannot receive 62. Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it if any thing be against it whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities many things above reason but nothing against it many things which had they not been revealed reason could never have discovered but nothing which by true reason may be confuted many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that I ought to believe it For reason will convince any man unless he be of a perverse mind that the Scripture is the Word of God And then no reason can be greater than this God says so therefore it is true 63. Following your Church I must hold many things which to any mans judgment that will give himself the liberty of judgment will seem much more plainly contradicted by Scripture than the infallibility of your Church appears to be confirmed by it and consequently must be so
good works they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved what sense is there in saying they cannot make their calling certain by good works They know what salvation is as well as you and you have as much reason to desire it They believe it as heartily as you that there is no good work but shall have its proper reward and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternal reward without good works and why then may not this Doctrin be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good works 31. You say that they certainly believe that before any good works they are justified But this is a calumny There is no Protestant but requires to Justification Remission of sins and to Remission of sins they all require Repentance and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good work being indeed if it be rightly understood and according to the sense of the word in Scripture an effectual conversion from all sin to all holiness But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sins past and a bare purpose of amendment yet even this is a good work and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sins and Remission of sins to justification cannot with candor be pretended to believe that they are justified before any good work 32. Obj. You say They believe themselves justified by faith alone and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves justified Answ Some peradventure do so but withal they believe that that faith which is alone and unaccompanied with sincere and universal obedience is to be esteemed not faith but presumption and is at no hand sufficient to justificafication that though Charity be not imputed unto justification yet it is required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified and that though in regard of the imperfection of it no man can be justified by it yet that on the other side no man can be justified without it So that upon the whole matter a man may truly and safely say that the Doctrin of these Protestants taken altogether is not a Doctrin of Liberty not a Doctrin that turns hope into presumption and carnal security though it may justly be feared that many licentious persons taking it by halves have made this wicked use of it For my part I do heartily wish that by publick Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever Preach or Print this Doctrin that Faith alone justifies unless he joyns this together with it that universal obedience is necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but when the thirteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33. Obj. Whereas you say that some Protestants do expresly affirm the former point to be the soul of the Church c. and that therefore they must want the Theological vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their Communion I Answer They have great reason to believe the Doctrin of Justification by faith only a point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteem it a principal and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousness which if it be imperfect will not justifie but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear If this Doctrin be otherwise expounded than I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may do truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian but that he did believe these divine Truths That he must make his calling certain by good works That he must work out his salvation with fear and trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firm and a more unshaken assent than he does that himself is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himself justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity to do either would not rather forgo his belief of these Doctrins than the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments then those which being the express words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrins doth very well qualifie their perswasion of the latter and that the former as also the lives of many of them do sufficiently testifie are more effectual to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of Gods favor built upon the conscience of his love and fear than the latter can be to swell and puff them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyned with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each ether with the strict embraces of love and Communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to prescribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgment of our Brethren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God than a true judgment if it be uncharitable and therefore shall always chuse if we do err to err on the milder and more merciful part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected than eject those that deserve to be retained 34. Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Justification you must needs infer that they want unity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamental I Answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you infer it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Policrates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian inasmuch as it is undeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrin as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point
over all other Churches That the African Churches in S. Austins time should be ignorant that the Pope was Head of the Church and Judge of Appeals jure divino and that there was a necessity of Conformity with the Church in this and all other points of Doctrin Nay that the Popes themselves should be so ignorant of the true ground of this their Authority as to pretend to it not upon Scripture or universal Tradition but upon an imaginary pretended none-such Canon of the Council of Nice That Vincentius Lirinensis seeking for a guide of his Faith and a preservative from Heresie should be ignorant of this so ready one The Infallibility of the Church of Rome All these things and many more are very strange to me if the Infallibility of the Roman Church be indeed and were always by Christians acknowledged the foundation of our Faith And therefore I beseech you pardon me if I choose to build mine upon one that is much firmer and safer and lies open to none of these objections which is Scripture and universal Tradition and if one that is of this Faith may have leave to do so I will subscribe with hand and heart Your very loving and true Friend W. C. A TABLE OF Contents Note that the first Figure refers to the Chapter the other to the divisions of each Chapter A. PRotestants agree in more things than they differ in by believing the Scripture chap. 4. div 49.50 We have as many rational means of Agreement as the Papists c. 3.7 8. Papists pretend to means of agreement and do not agree c. 3.3 4 5 6. Not necessary to find a Church agreeing with Protestants in all points Ans pref 19. c. 5.27 Antiquity vainly pleaded for Romish Doctrins and Practices since many Errors are more ancient than some of their Doctrins c. 5.91 The Apostolick Church an Infallible Guide to which we may resort being present to us by her Writings c. 3.69 80. That the Church has power to make new Articles of Faith asserted by the Romish Doctors c. 4.18 This one Article I believe the Roman Catholick Church to be Infallible if their Doctrin were true would secure against heresie more than the whole Creed c. 4.77 78 79 83. Christs assistance promised to the Church to lead her into more than necessary truths c. 5.61 62. Atheism and irreligion springs easily from some Romish Doctrins and Practices Pref. 7 8. S. Austins saying Evangelio non crederem c. how to be understood c. 2.54 97 98 99. S. Austins Testimony against the Donatists not cogent against Protestants c. 2.163 S. Austins words No necessity to divide unity explained c. 5.10 The Authors vindication from suspition of Heresiâ— Pref. 28. The Authors motives to turn a Papist with answerâ— to them Pref. 42.43 B. The Bible which is the Religion of Protestants to be preferred before the way of Romish Religion shewed at large c. 6. from 56. to 72. Inclusive C. The Calvinists rigid Doctrin of Predetermination unjustly reproached by Papists who communicate with those that hold the same c. 7.30 To give a Catalogue of our Fundamentals not necessary nor possible Ans Pref. 27. c. 3.13 53. Want of such a Catalogue leaves us not uncertain in our Faith c. 3.14 Papists as much bound to give a Catalogue of the Churches proposals which are their Fundamentals and yet do it not c. 3.53 Our general Catalogue of Fundamentals as good as theirs c. 4.12 c. 7.35 Moral certainty a sufficient Foundation of Faith c. 2.154 A Protestant may have certainty though disagreeing Protestants all pretend to like certainty c. 7.13 What Charity Papists allow to us Protestants and we to them c. 1.1 3 4 5. A Charitable judgment should be made of such as err but lead good lives c. 7.33 Protestant Charity to Ignorant Papists no comfort to them that will not see their errors c. 5.76 The Church how furnished with means to determin Controversies c. 1.7 11. Commands in Scripture to hear the Church and obey it suppose it not infallible c. 3.41 We may be a true Church though deriving Ordination and receiving Scripture from a false one c. 6.54 Common truths believed may preserve them good that otherwise err c. 7.33 Conscience in some cases will justifie separation though every pretence of it will not c. 5.108 Concord in damned errors worse than disagreement in controverted points c. 5.72 The Consequences of mens Opinions may be unjustly charged upon them c. 1.12 c. 7.30 What Contradictions Papists believe who hold Transubstantiation c. 4.46 All Controversies in Religion not necessary to be determined c. 1.7 156. c. 3.88 How Controversies about Scripture it self are to be decided c. 2.27 Controversies not necessary to be decided by a Judicial sentence without any appeal c. 2.85 That the Creed contains all necessary points and how to be understood c. 4.23 73 74. Not necessary that our Creed should be larger than that of the Apostles c. 4.67 70 71 72. Whether it be contrary to the Creed to say the Church may fail c. 5.31 D. S Dennis of Alexandria's saying explained about not dividing the Church c. 5.12 To deny a Truth witnessed by God whether always damnable Ans Pref. 9. The Apostles depositing Truth with the Church no argument that she should always keep it sincere and intire c. 2.148 Of Disagreeing Protestants though one side must err yet both may hope for salvation Ans Pref. 22. c. 1.10 13 17. Two may disagree in a matter of faith and yet neither be chargeable with denying a declared Truth of Gods Ans Pref. 10. Differences among Protestants vainly objected against them c. 3.2 3 5. c. 5.72 No reason to reproach them for their differences about necessary Truths and damuable Errors c. 3.52 What is requisite to convince a man that a Doctrin comes from God Ans Pref. 8. Believing the Doctrin of Scripture a man may be saved though he did not believe it to be the word of God c. 2.159 The Donatists error about the Catholick Church what it was and was not c. 3.64 The Donatists case and ours not alike c. 5.103 The Roman Church guilty of the Donatists Error in perswading men as good not to be Christians as not Roman Catholicks c. 3.64 Papists liker to the Donatists than we by their uncharitable denying salvation out of their Church c. 7.21 22 27. E. English Divines vindicated from inclining to Popery and for want of skill in School-Divinity Pref. 19. How Errors may be damnable Ans Pref. 22. In what case Errors damnable may not damn those that hold them c. 5.58 c. 6.14 In what case Errors not damnable may be damnable to those that hold them c. 5.66 No man to be reproached for quitting his Errors c. 5.103 Though we may pardon the Roman Church for her Errors yet we may not sin with it c. 5.70 Errors of the Roman Church that endanger salvation to be forsaken though they are not destructive of it c. 7.6
thing provided you do not call it a sacrifice So again Haeres 79. besides his putting cunningly ipsa fuit which before we took notice of he makes no scruple to put in Dogma and Sacrificium wheresoever it may be for his purpose Epiphanius his title to this Heresie is Against the Collyridians who offer to Mary Petavius puts in Sacrifice Again in the same page before D. he puts in his own illo dogmate and whereas Epiphanius says in all this he makes it in all this Opinion Pag. 1061. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he translates this womanish Opinion whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though perhaps it may signifie a thought or act of thinking yet I believe it never signifies an Opinion which we hold Ibid. at B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this he renders this Opinion Pag. 1064. at C. Nor that we should offer to her name simply and absolutely he makes it Nor that we should offer sacrifice to her name So many times is he fain to corrupt and translate him partially lest in condemning the Collyridians he might seem to have involved the practice of the Roman Church in the same Condemnation My Seventh and last Reason is this Had Epiphanius known that the Collyridians held the virgin Mary to be a Sovereign power and Deity then he could not have doubted whether this their offering was to her or to God for her whereof yet he seems doubtful and not fully resolved as his own words intimate Haeres 79. ad fin Quam multa c. How many things may be objected against this Heresie for idle Women either worshipping the Blessed Virgin offer unto her a Cake or else they take upon them to offer for her this foresaid ridiculous oblation Now both are foolish and from the Devil These Arguments I suppose do abundantly demonstrate to any man not viel'd with prejudice that Epiphanius imputed not to the Collyridians the Heresie of believing the Virgin Mary God and if they did not think her God there is then no reason imaginable why their oblation of a Cake should not be thought a Present as well as the Papists offering a Taper or that the Papists offering a Taper should not be thought a Sacrifice as well as their offering a Cake and seeing this was the difference pretended between them this being vanished there remains none at all So that my first Conclusion stands yet firm that either the Ancient Church erred in condemning the Collyridians or the present errs in approving and practising the same worship An ADVERTISEMENT The Reader when he meets with the Phrase Catholick Doctrin in the two following Discourses must remember that it does not signifie Articles of Faith determined in any General Councils which might be looked upon as the Faith of the whole Church but the Current and Common Opinion of the Age which obtained in it without any known opposition and contradiction Neither need this be wondred at since they are about matters far removed from the Common Faith of Christians and having no necessary influence upon good life and manners whatsoever necessity by mistake of some Scriptures might be put upon them IV. An Argument drawn from the admitting Infants to the Eucharist as without which they could not be saved against the Churches Infallibility THE Condition without the performance whereof no man can be admitted to the Communion of the Church of Rome is this that he believe firmly and without doubting whatsoever the Church requires him to believe More distinctly and particularly thus He must believe all that to be divine Revelation which that Church teaches to be such as the Doctrin of the Trinity the Hypostatical union of two natures in the person of Christ The procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and such like Whatsoever that Church teaches to be necessary he must believe to be necessary As Baptism for Infants Faith in Christ for those that are Capable of Faith Penance for those that have committed mortal sin after Baptism c. Whatsoever that Church declares expedient and profitable he must believe to be expedient and profitable as Monastical Life Prayer to Saints Prayer for the Dead going on Pilgrimages The use of Pardons Veneration of holy Images and Reliques Latin Service where the people understand it not Communicating the Laity in one kind and such like Whatsoever that Church holdeth lawful he must believe lawful As to Marry to make distinction of Meats as if some were clean and others unclean to flie in time of Persecution for them that serve at the Altar to live by the Altar to testifie a truth by Oath when a lawful Magistrate shall require it to possess Riches c. Now is it impossible that any man should certainly believe any thing unless either it be evident of it self or he have some certain reason at least some supposed certain reason and infallible ground for his belief Now the Doctrins which the Church of Rome teacheth it is evident and undeniable that they are not evident of themselves neither evidently true nor evidently credible He therefore that will believe them must of necessity have some certain and infallible ground whereon to build his belief of them There is no other ground for a Mans belief of them especially in many points but only an assurance of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome No man can be assured that that Church is infallible and cannot err whereof he may be assured that she hath erred unless she had some new promise of divine assistance which might for the future secure her from danger of erring but the Church of Rome pretends to none such Nothing is more certain than that that Church hath erred which hath believed and taught irreconcileable Contradictions one whereof must of necessity be an Error That the Receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist is necessary for Infants and that the receiving thereof is not necessary for them That it is the will of God that the Church should administer the Sacrament to them and that it is not the will of God that the Church should do so are manifest and irreconcileable Contradictions Supposing only that which is most evident that the Eucharist is the same thing of the same vertue and efficacy now as it was in the primitive Church That Infants are the same things they were have as much need are capable of as much benefit by the Eucharist now as then As subject to irreverent carriages then as now And lastly that the present Church is as much bound to provide for the spiritual good of Infants as the Ancient Church was I say these things supposed the propositions before set down are plain and irreconcileable Contradictions whereof the present Roman Church doth hold the Negative and the Ancient Church of Rome did hold the Affirmative and therefore it is evident that either the present Church doth err in holding something not necessary which is so or that the Ancient Church did
Christians That it was fit and lawful to deny the Laity the Sacramental Cup That it was expedient and for the edification of the Church that the Scripture should be read and the publick worship of God perpetually celebrated in a language which they understand not and to which for want of understanding unless S. Paul deceive us they cannot say Amen Or is it reasonable you should desire us to believe you when your own Men your own Champions your own Councils confess the contrary Does not the Council of Constance acknowledg plainly That the custom which they ratified was contrary to Christs institution and the custom of the Primitive Church and how then was it taught by Christ and his Apostles Do not Cajetan and Lyranus confess ingenuously that it follows evidently from S. Paul that it is more for edification that the Liturgy of the Church should be in such a Language as the Assistants understand The like Confession we have from others concerning Purgatory and Indulgences Others acknowledges the Apostles never taught Invocation of Saints Rhenanus says as much touching Auricular Confession It is evident from Peter Lombard that the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was not a point of Faith in his time From Pius Mirandula that the Infallibility of the Church was no Article much less a foundation of Faith in his time Bellarmine acknowledges that the Saints enjoying the Vision of God before the day of judgment was no Article of Faith in the time of Pope John the XXII But as the Proverb is when Thieves fall out true men recover their goods so how small and heartless the reverence of the Church of Rome is to ancient Tradition cannot be more plainly discovered than by the Quarrels which her Champions have amongst themselves especially about the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin The Patrons of the Negative opinion Cajetan Bannes Bandellus and Canus alledg for it First an whole army of Scriptures Councils and Fathers agreeing unanimously in this Doctrin That only Christ was free from sin Then an innumerous multitude of Fathers expresly affirming the very point in question not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries or Predecessors or indeed of their Successors for many ages All the Holy Fathers agree in this that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Original sin So * In part primum q. 1. Art 8. Dub. 5. Bannes Cajetan brings for it fifteen Fathers in his judgment irrefragable others produce two hundred Bandellus almost three hundred Thus †Disp 51. in Ep. ad Rom. Salmeron That all the Holy Fathers who have fallen upon the mention of this matter with one mouth affirm that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in Original sin So ‖ Lib. VII loc cap. 1. cap. 3. n. 9. Canus And after That the contrary Doctrin has neither Scripture nor Tradition for it For saith he no Traditions can be derived unto us but by the Bishops and Holy Fathers the Successors of the Apostles and it is certain that those ancient writers received it not from their predecessors Now against this stream of ancient Writers when the contrary new Doctrin came in and how it prevailed it will be worth the considering The First that set it abroach was Richardus de Sancto Victore as his country-man * Omnium expresse primus Christiferam virginem originalis noxae expertem tenuit De gestis Scotorum III. 12. Johannes Major testifies of him He was expresly the first that held the Virgin Mary free from Original sin or he was the first that expresly held so So after upon this false ground which had already taken deep root in the heart of Christians That it was impossible to give too much honour to her that was the Mother of the Saviour of the World like an ill weed it grew and spread apace So that in the Council of †Sess XXXVI Basil which Binius tells us was reprobated but in part to wit in the point of the Authority of Councils and in the deposition of Eugenius the Pope it was defined and declared to be Holy Doctrin and consonant to the worship of the Church to the Catholick Faith to right Reason and the Holy Scripture and to be approved held and embraced by all Catholicks and that it should be lawful for no man for the time to come to preach or teach the contrary The custom also of keeping the Feast of her Holy Conception which before was but particular to the Roman and some other Churches and it seems somewhat neglected was then renewed and made Universal and commanded to be celebrated sub nomine Conception is under the name of the Conception Binius in a Marginal note tells us indeed That they celebrate not this Feast in the Church of Rome by virtue of this Renovation cum esset Conciliabalum being this was the act not of a Council but of a Conventicle yet he himself in his Index stiles it the Oecomenical Council of Basil and tells that it was reprobated only in two points of which this is none Now whom shall we believe Binius in his Margin or Binius in his Index Yet in after-times Pope Sixtus IV. and Pius V. thought not this Decree so binding but that they might and did again put life into the condemned opinion giving liberty by their constitutions to all men to hold and maintain either part either that the Blessed Virgin was conceived with Original sin or was not Which Constitution of Sixtus IV. The * Sess V. Council of Trent renewed and confirmed But the wheel again turning and the Negative opinion prevailing The Affirmative was banisht first by a Decree of Paul V. from all publick Sermons Lectures Conclusions and all publick Acts whatsoever and since by another Decree of Gregory XV. from all private Writings and private Conferences But yet all this contents not the University of Paris They as Salmeron tells us admit none to the Degree of Doctor of Divinity unless they have first bound themselves by solemn Oath to maintain the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Now I beseech you Mr. R. consider your courses with some indifference First You take Authority upon you against the universal constant unopposed Tradition of the Church for many ages to set up as a rival a new upstart yesterdays invention and to give all men liberty to hold which they please So Pope Sixtus IV. The Council of Trent and Pius V. that is you make it lawful to hold the ancient Faith or not to hold it nay to hold the contrary This is high presumption But you stay not here For Secondly The ancient Doctrin you cloyster and hook up within the narrow close and dark rooms of the thoughts and brains of the defenders of it forbidding them upon pain of damnation so much as to whisper it in their private discourses and writings and in the mean time the New Doctrin you set at full liberty and give leave nay countenance and encouragement to all men to
employ their time and wits and tongues and pens in the maintenance and propagation of it Thus Paul V. and Gregory XV. Yet this is not all For Thirdly You bind men by Oaths to defend the new opinion and to oppose the ancient So the University of Paris Yet still you proceed further For Fourthly By your General Councils confirmed by your Popes you have declared and defined that this new invention is agreeable and consequently that the ancient Doctrin is repugnant to the Catholick Faith to Reason to the Holy Scripture So the Council of Basil These things I entreat you weigh well in your Consideration and put not into the Scale above a just allowance not above three grains of partiality and then tell me whether you can with reason or with modesty suppose or desire that we should believe or think that you believe that all the points of Doctrin which you contest against us were delivered at first by Christ and his Apostles and have ever since by the Succession of Bishops and Pastors been preserved inviolate and propagated unto you The Patrons I confess of this new Invention set not much by the Decree of the Council of Basil for it but plead very hard for a full and final definition of it from the Sea Apostolick and finding the conspiring opposition of the ancient Fathers to be the main impediment of their purpose it is strange to see how confidently they ride over them First Says * Disp 51. in Epist ad Rom. Salmeron in the place forecited they press us with multitude of Doctors of whom we must not say that they err in a matter of such moment We answer says he out of †De moribus Eeclesia lib 1. cap. 2. S. Austin and the Doctrin of S. Thomas That the argument drawn from Authority is weak Then to that multitude of Doctros we oppose another multitude Thirdly We object to the contrary the efficacy of reasons which are more excellent than any Authority Some of them reckon two hundred Fathers other as Bandellus almost three hundred Cajetan fifteen but those as he says irrefragable But as a wise Shepheard said pauperis est numerare pecus Some of those whom they produce are of an exolete Authority and scarce worthy of memory Lastly Against this objected multitude we answer with the word of God * Exod. 23.2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil Neither shalt thou in judgment yield to the sentence of many to depart from the truth For when the Donatists gloried in the multitude of their Authors S. Austin answered it was a sign of a cause destitute of truth to rely only upon the Authority of many men which may err It falls out sometimes also that from some one Doctor especially if he be famous proceeds a multitude of followers of his Opinion and some taken with an humble and pious fear choose rather to follow the Opinion of another against their mind than to bring out of their own wit any thing new lest they should so bring any new thing into the Church Whose humility as it is to be praised so the confidence of others is not to be condemned who for the love of truth fear not to bring in better things Thus S. Hierome in his Sermon of the Assumption if it be his fears to affirm that the Virgin Mary is assumed into Heaven and thinks it rather to be piously desired than rashly defined But * In the Margint here he says The Doctrin of S. Austin alone hath brought into the Church the Worship of the blessed Virgins Assumption S. Austin more happily dared to affirm it and settle it with many argument by which adventure this the Church hath gained that perswaded by his reasons she hath believed it and celebrates it in her worship But they fetch their arguments from the Antiquity of the Doctors to which always greater honour was given than to Novelties But I answer old men are praisers of ancient times but we affirm the younger the Doctors are the more perspicacious Moreover we say that although they were ancient yet they were men and themselves held under the darkness of Original sin and might err But go to who are these Ancients are they Apostles are they Ambrose or Hierom or Austin but none of them discuss'd this Controversie on purpose Chrysostom is opposed in his Commentary on S. Matthew where he saith though Christ were not a sinner yet he has humane Nature from a sinner Understand says Salmeron from her who of her self and according to the condition of nature was a sinner Thomas says that Chrysostom speaks exorbitantly for he constitutes the Virgin under actual sin Or that the Commentaries which go up and down under his name ane not his Or that these passages are adjectitious Or if they be indeed his with the good leave and favour of so great a man they are to be rejected Neither ought any man to marvel that he Bernard and Thomas and Bonaventure and Alexander of Ales and Albert and Durand and Egidius and Lastly The greater part followed that opinion both because they were men and because in progress of time new mysteries are revealed which before were unknown For as holiness of life purgeth no man from sin so it frees no man from danger of error Every age finds out some verities proper to it self which the former ages were ignorant of and there in the Margin Every age hath its peculiar divine revelations Thus far Salmeron by whom we may see That Protestants are not the only men who say that the Fathers may err but that Roman Catholicks too can and dare valiantly break through and tread under their feet though perhaps with cap in hand and some shew of reverence and even ride over whole bands of Fathers when they stand in their way Another great Achilles for the same opinion is one Joannes Baptista Poza a Jesuite and Professor of Divinity at Complutum He in his fourth Book of his Elacidarium Deiparae pleads very earnestly to have it defined and labours very lustily to remove all exceptions to the contrary but above all those many ones That there is no Tradition for it That the stream of Ancient Tradition is against and therefore well and worthily may it be condemned for an Heresie but to be Canonized among the Articles of Faith it can with no reason expect To the Second exception he brings two answers which Salmeron it seems forgot in the prosecution whereof he hath many excellent passages which I have thought good to cull out of him to evidence the wonderful reverence and constant regard of the present Church of Rome to the Tradition of the Ancient The first That it is possible the Writings of the Fathers out of which these Testimonies against the Immaculate conception are taken may be corrupted But to shew it probable they are so in these places he speaks not one word of sense nor so much as any colourable reason