heare examine and determine all controversies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrine they constitute another Iudge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26 Lastly 〈◊〉 D. Potter whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in saith be a fundamentall point of faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a fundamentall point For he will haue against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it is impossible to knowe what Bookes be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other D. Covell expresly saith Doubtlesse it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them doe not hee should haue said as none of them doe to affirme that the Scriptures are holy divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren who grant that Controversies cannot be ended without some externall living authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in us a fundamentall errour to say the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controversies seeing notwithstanding this our beliefe wee use for interpreting of Scripture all the meanes which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c and to these adde the Instruction and Authority of Gods Church which even by has confession cannot erre damnaâ—ly and may afford us more help then can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any private person and finally D. Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamentall errour against faith and consequently he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controversie is damnable If he answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controversies is not a fundamentall point of faith then as he â—eacheth that the universall Church may erre in points not fundamentall so I hope he will nâ—t deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to errour in such points and in particular in this that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controversies And so the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded remaines to them uncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is Iudge of Controversies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in generall deny her this authority in particular controversies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions Whether the Church haue authority to determine controversies in faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answer to both is Affirmatiue 27 Since then the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the revealed truth of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe which blessed S. Augustine plainly affirmeth when speaking of the Controversy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith Tâ—is is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnesse to his Church And a little after Whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therefore with this argument Whosoever resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to us Gods Word or Râ—velation commits a sinne which unrepented excludes salvation But whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church doth resist that meanes which infallibly proposeth Gods word or revelation to us Therefore whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church commits a sinne which unrepented excludes salvation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whetheâ— it were the Roman or Protestant Church and whether he and other Protestants doe not oppose that visible Church which was spread over the world before and in Luthers time is easy to be determined and importeth every one most seriously to ponder as a thing whereon eternall salvation dependeth And because our Adversaries doe here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and in particular teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this evasion which shall be done in the next Chapter ANSVVER TO THE SECOND CHAPTER Concerning the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion AD § 1. He that would usurpe an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people need not put himselfe to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Lawes made to maintain the common liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compasse his own designe as well if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases and adde to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Lawes if he can rule his people by his lawes and his Lawes by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish her tyranny over mens consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of copies dispersed through all places translated into almost all languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successefull was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleas'd under the title of Traditions or Definitions For by this meanes she might both serve her selfe of all those clauses of Scripture which might be drawen to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished shee could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the mindes of men that unwritten doctrines if proposed by her were to be receiv'd with equall reverence to those that were written and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seem'd to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seem'd it never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your directors and Iudges no farther then you please but your
That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Bookes be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable then will he be with them infallibly not only to guard them from all errors but to guide them to all profitable truths such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot doe this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their freewill in believing and in professing their belief 97 To the place of S. Austine I answere That not the authority of the present Church much lesse of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone mov'd Saint Austine to believe the Gospell but the perpetuall Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your selfe have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is prov'd and which it selfe needs no proof and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austine Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his book De Vtil Cred. c. 14. he shewes that his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospell therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Vniversall and Originall Tradition lyes against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may doe well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names in steade of Manichaeus unlesse you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98 If you say that S. Austin speakes here of the authority of the Present Church abstracting from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99 I answer First that it is a vaine presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austine speake here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it its both Personall and Doctrinall succession from the Apostles His argument will be like a Buskin that will serve anylegge It will serve to keepe an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and the Church as much as the Papists now doe If then you should haue come to an ancient Goth or Vandall whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should haue mov'd him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not beleive the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying beleive the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me doe not beleive the Homoousians Choose what thou pleasest if thou shalt say beleive the Arrians they warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I beleive them I cannot beleive thee If thou say doe not beleive the Arriās thou shalt not doe well to force me to the faith of the Homoousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I beleived the Gospell it selfe If you say you did well to beleive them commending the Gospell but you did not well to beleive them discommending the Homoousians Doest thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should beleive what thou wilt and not beleive what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethinke your selves what you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100 Whereas you aske Whether Protestants doe not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand againe whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many bookes for Scripture which are not so and doe not bid men to receive any book which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it And if you meant only Protestants will have men to believe some bookes to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such may not we then aske as you doe Doe not Papists perfectly resemble these men which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome 101 And whereas you say S. Austine may seeme to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing I answer Vntill you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a member of the Church of England who received his baptisme education and Faith from the Ministery of this Church say just so to you as S. Austine here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was mov'd to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief
that there is no falshood at all but only want of divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed or else must yeeld that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be observed that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterward received for such but never any one book or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost never to propose as divine truth any thing not revealed by God and that Oâ—ission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not revealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath nor never will permit his Church to fall 13 Nay to limit the generall promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamentall namely that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to Points fundamentall and whatsoever generall Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their infallibility they may by D. Potter example be explicated and restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be farther affirmed that the Apostles and other writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting down points fundamentall For if it be urged that all Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby saith The Apostle twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamentall because as Nature so God is neither defective in necessaries nor lavish in supersâ—uities Which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation that so God be not accused as defective in necessaries or lavish in supersâ—uities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever he saith Though that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to themfor the behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniversall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and believe them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Divinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye unrevealea in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth us to understand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reveal but all pertaining to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to salvation Mark what he saith That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles and is verified in the universall Church but by all truth is not understood simply all but all apperraining to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to salvation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation and consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church And as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamentall so may he restrain what other text soever that can be brought for the universall infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himselfe How many truths lye unrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to Salvation Are not these fearfull consequences And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all points by her proposed as divine truths and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach any falshood 14 All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Book or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it contain no fundamentall error yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the consequence because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonicall the whole canon is made doubtfull and uncertain and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universall and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall 15 I answere For the thing it selfe it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture received for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferre that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some points we could not believe her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes of any other points fundamentall or not fundamentall which thing being most absurd and withall most impious we must take away the ground thereof and believe that she cannot erre in any point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove Yet I adde that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other doctrines which they defend Por if D. Potter can tell what points in particular be fundamentall as in
may be a fault to be in error because many times it proceeds from a fault But sure the forsaking of error cannot be a sinne unlesse to be in error be a vertue And therefore to doe as you doe to damne men for false opinions and to call them Schismatiques for leaving them to make pertinacy in error that is an unwillingnesse to be convicted or a resolution not to be convicted the forme of Heresies and to find fault with men for being convicted in conscience that they are in error is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of But Sir if this be a strange matter to you that which I shall tell you will be much stranger I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist and the day that he did so as all things that are done are perfected some day or other was convicted in conscience that his yesterdaies opinion was an error and yet thinks hee was no Schismatique for doing sos and desires to bee informed by you whether or no hee was mistaken The same man afterwards upon better consideration became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirm'd Protestant And yet this man thinks himselfe no more to blame for all these changes then a Travailer who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote Citty where he never had been as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven did yet mistake it and after finde his error and amend it Nay he stands upon his justification so farre as to maintain that his alterations not only to you but also from you by Gods mercy were the most satisfactory actions to himselfe that ever he did and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himselfe and his affections to those things which in this world are most precious as wherein for Gods sake and as he was verily perswaded out of love to the Truth he went upon a certain expectation of those inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible So that though there were much weaknesse in some of these alterations yet certainly there was no wickednesse Neither does he yeeld his weaknesse altogether without apology seeing his deductions were rationall and out of Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists and which by his education had got possession of his understanding 104 Ad § 40. 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his booke to prove our separation from you not only lawfull but necessary hath these words Although we confesse the Church of Rome in some sense to be a true Church and her error to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors He meanes not in the belief of those errors for that is presupposed to be done already for whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that she erres hath for matter of belief forsaken that is ceased to believe those errors This therefore he meant not nor could not meane but that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that the Church of Rome erres cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errors and the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must professe what he believes not and practise what he approves not Which is no more then you selfe in thesi have diverse times affirmed For in one place you say It is unlawfull to speak any the least untruth Now he that professeth your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetuall lye Again in another you have called them that professe one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errors the beleefe whereof they had already forsaken what doe you but raile at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And lastly § 42. of this chap. within three leaves after this whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable externall obedience to the Declaration of the Church though perhaps erroneous provided it be in matter not of faith but of opinions or Rites condemning those men who by occasion of errors of this quality disturbe the Churches peace and cast off her communion Vpon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter sarcasme I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture I Answer for him no It is not he but you that would have men doe so not he who saies plainly that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that any Church erres is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her Profession and practice of these errors but you who finde fault with him and make long discourse against him for thus Affirming Not he who can easily winde himselfe out of your Imaginary Labyrinth by telling you that he no where denies it lawfull for any man to oppose any Church erring in matter of faith for that he speaks not of matters of faith at all but only of Rites and Opinions And in such matters he saies indeed at first It is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement to the publique But he presently explaines himselfe by saying not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the Publique resolution but besides that he may offer it to be considered of so farre is he from requiring any sinfull dissimulation Provided he doe it with great Probability of Reason very modestly and respectfully and without separation from the Churches communion It is not therefore in this case opposing a mans private judgement to the publique simply which the Doctor findes fault with But the degree only and malice of this opposition opposing it factiously And not holding a mans own conceit different from the Church absolutely which here he censures But a factious advancing it and despising the Church so farre as to cast off her Communion because forsooth she erres in some opinion or useth some inconvenient though not impious rites and ceremonies Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there as if he required that men should dissemble against their conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture But certainly a great deale lesse to quarrell with him for saying which is all that here he saies that men under pain of demnation are not to dissemble but if they be convinc'd in conscience that your or any other Church for the
errours which were not damnable I answere All that we forfake in you is only the beliefe and practice and profession of your Errors Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion And then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy complain that we forsake it As if a man should thrust his friend out of doores and then be offended at his departure But for us not to forsake the beliefe of your Errors having discovered them to be Errors was impossible and therefore to doe so could not be damnable believing them to be Errors Not to forsake the practice and profession of them had been damnable hypocrisie supposing that which you vainly runne away with and take for graunted those errors in themselves were not damnable Now to doe so and as matters now stand not to forsake your Communion is apparently contradictious seeing the condition of your Communion is that we must professe 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 forsooke 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 doe that which both in your account and as you think 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 errour whatsoever damnable and not damnable or whether you will or no you must free us from Schisme For schisme there cannot be in leaving your communion unlesse 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 eternall truth neither can nor will obliege us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a divine truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that if you require the belief of any errour among the conditions of your Communion our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth and so the imputation of schisme to us vanisheth into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our seperation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawfull conditions of your Communion Hereafter therefore I intreat you let not your demand be how could we forsake your Communion without Schisme seeing you err'd not damnably But how we could doe so without Schisme seeing you err'd not at all which if either you doe prove or we cannot disprove it we will I at least will for my part returne to your Communion or subscribe my selfe Schismatique In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23 Yet notwitstanding all your Errors we doe not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave Communicating with you in the practise and profession of your Errors The tryall whereof will be to propose some forme of worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to joyn with you then and not till then may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion 24 To the sixteenth Your sixt demand I have already satisfied in my answeres to the Second and the Fourth and in my reply Ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25 To the seaventeenth To the seaventh Whether errour against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answere if you suppose as you seem to doe the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd that it is from God so that the denyall of it involves also with it the denyall of Gods veracity any such errour destroyes both faith and salvation But if the Proposall be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinc'd of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Errour Yet a fault I confesse it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the proposall be sufficient But then I must tell you that the proposall of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposalls being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26 To the Eighteenth To the eight How of disagreeing Protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs erre against some Truth testified by God I answere 1. The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus farre agree that these books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very truths against which they erre and why an implicit faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your Church I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endeavours to beleive the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they performe as I hope many on all Sides doe truly and syncerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is syncere obedience why should they not expect that God will performe his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lye without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously form'd and fashion'd they doe embrace severall Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damne them for such errors who are lovers of him and lovers of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodnesse it is to make Man
and Charity collect thus They only erre damnably who oppose what they know God hath testified But Protestants sure doe not oppose what they knowe God hath testified at least we cannot with Charity say they doe Therefore they either doe not erre damnably or with charity we cannot say they doe so 13 Ad § 17. Protestants you say according to their own grounds must hold that of Persons contrary in whatsoever point of beleife one part only can be saved therefore it is strangely done of them to charge Papists with want of Charity for holding the same The consequence I acknowledge but wonder much what it should be that laies upon Protestants any necessity to doe so You tell us it is their holding Scripture the sole Rule of Faith for this you say obligeth them to pronounce them damn'd that oppose any least point delivered in Scripture This I grant If they oppose it after sufficient declaration so that either they know it to be contain'd in Scripture or have no just probable Reason and which may moue an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contained For to oppose in the first case in a man that beliues the Scripture to be the word of God is to giue God the lye To oppose in the second is to be obstinate against Reason and therefore a sinne though not so great as the former But then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe and that for these Reasons First because the contrary beliefe may be touching a point not at all mentioned in Scripture and such points though indeed they be not matters of Faith yet by men in variance are often over-valued and esteem'd to be so So that though it were damnable to oppose any point contain'd in Scripture yet Persons of a contrary beliefe as Victor and Polycrates S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contained in Scripture Secondly because the contrary beliefe may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous and with probabilitie capable of diverse senses and in such cases it is no marvell and sure no sinne if severall men goe severall waies Thirdly because the contrary beliefe may bee concerning points wherein Scripture may with so great probabilitie bee alleaged on both sides which is a sure note of a point not necessary that men of honest and upright hearts true lovers of God and of truth such as desire aboue all things to know Gods will and to doe it may without any fault at all some goe one way and some another some those as good men as either of the former suspend their judgements and expect some Elias to solue doubts and reconcile repugnancies Now in all such Questions one side or other which soever it is holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the Scripture which God intended for it is impossible that God should intend Contradictions But then this intended sense is not so fully declared but that they which oppose it may verily belieue that they indeed maintaine it and haue great shew of reason to induce them to belieue so and therefore are not to be damn'd as men opposing that which they either knowe to be a truth delivered in Scripture or haue no probable Reason to belieue the contrary but rather in Charity to be acquitted and absolv'd as men who endeavour to finde the Truth but fayle of it through humane frailty This ground being laid the Answer to your ensuing Interrogatories which you conceiue impossible is very obvious easie 14 To the first Whether it be not in any man a grievous sinne to deny any one Truth containd'd in holy Writ I answer Yes if he knewe it to be so or haue no probable Reason to doubt of it otherwise not 15 To the second Whether there be in such deniall any distinction between Fundamētall not Fundamētall sufficient to excuse from Heresie I answer Yes There is such a Distinction But the Reason is because these points either in themselues or by accident are Fundamentall which are evidently contain'd in Scripture to him that knowes them to be so Those not Fundamentall which are there-hence deducible but probably only not evidently 16 To the third Whether it be not impertinent to alleage the Creed as containing all Fundamentall points of Faith as if believing it alone wee were at Libertie to deny all other Points of Scripture I answer It was never alleag'd to any such purpose but only as a sufficient or rather more then a sufficient Summarie of those points of Faith which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitely and that onely of such which were meerely and purely Credenda and not Agenda 17 To the fourth drawn as a Corollary from the former Whether this be not to say that of Persons contrary in beliefe one part only can bee saved I answer By no meanes For they may differ about points not contain'd in Scripture They may differ about the sense of some ambiguous Texts of Scripture They may differ about some Doctrines for and against which Scriptures may be alleadged with so great probability as may justly excuse either Part from Haeresie and a selfe condemning obstinacy And therefore though D. Potter doe not take it ill that you believe your selves may be sav'd in your Religion yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrary hee may justly condemne you and that out of your own principles of uncharitable presumption for affirming as you doe that no man can be saved out of it CHAP. II. What is that meanes whereby the revealed truths of God are conveyed to our Vnderstanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion OF our estimation respect and reverence to holy Scripture even Protestants themselves doe in fact give testimony while they possesse it from us and take it upon the integrity of our custody No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ if both the thing were not impossible in it selfe and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding that by this assertion Contentions are increased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule We only deny that it excludes either divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an externall Iudge to keep to propose to interpret in a true Orthodoxe and Catholique sense Every single book every Chapter yea every period of holy Scripture is infallibly true and wants no due perfection But must we therefore inferre that all other Books of Scripture are to be excluded least by addition of them we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former When the first Bookes of the old and new Testament were written they did not exclude unwritten Traditions nor the Authority of
not by testimony of the private spirit which faith he being private and secret is unfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument saith he whereby may be argued and convinced what books be Canonicall and what be not Luther saith This indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he believed the Gospell being moved by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulk teacheth that the Church hath judgement to discerne true writings from counterfeit and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgement she hath not of her selfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you my not be ignorant from what Church you must receive Scriptures hear your first Patriarch Luther speaking against them who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these men build upon a weak foundation For by this means they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we have from the Pope otherwise we must go make a new Scripture 8 But now in deeds they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The Epistle of Iames is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitins teacheth that the second Epistle of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not having sufficient Testimony of their authority and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these Bookes The same is taught by divers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luther's time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleage why they leaue their Master and so many of his prime Schollers I knâ—w no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as hee was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receaved in Gods Church 9 What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easie to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture who doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Doe they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as Melito Asianus Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestanis will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserve to bee put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurres that is he hath no perfect sentence hee rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who saith further that the said book was not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the time of the Machabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Iewes bible out of many bookes heaped into one worke perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomeus And further he saith that he doth not belieue all to haue been done as there is set downe And he reacheth the booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he delivers this generall censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this meanes the Bible was conserved If this were so the Books of the Prophets being not written by themselues but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soone be called in question Are not these errours of Luther fundamentall and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church upon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New Testament as they are commonly receaved we doe recieue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly recieued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it bee the greater or lesse number of voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controversie of Fact whether the number of those who reject or of those others who recieue such and such Scriptures bee greater Their Faith must alter according to yeares and daies When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius and Calvin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe
back reiected it as the Protestant Writers Hospinianus and Lavatherus witnesse The translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basil is reproved by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost The translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall As concerning Calvins translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molineus saith thereof Calvin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leap up and down he useth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Bezas translation to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the Vniversity of Iena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole book of this matter and saith that to note all his errours in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly prohibited All which confirmeth your Maiesties grave and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneva translation to be worst of all and that in the Marginall notes annexed to the Geneva translation some are very partiall untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English Translation the Puritans say Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Book of Common Prayer doth in addition subtraction and alteration differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they doe therefore professe to rest doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto And M. Carlile saith of the English Translators that they have depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the ignorant that in many places they doe detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselves to love darknesse more then light falshood more then truth And the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse give their publike testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirme that you could never yet see a Bible well translated into English Thus farre the Author of the Protestants Apology c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We accompt a man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law in favour of Iustification by faith alone translateth Iustified by faith ALONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious who in the Gospels of S. Matthew Mark and Luke and in S. Paul in place of This is my Body This is my Blood translates This signifies my Body This signifies my bloâ—d And here let Prorestants consider duely of these points Salvation cannot be hoped for without true faith Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre and no greater evidence of truth then that it is evident some of them imbrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwaies visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can never so farre prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himselfe by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confesse thus much saying If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne On the contrary side the Translation approved by the Roman Church is commended even by our adversaries and D. Covel in particular saith that it was used in the Church one thousand three hundred yeares agoe and doubteth not to prefer that Translation before others In so much that whereas the English translations be many and among themselves disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approved translation authorized by the Church of England is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that translation which we use must be the rule to judge of the goodnesse of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake 17 But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here No The chiefest difficulty remaines concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attaining whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they doe Hence M. Hooker saith We are right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting it selfe unto some iudiciall and definitive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to stand D. Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few have time and leasure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgement 18 And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be received from the Church it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost why should we not believe her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therefore either bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in delivering the true sense thereof Or else give us leave to apply against
there was no Scripture or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel and yet there were Gentiles endued in those daies with divine Faith as appeareth in Iob and his friends Wherefore during so many ages the Church alone was the Decider of Controversies and Instructer of the faithfull Neither did the word written by Moyses depriue the Church of her former Infallibility or other qualities requisite for a Judge yea D. Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a living Iudge in the Iewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successiuely upon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide CoÌ„troversies in Religion That some time Churches had one Iudge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or yeares as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of faith or Iudge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in Gods Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibilitie either to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies or infallibilitie to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistants of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soule is before the letter and speech before Bookes and sense before stile Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or subtraction from the former power and infallibilitie of the Church would haue brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost then gained by holy Scripture which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies infallibilitie setled in a living Iudge is incomparably more usefull and fit then if it were conceived as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giving to her Children the milke of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived from an inexhausted fountaine If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibilitie went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamentall and consequently that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Salvation I would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture was deprived of infallibility in some points and not in others He affirmeth that the Iewish Synagogue retained infallibility in her selfe notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so unworthily and unjustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibilitie by reason of the New Testament Eâ—pecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonies Rites Punishments Iudgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Iewes then in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue D. Potter 1 against this argument drawne from the power and infallibilitie of the Synagogue objects that we might as well inferre that Christians must haue one soveraigne Prince over all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge But the disparitie is very cleare The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ 〈◊〉 so their civill government of Christian Common wealths or kingdomes The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a house or family to an Army to a body to a kingdome c. all which require one Master onâ— Generall one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fiet Vnm ovile joyned Vnus Pastor One sheepfold one Pastour But all distinct kingdomes or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to salvation that all haue recourse to one Church but for temporall weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporall Prince kingdome or Common-wealth and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas kingdomes haue their severall Lawes different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Iewes there was one Power and Iudge to end debates and resolue difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controversies in Religion 24 This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yeeld ossent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of God without letters or Iuke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receiue the truth from Gods Church seeing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought wee not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question 25 Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of it selfe For either they have certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith nor a meet Iudge of Controversies If they hâ—ue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to
of the Truth but the perfection of it which are very different things though you would faine confound them For Scripture might very well be all true though it containe not all necessary Divine Truth But unlesse it doe so it cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith for that which wants any thing is not perfect For I hope you doe not imagine that we conceive any antipathy between Gods word written and unwritten but that both might very well stand together All that we say is this that we have reason to believe that God de Facto hath ordered the matter so that all the Gospell of Christ the whole covenant between God and man is now written Whereas if he had pleas'd he might so have disposed it that part might have been written and part unwritten but then he would have taken order to whom we should have had recourse for that part of it which was not written which seeing he hath not done as the progresse shall demonstrate it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten We know no man therefore that saies It were any injury to the written Word to be joyn'd with the unwritten if there were any wherewith it might be joyn'd but that we deny The fidelity of a Keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody But we know no one â—ociety of Christians that is such a faithfull Keeper as you pretend The Scripture it selfe was not kept so faithfully by you but that you suffered infinite variety of Readings to creep into it all which could not possibly be divine and yet in severall parts of your Church all of them untill the last Age were so esteem'd The interpretations of obscure places of Scripture which without Question the Apostles taught the Primitive Christians are wholy lost there remaines no certainty scarce of any one Those Worlds of Miracles which our Saviour did which were not written for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men And many profitable things which the Apostles taught and writ not as that which S. Paul glances at in his second Epistle to the Thessalon of the cause of the hindrance of the comming of Antichrist are wholly lost and extinguished So unfaithfull or negligent hath been this keeper of Divine verities whose eyes like the keepers of Israell you say have never flumbred nor slept Lastly we deny not but a Iudge and a Law might well stand together but we deny that there is any such Iudge of Gods appointment Had he intended any such Iudge he would have nam'd him least otherwise as now it is our Iudge of controversies should be our greatest controversy 11 Ad § 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In your second Paragraph you summe up those arguments wherewith you intend to prove that Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in controversies Wherein I professe unto you before hand that you will fight without an Adversary For though Protestants being warranted by some of the Fathers have called Scripture the Iudge of Controversies and you in saying here That Scripture alone cannot be Iudge imply that it may be called in some sense a Iudge though not alone Yet to speak properly as men should speak when they write of Controversies in Religion the Scripture is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule only and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by Every man is to judge for himselfe with the Iudgement of Discretion and to choose either his Religion first and then his Church as we say or as you his Church first and then his Religion But by the consent of both sides every man is to judge and choose and the Rule whereby he is to guide his choyce if he be a naturall man is Reason if he be already a Christian Scripture which we say is the Rule to judge controversies by Yet not all simply but all the Controversies of Christians of those that are already agreed upon This first Principle that the Scripture is the word of God But that there is any man or any company of men appointed to be judge for all men that we deny and that I believe you will never prove The very truth is we say no more in this matter then evidence of Truth hath made you confesse in plain termes in the beginning of this chapter viz. That Scripture is a perfect Rule of faith for as much as a writing can be a rule So that all your reasons whereby you labour to dethrone the Scripture from this office of Iudgeing we might let passe as impertinent to the conclusion which we maintaine and you have already granted yet out of curtesy we will consider them 12 Your first is this a Iudge must be a person fit to end controversies but the Scripture is not a person nor fit to end controversies no more then the Law would be without the Iudges therefore though it may be a Rule it cannot be a Iudge Which conclusion I have already granted Only my request is that you will permit Scripture to have the properties of a Rule that is to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it to that end for which it was ordained And that is as much as we need desire For as if I were to goe a journey and had a guide which could not erre I needed not to know my way so on the other side if I know my way or have a plain rule to know it by I shall need no guide Grant therefore Scripture to be such a Rule and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an infallible guide But without a living Iudge it will be no fitter you say to end Controversies then the Law alone to end suits I answere if the Law were plain and perfect and men honest and desirous to understand aright and obey it he that saies it were not fit to end controversies must either want understanding himself or think the world wants it Now the Scripture we pretend in things necessary is plain perfect and men we say are oblig'd under pain of Damnation to seek the true sense of it and not to wrest it to their preconceived Phansies Such a law therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all controversies necessary to be ended For others that are not so they will end when the world ends and that is time enough 12 Your next encounter is with them who acknowledging the Scripture a Rule only and not a Iudge make the holy Ghost speaking in Scripture the judge of Controversies Which you disprove by saying That the holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us then the Scripture in which he speakes But by this reason neither the Pope nor a Councell can be a Iudge neither For first denying the Scriptures the writings of the Holy Ghost to be judges you will not I hope offer to pretend that their decrees the writings of men are more capable of
That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility and therefore not of yours What then by Reason That you say may deceiue in other things and why not in this How then will she assure us hereof By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still How it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there be an end of the like multiplied Demands till we rest in somthing evident of it selfe which demonstrates to the world that this Church is infallible And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on it must of necessity like the Iland of Delos flote up and down for ever And yet upon this point according to Papists all other Controversies in faith depend 26 To they 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. § The summe and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this That it appeares by the Confessions of some Protestants and the Contentions of others that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture what it is and about the Various reading and Translations of it which is true and which not are not to bee determined by Scripture and therefore that all Controversies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture 27 To which I have already answered saying That when Scripture is affirm'd to be the rule by which all controversies of Religion are to be decided Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe For as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things under his feet is most true though yet S. Paul tels us That when it is said he hath put all things under him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him So when we say that all controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we doe and must except from this generality those which are touching the Scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his own may say all my substance is in this ship and yet never intend to deny that his ship is part of his substance nor yet to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is supported by the foundation and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you your selves use to say that the Bishop of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would think us but captious sophisters should we inferre from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or else made him head of himselfe Your negative conclusion therefore that these Questions touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture you needed not have cited any Authorities nor urged any reason to prove it it is evident of it selfe and I grant it without more adoe But your corollary from it which you would insinuate to your unwary reader that therefore they are to be decided by your or any visible Church is a meere inconsequence and very like his collection who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his wife presently concluded that he must have her as if there had been no more men in the world but Pamphilus and himselfe For so you as if there were nothing in the world capable of this office but the Scripture or the present Church having concluded against Scripture you conceive but too hastily that you have concluded for the Church But the truth is neither the one nor the other have any thing to doe with this matter For first the Question whether such or such a book be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture by shewing apparent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly Canonicall yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the ancient Churches any book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonicall or to be doubted of as uncertain or rejected as Apocryphall according as it was received or doubted of or rejected by them Then for the Question of various readings which is the true it is in reason evident and confessed by your own Pope that there is no possible determination of it but only by comparison with ancient Copies And lastly for controversies about different translations of Scripture the learned have the same meanes to satisfy themselves in it as in the Questions which happen about the translation of any other Author that is skill in the language of the Originall and comparing translations with it In which way if there be no certainty I would know what certainty you have that your Doway old and Rhemish new Testament are true translations And then for the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours Neither is there any reason imaginable why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of the translation of our Church that it is free from errour if not absolutely yet in matters of moment as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament or Doway Bible The best direction I can give them is to compare both together and where there is no reall difference as in the translation of controverted places I believe there is very little there to be confident that they are right where they differ there to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow Which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible errour yet is it the best that either we or you have and it is not required that we use any better then the best we have 28 You will say Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better I answere it would be so if we could be infallibly certaine that your Church is infallible that is if it were either evident of it selfe and seen by its own light or could be reduc'd unto and setled upon some Principle that is so But seeing you your selves doe not so much as pretend to enforce us to the belief hereof by any proofes infallible and convincing but only to induce us to it by such as are by your confession only probable and principall motives certainly it will be to very little purpose to put off your uncertainty for the first turne and to fall upon it at the second to please your selves in building your house upon an imaginary Rock when you your selves see and confesse that this very Rock stands it selfe at the best but upō a frame of timber I answer secondly that this cannot be a better way because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible and indeed hath not the reall prescription of this priviledge but only pleaseth her selfe with a false imagination and vaine presumption of it as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable arguments 29 Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this discourse
that these controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church is irrationall and inconsequent I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiverâ—ation I will runne over them and let nothing that is materiall and considerable passe without some stricture or animadversion 30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it selfe is divine and sacred The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this some answere that to learne it we have no other way then tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary minde without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it selfe hath setled may be proved a truth infallible In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kinde of proofes so to manifest and cleare that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse is no very certain argument of his fidelity 31 But seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be prov'd by Scripture how can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture 32 I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the materiall objects of our faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it selfe but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aimes at is the beliefe of the Gospell the covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last object of our faith but as the instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covell and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33 But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius and other Luth. the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames of Iude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall 34 So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall or had they not If they had not it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35 You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church you demaund what they meane by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge but not the present Church much lesse the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the
Church which hath delivered at severall times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authenticall Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachie which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes according to the vulgar Edition But aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93 And thus you see what reason we haue to belieue your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books bee true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainty is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that He had oblig'd himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture God is not defectiue in things necessary neither will he leave himselfe without witnesse nor the World without meanes of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruptiō in those things which he would haue known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate us to make use of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas necessity and freedome cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himselfe in his dealing with men and that is to set life and death before him and to leaue him in the hands of his own Counsell God gaue the Wisemen a Starre to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starre that was left to their liberty God gaue the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night and a Pillar of Cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he giues the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be follow'd like the Wise men's Starre Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and loue of the Truth and desire to finde the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty then he can of the Sunne to shine of the Sea to ebb flowe and of all other Creatures to doe those things which by meere necessity they must doe and cannot choose Besides what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you doe not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselues If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why doe not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they doe how comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94 Again why does your Church thus put her candle under a Bushell and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be Interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture it selfe tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable why does shee imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unlesse we must think that fallible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible interpretations would not be so 95 If you say the Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will doe it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to doe it I demand whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth alwaies move to an action when he shewes us plainly that it would be for the good of men and honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot doe it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so mov'd to goe about this work then I confesse you are excused But then I would know whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councell for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councell of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to doe it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himselfe in Cathedra and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it If you say he cannot you will make your selfe ridiculous If he can then I would know whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresistible motion Why does he not goe about this noble worke presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councell of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing he assists none but what he himselfe moves to And whether he did move the Pope to call this Councell is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himselfe 96 If you say your meaning is only
thereof had been recommended by you to me This therefore that Christ Iesus did those miracles and taught that Doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted Bookes of the New Testament I believed by Fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another and lastly by Antiquity which gives an universall and a constant attestation to them But every one may see that you so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of Scripture so turbulent that you damne all to the fire and to Hell that any way differ from you that you professe it is lawfull for you to use violence and power whensoever you can have it for the planting of your own doctrine and the extirpation of the contrary lastly so new in many of your Doctrines as in the lawfulnesse and expedience of debarring the Laity the Sacramentall Cup the lawfulnesse and expedience of your Latine Service Transubstantiation Indulgences Purgatory the Popes infallibility his Authority over Kings c. so new I say in comparison of the undoubted bookes of Scripture which evidently containeth or rather is our Religion and the sole and adequate object of our faith I say every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing deserving Authority with wise and considerate men What madnesse is this Believe them the consent of Christians which are now and have been ever since Christ in the World that we ought to believe Christ but learn of us what Christ said which contradict and damne all other parts of Christendome Why I beseech you Surely if they were not at all and could not teach me any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to believe in Christ then that I should learn any thing concerning him from any other then them by whom I believed him at least then that I should learn what his Religion was from you who have wronged so exceedingly his Miracles and his Doctrine by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the Confirmation of your new Doctrine which might give us just occasion had we no other assurance of them but your Authority to suspect the true ones Who with forging so many false Stories and false Authors have taken a faire way to make the faith of all Stories questionable if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confesse to be the word of Christ and which for the most part make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them which if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors only to make themselves rich and powerfull who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted For if you take this Authority upon you upon the sixe Ages last past how shall we know that the Church of that time did not usurpe the same authority upon the Authors of the sixe last Ages before them and so upwards untill we come to Christ himselfe Whose question'd Doctrines none of them came from the fountain of Apostolike tradition but have insinuated themselves into the Streames by little and little some in one age and some in another some more Anciently some more lately and some yet are Embrio's yet hatching and in the shell as the Popes infallibility the Blessed Virgins immaculate conception the Popes power over the Temporalties of Kings the Doctrine of Predetermination c. all which yet are or in time may be impos'd upon Christians under the Title of Originall and Apostolike Tradition and that with that necessity that they are told they were as good believe nothing at all as not believe these things to have come from the Apostles which they know to have been brought in but yesterday which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves I am told that I were as good believe nothing at all as believe some points which the Church teaches me and not others somethings which she teaches to be Ancient and Certain I plainly see to be New False therefore I will believe nothing at all Whether I say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus and whether this conclusion be not too often made in Italy Spain and France and in England too I leave it to the judgement of those that have wisdome and experience Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farre from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it why should I not much rather conclude Seeing we receive not the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome neither from her must we take his Doctrine or the Interpretation of Scripture 102 Ad. § 19. In this number this Argument is contained The Iudge of Controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned The Scripture is not so and the Church is so Therefore the Church is the Iudge and not the Scripture 103 To this I answere As to be understandible is a condition requisite to a Iudge so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge otherwise you might make your selfe Iudge of Controversies by arguing The Scripture is not intelligible by all but I am therefore I am Iudge of Controversies If you say your intent was to conclude against the Scripture and not for the Church I demand why then but to delude the simple with sophistry did you say in the close of this § Such is the Church and the Scripture is not such but that you would leave it to them to inferre in the end which indeed was more then you undertook in the beginning Therefore the Church is Iudge and the Scripture not I say Secondly that you still runne upon a false supposition that God hath appointed some Iudge of all Controversies that may happen among Christians about the sense of obscure Texts of Scripture whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein in those words of S. Paul Quisque abundet in sensu suo c. I say thirdly Whereas some Protestants make the Scripture Iudge of Controversies that they have the authority of Fathers of warrant their manner of speaking as of Optatus 104 But speaking truly and properly the Scripture is not a Iudge nor cannot be but only a sufficient Rule for those to judge by that believe it to be the word of God as the Church of England and the Church of Rome both doe what they are to believe and what they are not to believe I say sufficiently perfect and sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that have
know it to be so because the Church saies so which is Infallible If I aske what meane You by your Church You can tell me nothing but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope I demaund then lastly Why should I beleive this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation And then you tell me that there are many Motives to induce a man to this beleife But are these Motives lastly infallible No say you but very credible Well let them passe for such because now we have not leasure to examine them Yet me thinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only very credible it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible and as credible and no more perhaps somewhat lesse that her proposals particularly Transubstantiation are Divine Revelations And me thinks You should require only a Morall and modest assent to them and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility I hope you will give us leave to consider and judge whether they be indeed Motives and sufficient or whether they be not Motives at all or not sufficient or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached and opposed with Compulsives and enforcements from it or lastly whether these Motives which You use be not indeed only Motives to Christianity and not to Popery giue me leave for distinction sake to call your Religion so If we may not judge of these things how can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance If I may then at least I am to be a Iudge of all these Controversies 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church 2. If to some whether to Yours 3. If to Yours whether sufficient or insufficient 4. Whether other Societies haue not as many and as great Motives to draw me to them 5. Whether I haue not greater reason to beleive you doe erre then that you cannot And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions Am I a sufficient Iudge of these Controversies or no If of these why shall I stay here why not of others Why not of all Nay doth not the true examining of these few containe and lay upon me the examination of all What other Motives to your Church have you but your Notes of it Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteene containes in it the examination of all controversies and not only so but of all uncontroverted Doctrines For how shall I or can I know the Church of Romes conformity with the Ancient Church unlesse I know first what the Ancient Church hid hold and then what the Church of Rome doth hold and lastly whether they be conformable or if in my judgment they seeme not conformable I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church for want of the Note which she pretends is proper and perpetuall to it So that for ought I can see Iudges we are and must be of all sides every one for himselfe and God for us all 155 Ad § 26. I answere This assertion that Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in Faith if it be taken properly is neither a Fundamentall nor Vnfundamentall point of Faith nor no point of Faith at all but a plaine falshood It is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule to Iudge them by and that not an absolutly perfect Rule but as perfect as a written Rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is either evidently true or evidently credible to give attestation to it and that in this case is Vniversall Tradition So that Vniversall Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by But then because nothing besides Scripture comes to us with as full a streame of Tradition as Scripture Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrine nor no Infallibility of any Church having attestation from Tradition truely Vniversall for this reason we conceive as the Apostles persons while they were liuing were the only Iudges of controversies so their Writings now they are dead are the only Rule for us to judge them by There being nothing unwritten which can goe in upon halfe so faire cards for the title of Apostolike Tradition as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so I mean the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants 156 Yet when we say the Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Controversies by me thinks you should easily conceiue that wee would be understood of all those that are possible to be judg'd by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture For if I had a controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no I would not say that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the word of God or if hee does not hee grants the Question and is not the man we speak of So likewise if I had a controversie about the Truth of Christ with a lew it would be vainly done of me should I presse him which the Authority of the new Testament which he believes not untill out of some principles common to us both I had persuaded him that it is the Word of God The New Testament therefore while he remaines a Iew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie In as much as that which is doubted of it selfe is not fit to determine other doubts So likewise if there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the Word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may believe a book of S. Austines to containe nothing but the Truth of God yet not to haue been inspired by God himselfe against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible because nothing in question can be a proof to it selfe When therefore we say the Scripture is a sufficient meanes to determine all controversies we say not this either to Atheists Iewes Turks or such Christians if there be any such as believe not Scripture to be the word of God But among such men only as are already agreed upon this That the Scripture is the Word of God we say all controversies that arise about Faith are either not at all decidable consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other or they may be determined by Scripture In a Word That all things necessary to be believed are evidently contain'd in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed And our reason hereof is convincing because nothing can challenge our beliefe but what hath descended to us from Christ by Originall and Vniversall
his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he may be sure that whensoever he meetes with such points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it might erre in others and not only true but cleere because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Salvation the Scripture is so cleere that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein or may be cleerely deduced from it Which Doctrines being put together to wit That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such points and that they can tell what points in particular be such I mean fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for Salvation that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to Salvation although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment Neyther will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other doctrines and in particular till they believe that Christs promise to his Church are not limited to points fundamentall 16 Besides from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points it followeth that no true Protestant earned or unlearned doth or can with assurance believe the universall Church in any one point of doctrine Not in points of lesser moment which they call not fundamentall because they believe that in such points she may erre Not in fundamentalls because they must know what points be fundamentall before they goe to learn of her least otherwise they be rather deluded then instructed in regard that her certain and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall Now if before they addresse themselves to the Church they must know what points are fundamentall they learn not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously upon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himselfe counselled and commanded to seeke to hear to obey the Church S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saith he the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnesse And in another place he saith That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwaies been kept is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority The same holy Father teacheth that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he in baptizing infants iâ— in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition And elsewhere Christ is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing But God forbid that I should say infants doe not believe I have already said he believes in another who finned in another It is said be believes and it is of force and he is reckoned among the faithfull that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratishon gaue this round answer Nos ab Augustino hac in parte libere dissentimas In this we plainly disagree from Augustine Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point then according to the same holy Doctour we must rely on the authority of the Church for some fundamentall point not contained in Scripture but delivered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner Wee follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall all Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us while we doe that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceaue us whosoever is afraid to be deceaved by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us Among many other points in the aforesaid words we are to obserue that according to this holy Father when we prove some points not particularly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church even in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church and therefore relying on her we relye on Scripture without danger of being deceaved by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And elsewhere he faithi Seeing this is written in no Scripture we must belieue the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speak the truth But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary point of faith nor the contrary an heresie wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine from whom we haue now heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particular point delivered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it selfe Yet if he will needs hold that this point is not fundamentall we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques saith The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this but this Custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition as there are many things that the universall Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to haue been commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No lesse cleer is S. Chrysoslome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speech or by Epistle saith Hence it is manifest that they delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of beliefe Let us therefore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe It is a Tradition Seek no more Which words are so plainly against Protestants that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome
why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all faith and unity therein Thus you haue fayl'd of your undertaking in your first part of your Title and that is a very ill omen especially in points of so streight mutuall dependance that we shall haue but slender performance in your second assumpt Which is That the Church is infallible in all her Definitions whether concerning points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall 25 Ad § 7. 8. The Reasons in these two paragraphs as they were alleaged before so they were before answered and thither I remit the Reader 26 Ad § 9. 10. 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sinne either deny any thing to be true which she knowes to be Gods truth or propose any thing as his truth which she knowes not to be so But that she may not doe this by ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sinne that you should haue proved but haue not But say you this excuse cannot serue for if the Church bee assisted onely for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall Ans. It does not follow unlesse you suppose that the Church knowes that she is assisted no farther But if being assisted only so farre she yet did conceaue by errour her assistance absolute and unlimited or if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentalls she yet conceived by errour that she should bee guarded from proposing any thing but what was fundamentall then the consequence is apparently false But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre and therefore cannot be excus'd from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of faith Ans. Neither is this deduction worth any thing unlesse it bee understood of such unfundamentall points as shee is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of faith certainly true she may well be questioned Quo Warranto Shee builds without a foundation and saies thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excus'd from rashnesse and high presumption such a presumption as an Embassadour should commit who should say in his Masters name that for which hee hath no commission Of the same nature I say but of a higher straine as much as the King of Heaven is greater then any earthly King But though she may erre in some points not fundamentall yet may shee haue certainty enough in proposing others as for example these That Abraham begat Isaac that S. Paul had a Cloak that Timothy was sick because these though not Fundamentall i. e. no essentiall parts of Christianity yet are evidently and undeniably set down in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashnes propos'd by the Church as certaine divine Revelations Neither is your Argument concluding when you say If in such things she may be deceived she must be alwaies uncertain of all such things For my sense may sometimes possibly deceiue me yet I am certain enough that I see what I see and feel what I feel Our Iudges are not infallible in their judgements yet are they certain enough that they judge aright and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given when they condemne a theef or a murtherer to the gallows A Traveller is not alwaies certain of his way but often mistaken and does it therefore follow that hee can haue no assurance that Charing crosse is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing between Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility Geometricians are not infallible in their own science yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated And Carpenters are not infallible yet certain of the straightnesse of those things which agree with their rule and square So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her Definitions whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters she shall proceed according to her Rule yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it she may be certaine of the Truth of some particular decrees and yet not certain that shee shall never decree but what is true 27 Ad § 12. But if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing Scripture and so we cannot bee assur'd whether she haue not been deceived already The Church may erre in her Proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture if you understand by the Church any present Church of one denomination fo◠example the Roman the Greek or so Yet haue we sufficient certainty of Scripture not from the bare testimony of any present Church but from Vniversall Tradition of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part So that here you fall into the Fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For in effect this is the sense of your Argument Vnlesse the Church be infallible we can haue no certainty of Scripture from the authority of the Church Therefore unlesse the Church be infallible we can have no certainty here of at all As if a man should say If the vintage of France miscarry we can have no wine from France Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all And for the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rationall assurance we can have of it then such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Bookes that is the consent of ancient Copies such I mean for the kind though it be farre greater for the degree of it And if the spirit of God give any man any other assurance hereof this is not rationall and discursive but supernaturall and infused An assurance it may be to himselfe but no argument to another As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farre from being a proofe of the Scriptures incorruption that no proofe can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible then any other and made to speak as they doe for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time to bring all under their authority Now then if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted because the Church saies so which is infallible I would demand again touching this very thing that there is an infallible Church seeing it is not of it selfe evident how shall I be assured of it And what can he answer but that the Scripture saies so in these and these places Hereupon I would aske him how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in thse places seeing it is possible and not altogether improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible when they had the government of
all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot doe so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28 Now for your observation that some Bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received for such But never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphall I demand touching the first sort whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall or not If not seeing the whole faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of faith to believe them Canonicall And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an article of faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine truth which is not revealed by God If they were how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the CanoÌ„ of Scripture which hath suffered some Bookes of Canonicall Scripture to be lost others to loose for a long time their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Post liminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalnesse unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an article of faith nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 19 And then for the other part of it that never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards question'd or rejected for Apocryphall Certainly it is a bold asseveration but extreamly false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of Saint Iames and to the Heb. were they by the Apostles appoved for Canonicall or no If not with what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrine is Apostolicall Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rationall discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you doe so then I shall be bold to aske you what bookes you meant in saying before Some bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received Then for the book of Macchabes I hope you will say it was defin'd for Canonicall before S. Gregories time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it after this manner Concerning which matter we doe not amisse if we produce a testimony out of Bookes although not Canonicall yet set forth for the edification of the Church For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonicall is without question at least to question it Moreover because you are so punctuall as to talk of words and syllables I would know whether before Sixtus Quint us his time your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture or not If not then was your Church surely a most Vigilant keeper of Scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was Scripture and what was not If it had then I demand was it that set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it were that set forth by Sixtus then is it now condemned by Clement if that of Clement it was condemned I say but sure you will say contradicted and question'd by Sixtus If different from both then was it question'd and condemned by both and still lies under the condemnation But then lastly suppose it had been true That both some Book not known to be Canonicall had been received and that never any after receiving had been questioned How had this been a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what mood or figure would this conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly your flying to such poor signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better arguments and that thus to catch at shadowes and bulâ—ushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 30 Ad § 13. We are told here That the generall promises of Infallibility to the Church must not be restrained only to points fundamentall Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained The Argument put in forme and made compleat by supply of the concealed Proposition runs thus The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any age is as absolute and unlimited as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamentalls Therefore neither is the Churches Infallibility thus to be limited Or thus The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and writing may be limited to Fundamentalls as well as the Infallibility of the present Church But that is not to be done Therefore this also is not to be done Now to this Argument I answere that if by may be as well in the major Proposition be understood may be as possibly it is true but impertinent If by it we understand may be as iustly and rightly It is very pertinent but very false So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentalls so another may limit the Apostles unto them also He may doe it de facto but de iure he cannot that may be done and done lawfully this also may be done but not lawfully That may be done and if it be done cannot be confuted This also may be done but if it be done may easily be confuted It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph by five words taken out of Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church Shew where it is written That all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end Besides there is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into error it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom
it to be Canonicall whether it be True If the former sense were yours I must then againe distinguish of the terme received For it may signify either received by some particular Church or by the present Church Vniversall or the Church of all Ages If you meant the word in either of the former senses that which you say is not tâ—â—e A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts or some Book received by some particular Church or by the Vniversall Church of this present time whether it be Canonicall or no and yet haue just reason to belieue no reason to doubt but that other Books are Canonicall As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames the Church of Rome in Hierom's time of the Epistle to the Hebr. And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon nor had reason to doe so If by Received you meant Received by the Church of all Ages I grant he that doubts of any one such Book has as much reason to doubt of all But yet here again I tell you that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book and yet not of all because it is possible men may doe not according to reason If you meant your words in the latter sense then I confesse he that belieues such a Book to be Canonicall i. e. the word of God and yet to make an impossible supposition believes it not to be true if he will doe according to reason must doubt of all the rest and belieue none For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true then because God hath said it nor no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but only because it is Gods word hee that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God hath as much reason to belieue nothing that he saies and therefore if he will doe according to reason neither must nor can believe any thing he saies And upon this ground you conclude rightly that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Vniversall and not confin'd to points fundamentall 36 And this Reason why we should not refuse to beleiue any part of Scripture upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamentall you confesse to be convincing But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Vniversall infallibility of the Church For say you unlesse shee be Infallible in all things we cannot belieue her in any one But by this reason your Proselytes knowing you are not Infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you your selfe must not belieue your selfe in any thing because you know that you are not Infallible in all things Indeed if you had said wee could not rationally belieue her for her own sake and upon her own word and authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing and if it were in any thing then this authority being one the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therefore must either doe unreasonably in believing any one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Let this therefore be granted and what will come of it Why then you say we cannot belieue her in propounding Canonicall Books If you mean still as you must doe unlesse you play the Sophister not upon her own Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Books not upon the Authority of the present Church but upon Vniversall Tradition If you mean Not at all and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it There is no more consequence iâ—â—he Argument then in this The Divell is not infallible therefore if he saies there is one God I cannot believe him No Geometritian is Infallible in all things therefore not in these things which the domonstrates M. Knot is not Infallible in all things therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled Charity Maintained 37 But though the reply be good Protestants cannot make use of it with any good coherence to this distinction and some other Doctrine of theirs because they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamentall and what not and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others yet they might be sure it err'd not in these To this I answer That if without dependance on Scripture they did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things But seeing they ground their beliefe that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only upon Scripture and goe about to prove their assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing that these only points are Fundamentall For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus The Scripture is true in something the Scripture saies that these points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these only are so For every Fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But on the other side this reason is firme and demonstrative The Scripture is true in all things But the Scripture saies that these only points are the Fundamentalls of Christian Religion therefore it is true that these only are so So that the knowledge of Fundamentalls being it selfe drawen from Scripture is so farre from warranting us to believe the Scripture is or may be in part True and in part False that it selfe can have no foundation but the Vniversall truth of Scripture For to be a Fundamentall truth presupposes to be a truth now I cannot know any Doctrine to be a divine and supernaturall Truth on a true part of Christianity but only because the Scripture saies so which is all true Therefore much more can I not know it to be a Fundamentall truth 33 Ad § 16. To this Parag. I answer Though the Church being not Infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she saies yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or universall Tradition be it Fundamentall or be it not Fundamentall This you say we cannot in points not Fundamentall because in such we believe she may erre But this I know we can because though she may erre in some things yet she does not erre in what she proves though it be not Fundamentall Again you say we cannot doe it in Fundamentalls because we must know what points be Fundamentall before we goe to learn of her Not so but I must learn of the Church or of some part of the Church or I
Reason then you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit meanes to decide this Controversie and therefore may be as fit to decide others Therefore to avoid this you runne into a most ridiculous absurdity and tell us that this difference also whether the Church be infallible as well as others must be agreed by a submissiue acknowledgment of the Churches infallibility As if you should haue said My Brethren I perceiue this is a great contention amongst you whether the Roman Church be infallible If you will follow my advice I will shew you a ready meanes to end it you must first agree that the Roman Church is infallible and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible will quickly be at an end Verily a most excellent advice and most compendious way of ending all Controversies even without troubling the Church to determine them For why may not you say in all other differences as you haue done in this Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church That the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the body bloud of Christ That the Communion is to be given to Lay-men but in one kind That Pictures may be worshipped That Saints are to bee invocated and so in the rest and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy Transubstantiation and all the rest will speedily be ended If you say the advice is good in this but not in other cases I must request you not to expect alwaies to be believed upon your word but to shew us some reason why any one thing namely the Churches infallibility is fit to prove it selfe and any other thing by name the Popes Supremacy or Transubstantiation is not as fit Or if for shame you will at length confesse that the Churches infallibility is not fit to decide this difference whether the Church be infallible then you must confesse it is not fit to decide all Vnlesse you will say it may be fit to decide all and yet not fit to decide this or pretend that this is not comprehended under all Besides if you grant that your Churches infallibilitie cannot possibly be well grounded upon or decided by it selfe then having professed before that there is no possible meanes besides this for us to agree hereupon I hope you will giue mee leaue to conclude that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is infallible For certainly light it selfe is not more cleere then the evidence of this syllogisme If there be no other meanes to make men agree upon your Churches infallibility but only this and this be no meanes then it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible But there is as you haue granted no other possible meanes to make men agree hereupon but only a submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility And this is apparently no meanes Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is infallible 90 Lastly to the place of S. Austine wherein we are advis'd to follow the way of Catholique discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity I answer That the way which S. Austine spake of the way which you commend being divers waies in many things cleane contrary we cannot possibly follow them both and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vaine equivocation Shew us any way doe not say but proue it to haue come from Christ his Apostles down to us and we are ready to follow it Neither doe wee expect demonstration hereof but such reasons as may make this more probable then the contrary But if you bring in things into your now Catholique Discipline which Chistians in S. Austins time held abominable as the picturing of God which you must confesse to haue come into the Church seven hundred yeares after Christ if you will bring in things as you haue done the halfe Communion with a non obstante notwithstanding Christs Institution and the practise of the Primitive Church were to the contrary If you will doe such things as these and yet would haue us believe that your whole Religion came from Christ and his Apostles this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make or for wise men to grant CHAP. IIII. To say that the Creed containes all points necessarily to be believed is neither pertinent to the Question in hand nor in it selfe true I SAY neither pertinent nor true Not pertinent Because our Question is not what points are necessary to be explicitely believed but what points may be lawfully disbelieved or rejected after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Truths You say the Creed containes all points necessary to be believed Be it so But doth it likewise containe all points not to be disbelieved Certainly it doth not For how many truths are there in holy Scripture not contained in the Creed which we are not obliged distinctly and particularly to know and believe but are bound under paine of damnation not to reject as soone as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture And we having already shewed that whatsoever is proposed by Gods Church as a point of faith is infallibly a truth revealed by God it followeth that whosoever denieth any such point opposeth Gods sacred testimony whether that point be contained in the Creed or no. In vaine then was your care imployed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitely believed are contained in the Creed Neither was that the Catalogue which Charity Mistaken demanded His demand was and it was most reasonable that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals the deniall whereof destroyes Salvation whereas the deniall of other points not fundamentall may stand with salvation although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God For if they be not equally proposed the difference will arise from diversity of the Proposall and not of the Matter fundamentall or not fundamentall This Catalogue only can shew how farre Protestants may disagree without breach of Vnity in faith and upon this many other matters depend according to the ground of Protestants But you will never adventure to publish such a Catalogue I say more You cannot assigne any one point so great or fundamentall that the deniall thereof will make a man an Heretique if it be not sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth Nor can you assigne any one point so small that it can without heresie be rejected if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by God 2. Nay this your instance in the Creed is not only impertinent but directly against you For all points in the Creed are not of their own nature fundamentall as I shewed before And yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in
instruction acquaint the universall Church with my particular scruples You say the Prelates of Gods Church meeting in a lawfull generall Councel may erre damnably It remaines then that for my necessary instruction I must repaire to every particular member of the universall Church spread over the face of the earth and yet you teach that the promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique with which as I said it is impossible for me to confer Alas O most uncomfortable Ghostly Father you driue me to desperation How shall I confer with every Christian soule man and woman by sea and by land close prisoner or at liberty c. Yet upon supposall of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Faith before I haue the faith of Miracles how shall I proceed at our meeting Or how shall I know the man on whom I may securely rely Procure will you say to knew whether he belieue all fundamentall points of faith For if he doe his faith for point of beliefe is sufficient for salvation though he erre in a hundred things of lesse moment But how shall I know whether hee hold all fundamentall points or no For till you tell me this I cannot know whether or no his beliefe be sound in all fundamentall points Can you say the Creed Yes And so can many damnable Heretiques But why doe you aske me this question Because the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith Are you sure of that not sure I hold it very probable Shall I hazard my soule on probabilities or even wagers This yeelds a new cause of despaire But what doth the Creed contain all points necessary to be believed whether they rest in the understanding or else doe further extend to practise No. It was composed to deliver Credenda not Agenda to us Faith not Practise How then shall I know what points of beliefe which direct my practise be necessary to salvation Sâ—ll you chalk our new paths for Desperation Well are all Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter fundamentall I cannot say so How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not fundamentall Read my Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. there you shall finde that fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the Faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those grand and capitall doctrines which make up our Faith in Christ that is that common faith which is alike precious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle else-where cals the first principles of the oracles of God the forme of sound words But how shall I apply these generall definitions or descriptions or to say the truth these only varied words and phrases for I understand the word fundamentall as well as the words principall essentiall grand and capitall doctrines c. to the particular Articles of the Creed in such sort as that I may be able precisely exactly particularly to distinguish fundamentall Articles from points of lesse moment You labour to tell us what fundamentall points be but not which they be and yet unlesse you doe this your Doctrine serues only either to make men despaire or else to haue recourse to those whom you call Papists and which giue one certain Rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of Faith in such sense as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation And seeing your selfe acknowledges that these men doe not erre in points fundamentall I cannot but hold it most safe for me to joyn with them for the securing of my soule and the avoiding of desperation into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand and belieue it For the whole discourse and inferences which here I haue made are either your own direct Assertions or evident consequences cleerly deduced from them 20 But now let us answer some few Objections of D. Potters against that which wee haue said before to avoid our argument That the Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed he saith The Creed is an abstract of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it and therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes 21 This answer makes for us For by giving a reason why it was needlesse that Scripture should be expressed in the Creed you grant as much as we desire namely that the Apostles judged it needlesse to expresse all necessary points of faith in their Creed Neither doth the Creed suppose or depend on Scripture in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence infer from the Articles of the Creed that there is any Canonicall Scripture at all and much lesse that such Books in particular be Canonicall Yea the Creed might haue been the same although holy Scripture had never been written and which is more the Creed even in priority of time was before all the Scripture of the new Testament except the Gospell of S. Mathew And so according to this reason of his the Scripture should not mention Articles contained in the Creed And I note in a word how little connexion D. Potters arguments haue while he tells us that the Creed is an Abstraâ—â— of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in Scripture or collected out of it therefore needs not expresse the authority of that which it supposes it doth not follow The Articles of the Creed are delivered in Scripture therefore the Creed supposeth Scripture For two distinct writings may well deliver the same truths and yet one of them not suppose the other unlesse D. Potter be of opinion that two Doctors cannot at one time speak the same truth 22 And notwithstanding that D. Potter hath now told us it was needlesse that the Creed should expresse Scripture whose Authority it supposes he comes at length to say that the Nicene Fathers in their Creed confessing that the holy Ghost spake by the Prophets doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine Authority of all Canonicall Scripture But I would ask him whether the Nicene Creed be not also an Abstract of Doctrines delivered in Scripture as he said of the Apostles Creed and thence did infer that it was needlesse to expresse Scripture whose authority it supposes Besides we doe not only belieue in generall that Canonicall Scripture is of divine authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to belieue that such and such particular Booksâ— not mentioned in the Nicene Creed are Canonicall And lastly D. Potter in this Answer grants as much as we desire which is that all points of faith are not contained in the Apostles Creed even as it
not deny I presume that S. Peter preached all therefore you must not deny that S. Marke wrote all 42 Our next inquiry let it be touching S. Iohns intent in writing his Gospell whether it were to deliver so much truth as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to eternall life or only part of it and to leave part unwritten A great man there is but much lesse then 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 justify what I have undertaken that at least all the four Evangelists have in them all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ. Neither will I deny but S. Iohns 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. Iohn which is in none of the other Evangelists hath not so well considered them as he should doe before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter And for his prime intent in writing his Gospell what that was certainly no Father in the world understood it better then himselfe Therefore let us hear him speak Many other signes saith he also did Iesus in the sight of his Disciples which are not written in this Book But these are written that you may believe that Iesus is Christ the sonne 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 signes are written Take it which way you will this conclusion will certainly follow That either all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell or lesse then all and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with lively faith would certainly bring them to eternall life 43 This which hath been spoken I hope is enough to justify my undertaking to the full that it is very probable that every one of the foure Evangelists has in his book the whole substance all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ. But for S. Luke that he hath written such a perfect Gospell in my judgement it ought to be with them that believe him no manner of question Consider first the introduction to his Gospell 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 been instructed Adde to this place the entrāce to his History of the Acts of the Apostles The former treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Iesus began both to doe and teach untill 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 saies 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 Gospell 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 begining delivered not the whole Gospell 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 Gospell 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 Gospell of Christ 9. Whether in the other Text All things which Iesus began to doe and teach must not at least imply all the Principall 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 Principall and most necessary things which Iesus taught 12. And lastly whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospell be not lesse principall and lesse necessary then all and every one of these When you have well considered these proposalls 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 Canonicall 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 Propositiōs which without Controversy 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 Heresy 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 Doctrine of the Trinity is not received universally among Christians the deniall of it shall not exclude Salvation The other that the Bishop contradicts himselfe in supposing a man may belieue all necessary Truths and yet superinduce some damnable Heresies 45 To the first I answere 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 Vniversality and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all Professions of Christianity that are but only by all those severall Professions of Christiany 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 Doctrine of the Trinity as being but a handfull 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 Especially seeing your friend to whom you are so much beholding Paulus Veridicus in his scurrilous and sophisticall Pamphlet against B. Vshers Sermon
salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or who can conjoyn in one brain not crack't these assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselues fundamentall or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgement that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more Charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unlesse you will hold That of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamentall You ought to know that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is great difference between a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to erre in some doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgement they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not substantiall to faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in Gods Church You say that hay and stubble and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in points not fundamentall laid on the roofe destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christiā world rather then beare with some errours which did not destroy the foundation of faith And as fo◠others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receiue the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the faith of the Church with the Doctors And much lesse should they forsake the faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novelists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to haue doubted whether they were certain because your selfe affirm that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to mind the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your selfe sets down to free S. Cyprian from Schisme every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietnesse haue rectified their consciences about the pretended errours of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable and modest man dissented from others in his iudgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much lesse any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamentall or necessary and why doe you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue believed that they might haue been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42 In other places you write so much as may serve us to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture despise the Church so far as to cut of her Cōmunion he may be justly branded condemned for a Schismatique yea an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motives to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leave her Communion then evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should haue answered rectified their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace externall obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselves
in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he haue evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be coÌ„tained in holy Scripture How much more coherently doe Catholiques proceed who believe the universall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we haue alleaged out of you The will of God is saith he to haue them doe whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and finall decision shall determine yea though it seeme in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity bee guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speake Not unlike to this is your doctrine delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many good Cotholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errours therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Hereticall especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unitie in her government to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore hee doth uniustlie charge us either with Schisme or Heresie These wordes manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schisme and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to haue been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concern as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Faith and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were untruely supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre even fundamentally And doe you now say with us that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresie which is a point so often impugned by you 43 It is therefore most evident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and ought to have rectified by meanes enough if Pride Ambition Obstinacy c. had given him leave I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Blood of our blessed Saviour attentiuely to ponder and unpartially to apply to their owne Conscience what this Man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he did my trembling heart beat within me and reprehending me obiect against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Doe so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And in another place he saith Dost thou who art but One and of no account take upon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councels the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom doe not these Mountaines of arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Behold what remorse Luther felt and how he wanted no strength of malice to crosse his own conscience and therefore it was no scruple or conceived obligation of conscience but some other motives which induced him to oppose the Church And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter and strength to master all reluctations of conscience heare an example or two for that purpose Of Communion under both kinds thus he saith If the Councell should in any case decree this least of all would we then use both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and the Decree we would use either but one kind only or neither or in no case both Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience that to use neither kind was against our Saviours command Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of as you said all men ought to doe And that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart and if occasion had been offered would have been as good as his word mark what he saith of the Elevation of the Sacrament I did know the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall yet neverthelesse I did retain it in tâ—e Church at Wittemberg to the end I might vexe the divell Carolostadius Was not this a conscience large and capacious enough that could swallow Idolatry Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome as these men are wont to blaspheame if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberge If Carolostadius
take from the number but one and say they were but foure against the Scripture affirming them to have been fiue he is instantly guilty of a damnable sinne Why Because by this subtraction of One he doth deprive Gods word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility For if either he could deceive or be deceived in any one thing it were but wisdome to suspect him in all And seeing eveâ—y Hereâ—y opposeth some Truth revealed by God it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly and damnable sinne For if voluntary Blasphemy and Periury which are opposite only to the inâ—used Morall Vertue of Religion can never be excused from mortall sinne much lesse can Heresy be excused which opposeth the Theologicall Vertue of Faith 11 If any object that Schisme may seem to be a greater sinne then Heresy because the Verâ—ue of Charity to which Schisme is opposite is greater then Faith according to the Apostle saying Now there remain Faith Hope Charity but the greatâ—r of these is Charity S. Thomas answeres in these words Charity hath two Obiects one principall to wit the 〈◊〉 Goodnesse and another secondary namely the good of our Neighbour But Schisme and other sinnes which are committed against our Neighbour are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good which is lesse then the obiect of Faith which is God as he is the Prime Verity on which Faith doth relie and therefore these sinnes are lesse then Infidelity He takes Infidelity after a generall manner as it comprehends Heresie and other vices against Faith 12. Having therefore sufficiently declared wherein Heresy consists Let us come to prove that which we proposed in this Chapter Where I desire it be still remembred That the visible Catholique Church cannot erre damnably as D. Potter confesseth And that when Luther appeared there was no other visible true Church of Christ disagreeing from the Roman as we have demonstrated in the next precedent Chapter 13 Now that Luther and his followers cannot be excused from formall Heresy I prove by these reasons To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God is formall Heresie as we have shewed out of the definition of Heresie But Luther Calvin and the rest did oppose divers truths propounded by the visible Church as revealed by God yea they did therefore oppose her because shee propounded as divine revealed truths things which they judged either to be fals or human inventions Therefore they committed formall Heresie 14 Moreover every Errour against any doctrine revealed by God is damnable Heresie whether the matter in it selfe be great or small as I proved before and therefore either the Protestants or the Roman Church must be guilty of formall Heresy because one of them must erre against the word testimony of God but you grant perforâ—e that the Roman Church doth not erre damnably I adde that she cannot erre damnably because she is the truly Catholique Church which you confesse cannot erre damnably Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formall Heresy 15 Besides we have shewed that the visible Church is Iudge of Controversies and therefore must be infallible in all her Proposals which being once supposed it manifestly followeth that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by God is not so much to oppose her as God himself and therefore cannot be excused from grievous Heresy 16 Againe if Luther were an Heretique for those points wherein he disagreed from the Roman Church All they who agree with him in those very points must likewise be Heretiques Now that Luther was a formall Heretique I demonstrate in this manner To say that Gods visible true Church is not universall but confined to one only place or corner of the world is according to your owne expresse words properly Heresy against that Article of the Creed wherein we professe to beleeve the holy Catholique Church And you brand Donatus with heresy because he limited the universall Church to Africa But it is manifest and acknowledged by Luther himself aud other chief Protestants that Luthers Reformation when it first began and much more for divers Ages before was not Vniversall nor spread over the world but was confined to that compasse of ground which did contain Luthers body Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formall Heresy If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists There are innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not only in Africa as these men with most impudent vanity doe rave but that she is spread over the whole earth much more may it be said It appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture that the Church of Christ cannot be confined to the Ciâ—ty of Wittemberg or to the place where Luthers feet stood but must be spread over the whole world It is therefore most impudent vanity and dotage to limit her to Luthers Reformation In another place also this holy Father writes no lesse effectually against Luther then against the Donatists For having out of those words In thy â—eed all Nations shall be blessed proved that Gods Church must be universall he saith Why doe you superadde by saying that Christ remaines heire in no part of the earth except where he may have Donatus for his Coheire Give me this Vniversall Church if it be among you shew your selves to all Nations which we already shew to be blessed in this Seed Give us this Church or else laying aside all fury receive her from us But it is evident that Luther could not when he said At the beginning I was alone give us an universall Church Therefore happy had he been if he had then and his followers would now receive her from us And therefore we must conclude with the same holy Father saying in another place of the universall Church She hath this most certain mark that she cannot be bidden She is then knowne to all Nations The Sect of Donatus is unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she The Sect of Luther at least when he began and much more before his beginning was unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she 17 And that it may yet further appeare how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists It is to be noted that they never taught that the Catholique Church ought not to extend it self further then that part of Africa where their faction reigned but only that in fact it was so confined because all the rest of the Church was prophaned by communicating with Caeciliâ—â—us whom they falsly affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditours or gives up of the Bible to the Persecutors to be burned yea at that very time they had some of their Sect residing in Rome and sent thither one Victor a Bishop under colour to take care of the Brethren in that Citty but indeed as Baronius observeth that the world might account them Catholiques by
they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O Blasphemy anharlot By which words it seemes you are resolute perpetually to confound True and Vnspotted and to put no difference between a corrupted Church and none at all But what is this but to make no difference betwen a diseased and a dead man Nay what is it but to contradict your selves who cannot deny but that sinnes are as great staines and spots and deformities in the sight of God as errors and confesse your Church to be a congregation of men whereof every particular not one excepted and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them is polluted and defiled with sinne You proceed 19 But say you The same heresy followes out of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every error against any revealed truth is Heresy and Damnable whether the matter be great or small And how can the Church more truly be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by every act of Heresy all divine faith is lost to maintaine a true Church without any faith is to fansy a living man without life Ans. what you have said before hath been answered before and what you shall say hereafter shall be confuted hereafter But if it be such a certain ground that every error against any one revealed truth is a damnable Heresy Then I hope I shall have your leave to subsume That the Dominicans in your account must hold a damnable heresy who hold an error against the immaculate Conception which you must needs esteeme a revealed truth or otherwise why are you so urgent and importunate to have it defined seeing your rule is nothing may be defined unlesse it be first revealed But without your leave I will make bold to conclude that if either that or the contrary assertion be a revealed truth you or they choose you whether must without contradiction hold a damnable Heresy if this ground be true that every contradiction of a revealed Truth is such And now I dare say for fear of inconvenience you will beginne to temper the crudenesse of your former assertion and tell us that neither of you are Heretiques because the Truth against which you erre though revealed is not sufficiently propounded And so say I neither is your Doctrine which Protestants contradict sufficiently propounded For though it be plain enough that your Church proposeth it yet still methinkes it is as plain that your Churche's proposition is not sufficient and I desire you would not say but prove the contrary Lastly to your Question How can the Church more truly be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy I Answer she may be more truly said to perish when she is not only permitted to doe so but defacto doth maintaine a damnable Heresy Again she may be more truly said to perish when she falls into an Heresy which is not only damnable in it selfe and ex natura rei as you speak but such an Heresy the belief of whose contrary Truth is necessary not only necessitate praecepti but medii and therefore the heresy so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation that no ignorance can excuse it nor any generall repentance without a dereliction of it can begge a pardon for it Such an heresy if the Church should fall into it might be more truly said to perish then if it fell only into some heresy of its own nature damnable For in that state all the members of it without exception all without mercy must needs perish for ever In this although those that might see the truth would not cannot upon any good ground hope for Salvation yet without question it might send many soules to heaven who would gladly have embrac'd the truth but that they wanted means to discover it Thirdly and lastly shee may yet more truly bee said to perish when shee Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her Heresies may bee reformed as if shee should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the Word of God Towards which state of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth somewhat incline by her superinducing upon the rest of her errors the Doctrine of her own infallibility whereby her errors are made incurable and by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrine and not her doctrine to be judg'd of by Scripture whereby she makes the Scripture uneffectuall for her Reformation 20 Ad § 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie for I was in good hope that no Christian would so bely the Scripture as to say so of it unlesse hee could have produced some one Text at least wherein this was plainly affirmed or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected For assure your selfe good Sir it is a very haynous crime to say thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so I expected therefore some Scripture should haue been alleaged wherein it should haue beene said whosoever separates from the Roman Church is an Heretique or the Roman Church is infallible or the Guide of faith or at least There shall be alwaies some visible Church infallible in matters of faith Some such direction as this I hoped for And I pray consider whether I had not reason The Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the New Testament we all suppose were good men and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to heaven wee suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this Vnum Necessarium this most necessary point of all others without which as you pretend and teach all faith is no Faith that is that the Church of Rome was designed by God the Guide of Faith Wee suppose thē lastly wise men especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdome and such as knew that a doubtfull questionable Guide was for mens direction as good as none at all And after all these suppositions which I presume no good Christian will call into question is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not One amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once Certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Me thinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospell of Christ could not possibly haue omitted any One of them this most necessary point of
faith necessary to be explicitely believed is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will prove that there are divers important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14 From the aforesaid maine principle that God hath alwaies had and alwaies will have on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Salvation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to believe we will prove that Luther Calvin and all other who continue the division in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luther's appearance was spread over the world cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy although they opposed her faith but in one only point whereas it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well beliefe as practise 15 To these reasons drawne from the vertue of Faith we will adde one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth us not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure as we will prove that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16 We are then to prove these points First that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith is the visible Church of Christ. Secondly that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther and all they who after him persist in division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schisme Fiftly nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants be in state of sinne as long as they remaine divided from the Roman Church And these six points shall be severall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17 Only I will here observe that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge us so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saved seeing themselves must affirme the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good For is it not a grievous sinne to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ Is there in such deniall any distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall sufficient to excuse from heresy Is it not impertinent to alleadge the Creed containing all fundamentall points of faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture In a word According to Protestants Oppose not Scripture there is no Errour against faith Oppose it in any least point the error if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamentall points must be damnable What is this but to say with us Of persons contrary in whatsoever point of beliefe one party only can be saved And D. Potter must not take it ill if Catholiques believe they may be saved in that Religion for which they suffer And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still be charging us with Want of Charity and be resolved to take scandall where none is given we must comfort our selves with that grave and true saying of S. Gregory If scandall be taken from declaring a truth it is better to permit scandall then forsake the truth But the solid grounds of our Assertion and the sincerity of our intention in uttering what wee think yield us confidence that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour Farre â—e it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him Let us therefore begin with that Point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt Protestants and us for as much as concernes the present Question and is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPTER Shewing that the Adversary grants the Former 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 sav'd 1. TO the first § Your first onset is very violent D. Potter is charg'd with malice and indiscretion for being uncharitable to you while he is accusing you of uncharitablenesse Verily a great fault and folly if the accusation be just if unjust a great calumnie Let us see then how you make good your charge The effect of your discourse if I mistake not is this D. Potter chargeth the Roman Church with many and great errours judgeth reconciliation betweene her 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 reconcil'd unto her is damnable Therefore if Roman Catholiques be convicted in conscience of the Errours of Protestants they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable consequently to judge so is no more uncharitable in theÌ„ then it is in the Doctor to judge as he does All this I grant nor would any Protestant accuse you of want of Charity if you went no further if you judg'd the Religion of Protestants damnable to them only who professe it being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous For if a man judge some act of vertue to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed So you have taught us p. 19. So if you be convinc'd or rather to speake properly perswaded in conscience that our Religion is erroneous the profession of it though in it selfe most true to you would be damnable This therefore I subscribe very willingly and withall that if you said no more D. Potter and my selfe should not be to Papists only but even to Protestants as uncharitable as you are For I shall alwaies professe and glory in this uncharitablenesse of judging hypocrisie a damnable sinne Let Hypocrites then and Dissemblers on both sides passe 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 resolv'd to die in it and if occasion were to die for it What Charity have you for them What think yee of those that in the dayes of our Fathers laid down their lives for it are you content that they shall be saved or doe you hope they may be so Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errours there is good hope they might die with repentance and if they did so certainly they are
the Church to decide Controversies and who hath then so altered their nature and filled them with such jealousies as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutuall disparagement What greater wrong is it for the written Word to be compartner now with the unwritten then for the unwritten which was once alone to be afterward joyned with the written Who ever heard that sto commend the fidelity of a Keeper were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody Or that to extoll the integrity and knowledge and to avouch the necessity of a Iudge in suits of Law were to deny perfection in the Law Are there not in Common wealths besides the Lawes written unwritten customes Iudges appointed to declare both the one the other as severall occasions may require 2 That the Scripture alone cannot be Iudge in Controversies of faith we gather very cleerly From the quality of a writing in generall From the nature of holy Writ in particular which must be beheved as true and infallible From the Editions and translations of it From the difficulty to understand it without hazard of Errour From the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole Iudicature to it and finally from the Confessions of our Adversaries And on the other side all these difficulties ceasing and all other qualities requisite to a Iudge concurring in the visible Church of Christ our Lord we must conclude that she it is to whom in doubts concerning Faith and Religion all Christians ought to have recourse 3 The name notion nature and properties of a Iudge cannot in common reason agree to any meere writing which be it otherwise in its kind never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility yet it must ever be as all writings are deaf dumb and inanimate By a Iudge all wise men understand a Person endued with life and reason able to hear to examine to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause or against his pretence and he must be appliable and able to doe all this as the diversity of Controversies persons occasions and circumstances may require There is a great and plain distinction betwixt a Iudge and a Rule For as in a Kingdome the Iudge hath his rule to follow which are the received Lawes and Customes so are not they fit or able to declare or be Iudges to themselves but that office must belong to a living Iudge The holy Scripture may be and is a Rule but cannot be a Iudge because it being alwaies the same cannot declare it selfe any one time or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other and let it be read over an hundred times it will be still the same and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith then the Law would be to end suits if it were given over to the phancy and glosse of every single man 4 This difference betwixt a Iudge and a Rule D. Potter perceived when more then once having stiled the Scripture a Iudge by way of correcting that terme he addes or rather a Rule because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a Iudge From hence also it was that though Protestants in their begining affirmed Scripture alone to be the Iudge of Controversies yet upon a more advised reflection they changed the phrase and said that not Scripture but the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture is Iudge in Controversies A difference without a disparity The holy Ghost speaking only in Scripture is no more intelligible to us then the Scripture in which he speaks as a man speaking only Latin can be no better understood then the tongue wherein he speaketh And therefore to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speakes in Scripture And it were a conceyt equally foolish and pernitious if one should seek to take away all Iudges in the Kingdome upon this nicety that albeit Lawes cannot be Iudges yet the Law-maker speaking in the Law may performe that Office as if the Law-maker speaking in the Law were with more perspicuity understood then the Law whereby he speaketh 5 But though some writing were granted to have a priviledge to declare it selfe upon supposition that it were maintained in being and preserved entire from corruptions yet it is manifest that no writing can conserve it selfe nor can complaine or denounce the falsifier of it and therefore it stands in need of some watchfull and not erring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it syncere and pure 6 And suppose it could defend it selfe from corruption how could it assure us that it selfe were Canonicall and of infallible verity By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still how it can prove it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands till we rest in the externall Authority of some person or persons bearing witnes to the world that such or such a book is Scripture and yet upon this point according to Protestants all other Controversies in faith depend 7 That Scripture cannot assure us that it selfe is Canonicall Scripture is acknowledged by some Protestants in expresse words and by all of them in deeds M. Hooker whom D. Potter ranketh among men of great learning and Iudgement saith of things necessary the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And this he proveth by the same argument which we lately used saying thus It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we doe well to think it his word For if any one book of Scripture did give testimony of all yet still that Scripture which giveth testimony to the rest would require another Scripture to give credit â—nto it Neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest unlesse besides Scripture there were something which might assure us c. And this he acknowledgeth to be the Church By the way If Of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by Scripture as this man of so great learning and judgement affirmeth and demonstratively proveth how can the Protestant Clergy of England subscribe to their sixt Article Wherein it is said of the Scripture Whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the faith or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation and concerning their belief and profession of this Article they are particularly examined when they be ordained Priests and Bishops With Hooker his defendant Covell doth punctually agree Whitaker likewise confesseth that the question about Canonicall Scriptures is defined to us
of the New Testament they giue a farre different rule saying All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receiue and account them Canonicall This I say is a rule much different from the former Of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church For some Books might be said to be Commonly received although they were sometime doubted of by some If to be Commonly received passe for a good rule to know the Canon of the New Testament why not of the Old Aboue all we desire to know upon what infallible ground in some Bookes they agree with us against Luther and divers principall Lutherans and in others jump with Luther against us But seeing they disagree among themselues it is evident that they haue no certaine rule to know the Canon of Scripture in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity erre because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true 10 Moreover the letters syllables words phrase or matter contained in holy Scripture haue no necessary or naturall connection with divine Revelation or Inspiration and therefore by seeing reading or understanding them we cannot inferre that they proceed from God or be confirmed by divine authoritie as because Creatures involve a necessary relation connection and dependance on their Creator Philosophers may by the light of naturall reason demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things In Holy Wrâ—â— there are innumerable truths not surpassing the spheare of humane wit which are or may be delivered by Pagan Writers in the selfe same words and phrase as they are in Scripture And as for some truths peculiar to Christians for Example the mystery of the blessed Trinitie c. The only setting them down in Writing is not enough to be assured that such a Writing is the undoubted word of God otherwise some sayings of Plato Trisâ—egistus Sybils Ovid c. must be esteemed Canonicall Scripture because they fall upon some truths proper to Christian Religion The internall light and inspiration which directed and moved the Authors of Canonicall Scriptures is a hidden Qualitie infused into their understanding and will and hath no such particular sensible influence into the externall Writing that in it we can discover or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration and therefore to be assured that such a Writing is divine we cannot know from it selfe alone but by some other extrinsecall authority 11 And here we appeale to any man of judgement whether it be not a vaine brag of some Protestants to tell us that they wot full well what is Scripture by the light of Scripture it selfe or as D. Potter words it by that glorious beame of divine light which shines therein even as our eye distinguisheth light from darknesse without any other help then light it selfe and as our eare knowes a voice by the voice it selfe alone But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now that the externall Scripture hath no apparent or necessary connection with divine inspiration or revelation Will D. Poiter hold all his Bretheren for blinde men for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture about which they cannot agree Corporall light may be discerned by it selfe alone as being evident proportionate and connaturall to our faculty of seeing That Scripture is Divine and inspired by God is a truth exceeding the naturall capacity and compasse of mans understanding to us obscure and to be believed by divine faith which according to the Apostle is argumentum non apparentium an argument or conviction of things not evident and therefore no wonder if Scripture doe not manifest it selfe by it selfe alone but must require some other meanes for applying it to our understanding Neverthelesse their own similitudes and instances make against themselues For suppose a man had never read or heard of Sunne Moone Fire Candle c. and should bee brought to behold a light yet in such sort as that the Agent or Cause efficient from which it proceeded were kept hidden from him could such a one by only beholding the light certainly know whether it were produced by the Sunne or Moone c. Or if one heare a voice and had never known the speaker could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded They who look upon Scripture may well see that some one wrote it but that it was written by divine inspiration how shall they know Nay they cannot so much as know who wrote it unlesse they first know the writer and what hand he writes as likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I heare unlesse I first both know the person who speakes and with what voice he useth to speak and yet even all this supposed I may perhaps be deceaved For there may be voices so like and Hand so counterfeited that men may be deceaved by them as birds were by the grapes of that skilfull Painter Now since Protestants affirme knowledge concerning God as our supernaturall end must be taken from Scripture they cannot in Scripture alone discerne that it is his voice or writing because they cannot know from whom a writing or vioce proceeds unlesse first they know the person who speakeâ— ' or writeth Nay I say more By Scripture alone they cannot so much as know that any person doth in it or by it speak any thing at all because one may write without intent to signifie or affirme any thing but onely to set downe or as it were paint such characters syllables and words as men are wont to set copies not caring what the signification of the words imports or as one transcribes a writing which himselfe understands not or when one writes what another dictates and in other such cases wherein it is cleare that the writer speakes or signifies nothing in such his writing and therefore by it we cannot heare or understand his voice With what certainty then can any man affirme that by Scripture it selfe they can see that the writers did intend to signifie any thing at all that they were Apostles or other Canonicall Authors that they wrote their own sense and not what was dictated by some other man and finally and especially that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost 12 But let us be liberall and for the present suppose not grant that Scripture is like to corporall light by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet the similitude proues against themselues For light is not visible except to such as haue eyes which are not made by the light but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause And therefore to hold the similitude Scripture can be cleare onely to those who are endued with the eye of faith or as D. Potter aboue cited saith to all that haue eyes to discerne the shining beames thereof that is to the believer as immediatly after he speaketh Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture but
servants and instruments alwaies prest and in readinesse to advance your designes and disabled wholly with mindes so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a crown on their head and a reed in their hands and to bow before them cry Haile King of the Iewes to pretend a great deale of esteem and respect reverence to them as here you doe But to little purpose is verball reverence without entire submission and syncere obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye mee Lord Lord and doe not that which I command you Cast away the vaine and arrogant pretence of Infallibility which makes your errors incurable Leave picturing God and worshipping him by pictures Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men Debarre not the Laity of the Testament of Christs blood Let your publique Prayers and Psalmes and Hymmes be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistants Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Doe not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemnes Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledge them that dye in Christ to be blessed and to rest from their labours Acknowledge the Sacrament after consecration to be Bread and Wine as well as Christs body and blood Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnall such as are Massacres Treasons Persecutions and in a word all meanes either violent or fraudulent These and other things which the Scripture commands you doe and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve but till you doe so to talk of estimation respect and reverence to the Scripture is nothing else but talk 2 For neither is that true which you pretend That we possesse the Scripture from you or take it upon the integrity of your Custody but upon Vniversall Tradition of which you are but a little part Neither if it were true that Protestants acknowledged The integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone Custody were this any argument of your reverence towards them For first you might preserve them entire not for want of Will but of Power to corrupt them as it is a hard thing to poyson the Sea And then having prevailed so farre with men as either not to look at all into them or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them and to see nothing in them though as cleere as the sunne if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conforme your doctrine to them or reforme it by them which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures but out of a perswasion that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrine at least in their judgement who were preposses'd with this perswasion that your Church was to judge of the sense of Scripture not to be judged by it 3. For whereas you say No cause imaginable could avert your will from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this meanes controversies are encreased and not ended you mean perhaps That you can or will imagine no other cause but these But sure there is little Reason you should measure other mens imaginations by your own who perhaps may be so clouded and vail'd with prejudice that you cannot or will not see that which is most manifest For what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which I doe not say does but certainly may pervert your wills and avert your understandings from submitting your religion and Church to a tryall by Scripture I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this meanes you would fall into of loosing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility and consequently your power and authority over mens consciences and all that depends upon it so that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up yet it may be feared that with a great many among you though I censure or judge no man the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen may have with you also the more effectuall though more secret influence and that is that by this craft we have our living by this craft I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent tryall of your Religion by Scripture and making them yeeld up and captivate their judgement unto yours Yet had you only said de facto that no other cause did avert your own will from this but only these which you pretend out of Charity I should have believed you But seeing you speak not of your selfe but of all of your side whose hearts you cannot know and professe not only That there is no other cause but that No other is imaginable I could not let this passe without a censure As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole judge of Controversies that is the sole rule for man to Iudge them by for we mean nothing else you only affirme it without proofe as if the thing were evident of it selfe And therefore I conceiving the contrary to be more evident might well-content my selfe to deny it without refutation Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me If Scripture cannot be the Iudge of any Controversy how shall that touching the Church and the notes of it be determined And if it be the sole judge of this one why may it not of others Why not of All Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it selfe is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall reason the only principle beside Scripture which is common to Christians 4 Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them Scripture is innocent of it as also this opinion That controversies are to be decided by Scripture For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to doe so it were impossible but that all controversies touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter 5 In the next wordes we have direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgement made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledge say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule only wee deny that it excludes unwritten tradition A siâ— you should have said we acknowledge it to be as perfect a rule as a writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgement or retract your
retractation of it for both cannot possibly stand together For if you will stand to what you have granted That Scripture is as perfect a rule of Faith as a writing can be you must then grant it both so Compleat that it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation For both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule and a writing is capable of both these properties 6 That both these Properties are requisite to a perfect rule it is apparent Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule of it selfe is not a perfect Rule And then the end of a râ—le is to regulate and direct Now every instrument is more or lesse perfect in its kinde as it is more or lesse fit to attain the end for which it is ordained But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so Therefore it is requisite also to a rule so farre as it is a Rule to be evident otherwise indeed it is no rule because it cannot serve for direction I conclude therefore that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule both to be so compleat as to need no Addition and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation 7 Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections it is so plain that I am even ashamed to prove it For he that denies it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident rule of faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of faith may also be written If you will have more light added to the Sunne answer me then to these Questions Whether your Church can set down in writing all these which she pretends to be divine unwritten Traditions and adde them to the verities already written And whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the Faith as shall need no farther interpretations If shee cannot then she hath not that power which you pretend she hath of being an Infallible teacher of all divine verities and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the faith for she cannot teach us all divine verities if she cannot write them down neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted If she can Let her doe it and then we shall have a writing not only capable of but actually endowed with both these perfections of being both so compleat as to need no Addition and so evident as to need no Interpretation Lastly whatsoever your Church can doe or not doe no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus if he had pleas'd could have writ us a rule of Faith so plaine and perfect as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity nor any cleerenesse to make it sufficiently intelligible And if Christ could have done this then the thing might have been done a writing there might have been indowed with both these properties Thus therefore I conclude a writing may be so perfect a Rule as to need neither Addition nor Interpretation But the Scripture you acknowledge a perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule therefore it needs neither Addition nor Interpretation 8 You will say that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith yet it must be beholding to Tradition to give it this Testimony that it is a Rule of Faith and the Word of God I answere First there is no absolute necessity of this For God might if he thought good give it the attestation of perpetuall miracles Secondly that it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith another to be proved so unto us And thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith by its own saying so for nothing is prov'd true by being said or written in a book but only by Tradition which is a thing credible of it selfe yet it may be so in it selfe and containe all the materiall objects all the particular articles of our Faith without any dependance upon Tradition even this also not excepted that this writing doth containe the rule of Faith Now when Protestants affirme against Papists that Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be prov'd by Scripture to a gainsayer that there is a God or that the book called Scripture is the word of God For he that will deny these Assertions when they are spoken will believe them never a whit the more because you can shew them written But their meaning is that the Scripture to them which presuppose it Divine and a Rule of Faith as Papists and Protestants doe containes all the materiall objects of Faith is a compleat and totall and not only an imperfect and a partiall Rule 9 But every Book and Chapter and Text of Scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection and yet excludes not the Addition of other bookes of Scripture Therefore the perfection of the whole Scripture excludes not the Addition of unwritten Tradition I answere Every Text of Scripture though it have the perfection belonging to a Text of Scripture yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect Rule of Faith and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse So that this is to abuse your Reader with the ambiguity of the word Perfect In effect as if you should say A text of Scripture may be a perfect Text though there be others beside it therefore the whole Scripture may be a perfect Rule of Faith though there be other parts of this Rule besides the Scripture and though the Scripture be but a part of it 10 The next Argument to the same purpose is for Sophistry cosen german to the former When the first bookes of Scripture were written they did not exclude unwritten Tradition Therefore now also that all the bookes of Scripture are written Traditions are not excluded The sense of which argument if it have any must be this When only a part of the Scripture was written then a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten Therefore now when all the Scripture is written yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten If you say your conclusion is not that it is so but without disparagement to Scripture may be so without disparagement to the truth of Scripture I grant it but without disparagement to the Scriptures being a perfect Rule I deny it And now the Question is not
this function the same exceptions at least if not more and greater lying against them as doe against Scripture And then what you object against the holy Ghost speaking in Scripture to exclude him from this office The same I returne upon them and their decrees to debarre them from it that they speaking unto us only in their decrees are no more intelligible then the decrees in which they speak And therefore if the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture may not be a judge for this reason neither may they speaking in their decrees be judges for the same Reason If the Popes decrees you will say be obscure he can explain himselfe and so the Scripture cannot But the holy Ghost that speaks in Scripture can doe so if he please and when he is pleas'd will doe so In the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leasure and to be content that those things of Scripture which are plain should be so and those which are obscure should remain obscure untill he please to declare them Besides he can which you cannot warrant me of the Pope or a Councell speak at first so plainly that his words shall need no farther explanation and so in things necessary we believe he has done And if you say the Decrees of Councells touching Controversies though they be not the Iudge yet they are the Iudges sentence So I say the Scripture though not the Iudge is the sentence of the Iudge When therefore you conclude That to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the holy Ghost speakes in Scripture This I grant is true but I may not grant that a Iudge such a one as we dispute of is necessary either to doe the one or the other For if the Scripture as it is in things necessary be plain why should it be more necessary to have a judge to interpret them in plain places then to have a judge to interpret the meaning of a Councell's decrees and others to interpret their Interpretations and others to interpret theirs and so on for ever And where they are not plaine there if we using diligence to finde the truth doe yet misse of it and fall into errour there is no danger in it They that erre and they that doe not erre may both be saved So that those places which containe things necessary and wherein errour were dangerous need no infallible interpreter because they are plaine and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous 13 The Law-maker speaking in the Law I grant it is no more easily understood then the Law it selfe for his speech is nothing else but the Law I grant it very necessary that besides the Law-maker speaking in the Law there should be other Iudges to determine civill and criminall Controversies and to giue every man that Iustice which the Law allowes him But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessitie of a visible Iudge in Controversies of Religion I say is Sophisticall and that for many Reasons 14 First Because the variety of Civill cases is infinite and therefore there cannot be possibly Lawes enough provided for the determination of them and therefore there must be a Iudge to supply out of the Principles of Reason the interpretation of the Law where it is defectiue But the Scripture we say is a perfect Rule of Faith and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it 15 Secondly To execute the Letter of the Law according to rigour would be many times unjust and therefore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it whereof in Religion there is no use at all 16 Thirdly In Civill and Criminall causes the parties haue for the most part so much interest and very often so little honesty that they will not submit to a Law though never so plaine if it bee against them or will not see it to be against them though it be so never so plainly whereas if men were honest and the Law were plaine and extended to all cases there would be little need of Iudges Now in matters of Religion when the Question is whether every man bee a fit Iudge and chooser for himselfe we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity And such men we conceiue will think it highly concernes them to be of the true Religion but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true And then wee suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plaine and easie consequently every man in this cause to be a competent Iudge for himselfe because it concernes himselfe to judge right as much as eternall happinesse is worth And if through his own default he judge amisse he alone shall suffer for it 17 Fourthly In Civill Controversies we are obliged only to externall passiue obedience and not to an internall and actiue Wee are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not to resist it but not alwaies to belieue it just But in matters of Religion such a judge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Iudge But in religion none but he that is infallible 18 Fiftly In Civill Causes there is meanes and power when the Iudge has decreed to compell men to obey his sentence otherwise I belieue Laws alone would be to as much purpose for the ending of differences as Lawes and Iudges both But all the power in the world is neither fit to convince nor able to compell a mans conscience to consent to any thing Worldly terrour may prevaile so far as to make men professe a Religion which they belieue not such men I meane who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs and a Hell for those that dissemble such truths as are necessary to bee professed But to force either any man to belieue what he belieues not or any honest man to dissemble what he does beleiue if God commands him to professe it or to professe what he does not belieue all the Powers in the World are too weak with all the powers of Hell to assist them 19 Sixtly In Civill Controversies the case cannot be so put but there may be a Iudge to end it who is not a party In Controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to bee avoided but the Iudge must be a partie For this must be the first whether hee be a judge or no and in that he must be a partie Sure I am the Pope in the controversies of our time is a chiefe partie for it highly concernes him even as much as his Popedome is worth not to yeeld any one point of his Religion to be erroneous And hee is a man subject to like passions with other men And therefore we
you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable then our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand againe some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands untill you settle me upon a Rock I mean giue such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Vniversall Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receiue it is For wee doe not professe our selues so absolutely and and undoubtedly certain neither doe we urge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue 46 The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it selfe alone but by some extrinsecall authority Which you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of Vniversall Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospell of Saint Mathew is the word of God as that all which your Church saies is true 47 That Believers of the Scripture by considering the divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures divine Authority that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internall arguments haue their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the fountain of goodnesse as the Miracles by which it was confirm'd were great I should want one main pillar of my faith and for want of it I feare should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is hee is moved to and strengthned in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrell with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true◠as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy unconcern'd You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffred you to haue said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48 In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes so the Scripture onely to those that haue the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture doe moue and determine our Vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must bee before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else then the Vnderstanding's assent And therefore upon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presuppos'd before the assent of faith unto which it moues and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it selfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the understanding to assent that is to belieue them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus◠Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soule that is the Vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it selfe is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moues the understanding to assent The Vnderstanding that 's the eye and object on which it works must bee before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moues and the understanding is mov'd which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture doe that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a Sonne that he hath already Or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can bee made againe before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such Monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of Errour will easily perceiue that I am factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digresse 49 The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other then the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can haue faith but he must bee mou'd to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians belieue the Gospell because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly dye for it yet indeed are Infidels and belieue nothing The Scripture tells us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And who are you to take upon you to make us belieue that we doe not belieue what we know we doe But if I may think verily that I belieue the Scripture and yet not belieue it how know you that you belieue the Roman Church I am as verily and as
Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our beliefe Now then to come up closer to you and to answer to your Question not as you put it but as you should haue put it I say That this position Scripture alone is the rule whereby they which belieue it to be Gods Word are to judge all Controversies in Faith is no fundameÌ„tall point Though not for your Reasons For your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I haue done and supposing in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this That the Scripture is the word of God and consequently that this is none of their Controversies To your second That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority We haue said already that necessary Controversies may be are decided And if they be not ended this is not through defect of the Rule but through the default of Men. And for these that cannot thus be ended it is not necessary they should be ended For if God did require the ending of them he would have provided some certain meanes for the ending of them And to your Third I say that your pretence of using these meanes is but hypocriticall for you use them with prejudice and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these meanes happily may suggest into you if it any way crosse your pre-conceav'd persuasion of your Churches infallibility You give not your selves liberty of judgement in the use of them nor suffer your selves to bee led by them to the Truth to which they would lead you would you but be as willing to believe this consequence Our Church doth oppose Scripture therefore it doth erre therefore it is not Infallible as you are resolute to believe this The Church is infallible therefore it doth not erre and therefore it doth not oppose Scripture though it seem to doe so never so plainly 157 You pray but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion but that he would confirm you in your own You conferre places but it is that you may confirm or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrine not that you may judge of them forsake them if there be reason for it You consult the Originalls but you regard them not when they make against your Doctrine or Translation 158 You adde not only the Authority but the Infallibility not of Gods Church but of the Roman a very corrupt and degenerous part of it whereof D. Potter never confessed that it cannot erre damnably And which being a company made up of particular men can afford you no help but the industry learning and wit of private men and that these helps may not help you out of your errour tell you that you must make use of none of all these to discover any errour in the Church but only to maintaine her impossibility or erring And lastly D. Potter assures himselfe that your Doctrine and practises are damnable enough in themselves Only he hopes and spes est rei incertae nomen he hopes I say that the Truths which you retain especially the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ will bee as an antidote to you against the errours which you maintain and that your superstructions may burne yet they amongst you Qui sequun tur Absalonem in simplicitate cor dis may be saved yet so as by fire Yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me to think so unlesse you suppose him infallible and if you doe why doe you write against him 159 Notwithstanding though not for these reasons yet for others I conceive this Doctrine not Fundamentall Because if a man should believe Christian Religion wholly and entirely and live according to it such a man though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinion is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we believe the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the objects of our faith as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tels us as M. K. acknowledgeth of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved therefore men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before received and had been doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous nations but still by the bare beliefe and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherein they are contained Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of these bookes and not the Authority of the bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight K. of England as that Iesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilaâ—â— yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of of him yet it were no mortall sinne nor no sinne at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160 This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submit to better judgement But sure I am that the corollary which you draw from this position that this point is not Fundamentaâ— is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth
thy paines follow the way of the Catholique Discipline which from Christ himselfe by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity And though I conceave that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall hath now been sufficiently confuted yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain I will particularly refell a common saying of Protestants that it is sufficient foe salvation to belieue the Apostles Creed which they hold to be a Summary of all fundamentall points of Faith THE ANSVVER TO THE THIRD CHAPTER Wherein it is maintained That the distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall is in this present Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may erre in the latter kinde of the said points THis distinction is imployed by Protestants to many purposes and therefore if it be pertinent and good as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be either firme and stable or if it be not it cannot be for any default in this distinction 2 If you obiect to them discords in matter of faith without any meanes of agreement They will answer you that they want not good and solid meanes of agreement in matters necessary to salvation viz. Their beliefe of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture which who so belieues must of necessity belieue all things necessary to salvation and their mutuall suffering one another to abound in their severall sense in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered And for their agreement in all Controversies of Religion either they haue meanes to agree about them or not If you say they haue why did you before deny it If they haue not meanes why doe you finde fault with them for not agreeing 3 You will say that their fault is that by remaining Protestants they exclude themselues from the meanes of agreement which you haue and which by submission to your Church they might haue also But if you haue meanes of agreement the more shame for you that you still disagree For who I pray is more inexcusably guilty for the omission of any duty they that either haue no meanes to doe it or else know of none they haue which puts them in the same case as if they had none or they which professe to haue an easie and expedite means to doe it and yet still leaue it undone If you had been blind saith our Saviour to the Pharisees you had had no sinne but now you say you see therefore your sinne remaineth 4 If you say you doe agree in matters of Faith I say this is ridiculous for you define matters of faith to be those wherein you agree So that to say you agree in matters of faith is to say you agree in those things wherein you doe agree And do not Protestants doe so likewise Doe not they agree in those things wherein they doe agree 5 But you are all agreed that only those things wherein you doe agree are matters of faith And Protestants if they were wise would doe so too Sure I am they haue reason enough to doe so seeing all of them agree with explicite faith in all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture that is in all which God hath plainly revealed and with an implicite faith in that sense of the whole Scripture which God intended whatsoever it was Secondly That which you pretend is false for else why doe some of you hold it against faith to take or allow the Oath of Allegiance others as learned and honest as they that it is against Faith and unlawfull to refuse it and allow the refusing of it Why doe some of you hold that it is de Fide that the Pope is Head of the Church by divine Law others the contrary Some hold it de Fide that the blessed Virgin was freefrom Actuall sinne others that it is not so Some that the Popes Indirect power over Princes in Temporalties is de Fide Others the contrary Some that it is Vniversall Tradition and consequently de Fide that the Virgin Mary was conceived in originall sinne others the contrary 6 But what shall we say now if you be not agreed touching your pretended meanes of agreement how then can you pretend to Vnity either Actuall or Potentiall more then Protestants may Some of you say the Pope alone without a Councell may determine all Controversies But others deny it Some that a Generall Councell without a Pope may doe so Others deny this Some Both in conjunction are infallible determiners Others againe deny this Lastly some among you hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversal Church to be the only way to decide Controversies which others deny by denying the Church to be Infallible And indeed what way of ending Controversies can this be when either part may pretend that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree therefore the whole Church hath not received it 7 Againe Meanes of agreeing differences are either Rationall and well grounded and of Gods appointment or voluntary and taken up at the pleasure of men Meanes of the former nature we say you haue as little as we For where hath God appointed that the Pope or a Councell or a Councell confirm'd by the Pope or that Society of Christians which adhere to him shall be the Infallible Iudge of Controversies I desire you to shew any one of these Assertions plainely set down in Scripture as in all Reason a thing of this nature should be or at least delivered with a full consent of Fathers or at least taught in plain tearmes by any one Father for foure hundred yeares after Christ. And if you cannot doe this as I am sure you cannot and yet will still be obtruding your selues upō us for our Iudges who will not cry out perisse frontem de rebus 8 But then for meanes of the other kinde such as yours are we haue great abūdance of them For besides all the waies which you haue devised which we may make use of when wee please we haue a great many more which you yet haue never thought of for which we haue as good colour out of Scripture as you haue for yours For first wee could if we would try it by Lots whose doctrine is true and whose false And you know it is written The Lot is cast into the lap but the whole disposition of it is from the Lord. 2. We could referre them to the King and you know it is written A Divine sentence is in the lips of the King his mouth transgresseth not in judgement The Heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord. We could referre the matter to any assembly of Christians assembled in the the name of Christ seeing it is written where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them We may referre it to any Priest
Traditions as in defining emergent controversies Again it followes not because the Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine touching which the Scripture is silent therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these to which the Scripture seemes repugnant Now the Doctrines which S. Austine received upon the Churches Authority were of the first sort the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches infallibility are of the second And therefore though the Churches authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austine laid upon it yet happily if may not be strong enough to bear that which you lay upon it Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture yet surely not against it And last of all to deal ingeniously with you and the World I am not such an Idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the Vniversall Church of his time must needs have come from the Apostles Though considering the neerenesse of his time to the Apostles I think it a good probable way and therefore am apt enough to follow it when I see no reason to the contrary Yet I professe I must have better satisfaction before I can induce my selfe to hold it certain and infallible And this not because Popery would come in at this dore as some have vainly feared but because by the Church Vniversall of some time and the Church Vniversall of other times I see plain contradictions held and practised Both which could not come from the Apostles for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood And therefore the belief or practise of the present Vniversall Church can be no infallible proof that the Doctrine so beleived or the custome so practised came from the Apostles I instance in the doctrine of the Millenaries and the Eucharists necessity for infants both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries and were delivered by them not as Doctors but as Witnesses not as their own opinions but as Apostolike Traditions And therefore measuring the doctrine of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinall Perron gives us for that purpose both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age or ages And that the contrary Doctrines were Catholique at some other time I believe you will not think it needfull for me to prove So that either I must say the Apostles were fountaines of contradictious doctrines or that being the Vniversall Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles Besides who can warrant us that the Vniversall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall seeing in that famous place for Traditions in Tertullian Quicunque traditor any author whatsoever is founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the direction then was Precepta maâ—orum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45 No lesse you say is S. Chrysost. for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as universall as the Tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither does being written make the word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the lesse infallible Not therefore in her universall Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this point when you speak you shall have an answer but hitherto you doe but wander 46 But let us see what S. Chrysostome saies They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Iulius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many workes which our Saviour did which S. Iohn supposes would not have been contained in a world of bookes if they had been written or if God by some other meanes had preserv'd the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much a more faith full keeper Records are then report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitly more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceases when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholique Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few ages after Christ. So that if we consult the ancient Interpreters we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinall Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alleaged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist. to the Thess. yet were afterwards written and in other bookes of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist which was never written that he laies this iniunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist But what if they did not performe their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shall we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the
Paul and applied by him to our Saviour He hath put all things under his feet mentions no exception yet S. Paul tels us not only that it is true or certain but it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him 84 But your interpretation is better then D. Potters because it is literall I answer His is Literall as well as yours and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literall sense for to Restrained Literall is not opposed but unlimited or absolute and to Literall is not oppos'd Restrained but Figuratiue 85 Whereas you say D. Potters Brethren reiecting his limitation restrain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles implying hereby a contrariety between them and him I answer So does D. Potter restrain all of them which he speaks of in the pages by you quoted to the Apostles in the direct and primary sense of the words Though he tels you there the words in a more restrained sense are true being understood of the Church Vniversall 86 As for your pretence That to finde the meaning of those places you conferre divers Texts you consult Originals you examin Translations and use all the meanes by Protestants appointed I haue told you before that all this is vain and hypocriticall if as your manner your doctrine is you giue not your selfe liberty of judgement in the use of these meanes if you make not your selves Iudges of but only Advocats for the doctrine of your Church refusing to see what these meanes shew you if it any way make against the doctrine of your Church though it be as cleare as the light at noone Remoue prejudice Even the ballance and hold it even make it indifferent to you which way you goe to heaven so you goe the true which Religion be true so you be of it then use the meanes and pray for Gods assistance and as sure as God is true you shall be lead into all necessary Truth 87 Whereas you say you neither doe nor haue any possible meanes to agree as long as you are left to your selues The first is very true That while you differ you doe not agree But for the second That you haue no possible means of agreement as long as you are left to your selues i. e. to your own reasons and judgement this sure is very false neither doe you offer any proofe of it unlesse you intended this that you doe not agree for a proof that you cannot which sure is no good consequence not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it D. Potter and I by the use of these meanes by you mentioned doe agree concerning the sense of these places therefore there is a possible meanes of agreement and therefore you also if you would use the same meanes with the same minds might agree so farre as it is necessary and it is not necessary that you should agree further Or if there bee no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst wee are left to our selves then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them which was That the Church is universally infallible For if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them then it were possible for us to agree And why then said you of the selfe same Texts but in the page next before These words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is Vniversally infallible A strange forgetfulnesse that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seem cleerly enough to proue such a conclusion true yet that three indifferent men all presum'd to be lovers of Truth and industrious searchers of it should haue no possible meanes while they follow their own reason to agree in the Truth of this Conclusion 88 Whereas you say that it were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion I desire you to take heed you commit not an impiety in making more impieties then Gods Commandements make Certainly God is no way oblig'd either by his promise or his Loue to giue us all things that we may imagine would be convenient for us as formerly I haue proved at large It is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to Salvation Deus non deficit in necessariis nec redundat in superfluis So D. Stapleton But that the ending of all Controversies or having a certain meanes of ending them is necessary to Salvation that you haue often said and suppos'd but never proved though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse So little care you take how slight your Foundations are so your building make a faire shew And as little care how you commit those faults your selfe which you condemne in others For you here charge them with great impiety who imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no infallible meanes to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter why the Questions between the Iesuits Dominicans remain undetermined You returne him this crosse interrogatory Who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ is a revealed Truth or capable of definition or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable or by any Rule of faith So then when you say it were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible meanes to decide all differences I may answer It seemes you doe not believe your selfe For in this controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be you seem to be doubtfull whether there be any meanes to determin it On the other side when you aske D. Potter who assured him that there it any meanes to determine this Controversie I answer for him that you have in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible meanes to decide this and all other differences arising about the Interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference between the Dominicans and Iesuits which includes a difference about the sense of many Texts of Scripture many other matters of moment was not included under this and all other differences I cannot imagine Yet if you can finde out any thus much at least we shall gain by it that generall speeches are not alwaies to be understood generally but sometimes with exceptions and limitations 89 But if there be any infallible meanes to decide all differences I beseech you name them You say it is to consult and heare Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility But suppose the difference be as here it is whether your Church be infalliâ—le what shall decide that If you would say as you should dot Scripture and
is explained by other Creeds For these words who spake by the Prophets are no waies contained in the Apostles Creed and therefore contain an Addition not an Explanation thereof 23 But how can it be necessary saith D. Potter for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times I answer You trifle not distinguish between the Apostles beliefe and that abridgment of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed and withall you beg the question by supposing that the Apostles believed no more then is contained in their Creed which every unlearned person knowes and belieues and I hope you will not deny but the Apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinarie persons 24 Your pretended proof out of the Acts that the Apostles revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God keeping back nothing with your glosse needfull for our salvation is no proofe unlesse you still beg the question and doe suppose that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church is contained in the Creed And I wonder you doe not reflect that those words were by S Paul particularly directed to Pastors and Governours of the Church as is cleere by the other words He called the Ancients of the Church And afterward Take heed to your selues and to the whole flock wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church And your selfe say that more knowledge is necessary in Bishops and Priests to whom is committed the government of the Church and the care of soules then in vulgar Laicks Doe you think that the Apostles taught Christians nothing but their Creed Said they nothing of the Sacraments Commandements Duties of Hope Charity c. 25 Vpon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other objection To say the whole faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed is all one as if a man should say this is not the Apostles Creed but a part of it For the faith of the Apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their Creed Did not I pray you S. Mathew and S. Iohn belieue their writings to be Canonicall Scripture and yet their writings are not mentioned in the Creed It is therefore more then cleere that the Faith of the Apostles is of larger extent then the Apostles Creed 26 To your demand why amongst many things of equall necessity to be believed the Apostles should so diâ—tinctly set down some and be altogether silent of others I answer That you must answer your own demand For in the Creed there be divers points in their nature not fundamentall or necessary to be explicitely and distinctly believed 〈◊〉 aboue wee shewâ—d why are these points which are not fundamentall expressed rather then other 〈◊〉 the same quality Why our Saviours descent to Hell and Buriall expressed and not his Circumcision his Manifestation to the three Kings working of Miracles c. Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all fundamentall points of Faith tending to practise as well as those which rest in beliefe Their intention was particularly to deliver such Articles as were fittest for those times concerning the Deity Trinity and Messias as heretofore I haue declared leaving many things to be taught by the Catholique Church which in the Creed we all professe to belieue Neither doth it follow as you infer That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us believe we haue all when we haue not all For by this kind of arguing what may not be deduced One might quite contrary to your inference say If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to salvation what need we any Church to teach us and consequently what need of the Article concerning the Church What need we the Creeds of Nice Constantinople c. Superfluous are your Catechismes wherein besides the Articles of the Creed you adde divers other particulars These would be poore consequences and so is yours But shall I tell you newes For so you are pleased to esteem it We grant your inference thus far That our Saviour Christ referred us to his Church by her to be taught and by her alone For she was before the Creed and Scriptures And she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us hath delivered us the Creed but not it alone as if nothing else were to be believed We haue besides it holy Scripture we haue unwritten Divine Apostolicall Ecclesiasticall Traditions It were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things which are necessary to be believed Ergo it is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes Ergo she must teach us without all meanes without Creeds without Councels without Scripture c. If the Apostles had expressed no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes as in fact we have even the Apostles Creed from the Tradition of the Church If you will believe you have all in the Creed when you have not all it is not the Apostles or the Church that makes you so believe but it is your owne errour whereby you will needs believe that the Creed must contain all For neither the Apostles nor the Church nor the Creed it selfe tell you any such matter and what necessity is there that one meanes of instruction must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest Wee are not to recite the Creed with anticipated perswasion that it must contain what we imagin it ought for better maintaining some opinions of our own but we ought to say and belieue that it containes what we finde in it of which one Article is to belieue the Catholique Church surely to be taught by her which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the Creed and in particular we may learn of her what points be contained in the Creed what otherwise and so we shall not be deceaved by believing we haue all in the Creed when we have not all and you may in the same manner say As well nay better the Apostles might haue given us no Articles at all as haue left out Articles tending to practise For in setting down one sort of Articles and not the others they make us belieue we haue all when we haue not all 27 To our argument that Baptisme is not contained in the Creed D. Potter besides his answer that Sacraments belong rather to practise then faith which I haue already confuted and which indeed maketh against himselfe and serveth only to shew that the Apostles intended not to comprize all points in the Creed which we are bound to belieue adds that the Creed of Nice expressed Baptisme by name confesse one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes
Which answer is directly against himselfe and manifestly proues that Baptisme is an Article of faith and yet is not contained in the Apostles Creed neither explicitely nor by any necessary consequence from other Articles expressed therein If to make it an Article of faith be sufficient that it is contained in the Nicene Councell he will finde that Protestants maintain many errours against faith as being repugnant to definitions of Generall Councels as in particular that the very Councell of Nice which saith M. Whitgift is of all wise and learned men reverenced esteemed and imbraced next unto the Scriptures themselues decreed that to those who were chosen to the Ministry unmarried it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward is affirmed by Protestants And your grand Reformer Luther lib. de Conciliis part prima saith that he understand not the Holy Ghost in that Councell For in one Canon it saith that those who haue gelded themselues are not fit to be made Priests in another it forbids them to haue wiues Hath saith he the Holy Ghost nothing to doe in Councells but to binde and load his Ministers with impossible dangerous and unnecessary lawes I forbeare to shew that this very Article I confesse one Baptisme for the Remission of sinnes will be understood by Protestants in a far different sense from Catholiques yea Protestants among themselues doe not agree how Baptisme forgiues sinnes nor what grace it conferres Only concerning the Vnity of Baptisme against rebaptization of such as were once baptized which I noted as a point not contained in the Apostles Creed I cannot omit an excellent place of S. Augustine where speaking of the Donatists he hath these words They are so bold as to rebaptize Catholiques wherein they shew themselues to be the greater Heretiques since it hath pleased the universall Catholique Church not to make Baptisme void even in the very Heretiques themselues In which few words this holy Father delivereth against the Donatists these points which doe also make against Protestants That to make an Heresie or an Heretique known for such it is sufficient to oppose the definition of Gods Church That a proposition may be Hereticall though it be not repugnant to any Texts of Scripture For S. Augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptization is hereticall and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of Scripture And that neither the Heresie of rebaptization of those who were baptized by Heretiques nor the contrary Catholique truth being expressed in the Apostles Creed it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation And so we must conclude that to belieue the Creed is not sufficient for Vnitie of faith and Spirit in the same Church unlesse there be also a totall agreement both in beliefe of other points of faith and in externall profession and Communion also whereof we are to speak in the next Chapter according to the saying of S. Augustine You are with us in Baptisme and in the Creed but in the Spirit of Vnity and bond of peace and lastly in the Catholique Church you are not with us THE ANSVVER TO THE FOVRTH CHAPTER Wherein is shewed that the Creed containes all necessary points of meere belief 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Concerning the Creeds containing the Fundamentalls of Christianity 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 Catholique Church is esteemed a sufficient summary or Catalogue of Fundamentalls by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquity 2 By Fundamentalls he understands not the Fundamentall rules of good life and action though every one of these is to be believed to come from God therefore vertually includes an Article of Faith but the Fundamentall doctrines of Faith such as though they have influence upon our lives as every essentiall doctrine of Christianity hath yet we are commanded to believe them and not to doe 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 obiects of Faith in and for themselves which by their own nature and Gods prime intention are essentiall parts of that Gospell such as the teachers in the Church cannot without Mortall sinne omit to teach the learners such as are intrinsecall 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 Accidentall Circumstantiall Occasionall objects of faith milliōs 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 bee 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 alwaies but then only when they doe see and know them to be delivered in Scripture as divine Revelations 4 I say when they doe so and not only when they may doe 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 expresse Verities of Scripture are either to all men or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by God it should be a damnable sinne in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular Historicall 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 diligence 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 Essentiall and Fundamentall 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 saies is this It is very probable that according to the judgement of the Roman Doctors and the Ancient Fathers the Apostles Creed is to be esteemed a sufficient summary of all those doctrines which being meerely 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 selfe true Your Reasons to prove it impertinent put into forme and divested of impertinencies are these 1. Because the question was not what points were necessary to be explicitly believed but what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposall And therefore to give a Catalogue of points necessary to be explicitly believed is impertinent 7 Secondly because errours may be damnable though the contrary truths be not of themselves fundamentall as that Pontius Pilate was our Saviours Iudge is not in it selfe a Fundamentall truth â—et to believe the contrary were a damnable errour And therefore to give a Catalogue of Truths in themselves fundamentall is no pertinent satisfaction to this demand what errors are damnable 8 Thirdly because if the Church be not Vniversally infallible wee cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed which we must receive upon the Credit of the Church and if the Church be Vniversally 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 containes all Fundamentalls without specifying in what sense the Articles of it are Fundamentall 10 Fiftly because the Apostles Creed as D. Potter himselfe confesses was not a sufficient Catalogue till it was explained by the first Councell nor then untill 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 Fundamentalls 11 Now to the first of these objections I say Frist that your distinction between points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is more subtill then 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 doe very strangely in saying that the question was what points might lawfully be disbelieved after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Revelations You affirme 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 Fundamentall 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 lye or to call his Veracity into question Yet you say The demand of Charity mistaken was it was most reasonable that a list of FundameÌ„talls should be given the denyall whereof destroies Salvation whereas the deniall of other points may stand with Salvation although both kinds be equally proposed as revealed by God 12 Let the Reader peruse Charity Mistaken he shall find that this qualification although both kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God is your addition and no part of the demand And if it had it had been most unreasonable seeing he and you know well enough that though we doe 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 demaund 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 First 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 tearmes 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 containes not all these And this you prove by asking how many Truths are thero 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 soon 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 Proposall you require us to set you down all points contained in Scripture or evidently deducible from it And yet this you are pleas'd to call a reasonable nay a most reasonable Demand whereas having ingaged your selfe to give a Catalogue of your Fundamentalls you conceive your ingagement very well satisfyed by saying all is Fundamentall which the Church proposes without going about to give us an endlesse Inventory of her Proposalls And therefore from us in stead of a perfect particular of Divine Revelations of all sorts of which with a lesse hyperbole then S. Iohn useth we might say If they were to be written the world would not hold the books that must be written me thinkes you should accept of this generall All Divine Revelations are true and to be believed 13 The very truth is
the main Question in this businesse 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 beliefe 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 totall satisfaction to it yet very effectuall 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 Practise and obedience he that gives you a sufficient summary of the first sort of necessary points hath brought you halfe way towards your journies end And therefore that which he does is no more to be slighted as vain and impertinent then an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house because he does it not all himselfe 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 doe infinite service both to the truth of Christ and the peace of Christendome For seeing falsehood and errour 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 needs doe Truth a most Heroicall service And seeing the over-valuing of the differences among Christians is one of the greatest maintainers of the Schisme of Christendome he that could demonstrate that only these points of Beliefe are simply necessary to salvation wherein Christians generally agree should he not lay a very faire and firme foundation of the peace of Christendome 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 beleeves the Creed and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily cannot possibly if also he beleeve the Scripture be in any Errour of simple beleife which is offensiue to God nor therefore deserve for any such Errour 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 againe would be this which highly concernes the Church of Rome to think of That whatsoever Man or Church does for any errour of simple beleife depriue any man so qualified as aboue either of his temporall life or liuelyhood or liberty or of the Churches Communion and hope of salvation is for the first uniust cruell and tyrannous Schismaticall presumptuous and uncharitable for the second 13 Neither yet is this as you pretend to take away the necessity of beleeving those verities of Scripture which are not contained in the Creed when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture but rather to lay a necessity upon men of beleeving all things written in Scripture when once they know them to be there written For he that beleeves not all knowne Divine Revelations to be true how does he believe in God Vnlesse you will say that the same man at the same time may not believe God and yet believe in him The greater difficulty is how it will not take away the necessity of beleeving Scripture to be the word of God But that it will not neither For though the Creed be granted a sufficient summary of Articles of meere Faith yet no man pretends that it containes the Rules of obedience but for them all men are referred to Scripture Besides he that pretends to believe in God obligeth himselfe to beleeve it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the Will of God Now reason will assure him that beleeves the Creed that it is the Will of God he should beleeve the Scripture even the very same Reason which moves him to beleeve the Creed Vniversall and never failing Tradition having given this Testimony both to Creed and Scripture that they both by the works of God were sealed testified to be the words of God And thus much be spoken in Answere to your first Argument the length whereof will be the more excusable If I oblige my self to say but little to the Rest. 14 I come then to your second And in Answer to it denie flatly as a thing destructive of it self that any Errour can be damnable unlesse it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it self or by accident to some Truth for the matter of it fundamentall And to your example of Pontius Pilat's being Iudge of Christ I say the deniall of it in him that knowes it to be revealed by God is manifestly destructive of this fundamentall truth that all Divine Revelations are true Neither will you find any errour so much as by accident damnable but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us by a reall beleif of all Fundamentals and simply necessary Truths And I desire you would reconcile with this that which you have said § 15. Every Fundamentall Errour must have a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two Contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true c. 15 To the Third I Answer That the certainty I have of the Creed That it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith I ground it not upon Scripture and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present much lesse of your Church but upon the Authority of the Ancient Church and written Tradition which as D. Potter hath proved gave this constant Testimony unto it Besides I tell you it is guilty of the same fault which D. Potter's Assertion is here accused of having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false but none at all to shew it impertinent 16 To the Fourth I Answer plainly thus That you finde fault with D. Potter for his Vertues you are offended with him for not usurping the Authority which he hath not in a word for not playing the Pope Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter it is for doing it too much and not too little This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God the speciall senses of men upon the generall words of God and laying them upon mens consciences together under the equall penaltie of death and damnation this Vaine conceit that we can speak of the things of God better then in the word of God This Deifying our owne Interpretations and Tyrannous inforcing them upon others This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality and the understandings of men from that liberty wherein Christ and Apostles
because we stand only upon Fundamentall Articles which cannot make up the whole fabrick of the faith no more then the foundation of a house alone can be a house 52 But I hope Sir you will not be difficult in granting that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house Now by Fundamentall Articles we mean all those which are necesry And you your selfe in the very leafe after this take notice that D. Potter does so Where to this Question How shall I know in particular which points be and which be not Fundamentall You scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer Read my Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. There you shall find that Fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved All which wordes he us'd not to tell you what points be fundamentall as you dishonestly impose upon him but to explain what he meant by the word Fundamentall May it please you therefore now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we mean all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things fundamentall to Salvation Vnlesse you will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary 53 This long discourse so full of un-ingenious dealing with your adversary perhaps would have done reasonably in a Faire or a Comedy I doubt not but you have made your selfe your courteous Readers good sport with it But if D. Potter or I had been by when you wrote it we should have stopt your carere at the first starting have put you in mind of these old Schoole Proverbs Exfalso supposito sequitur quodlibet and Vno absurdo dato seqâ—untur mille For whereas you suppose first that to a man desirous to save his soul and requiring whose direction he might rely upon the Doctors answer would be Vpon the truly Catholique Church I suppose upon better reason because I know his mind that he would advise him to call no man Master on Earth but according to Christs command to rely upon the direction of God himselfe If he should enquire where he should find this direction He would answer him In his word contained in Scripture If he should enquire what assurance he might have that the Scripture is the word of God He would answer him that the doctrine it selfe is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat and that they which wrote and delivered it confirmed it to be the word of God by doing such works as could not be done but by power from God himselfe For assurance of the Truth hereof he would advise him to rely upon that which all wise men in all matters of belief rely upon and that is the Consent of Ancient Records and Vniversall Tradition And that he might not instruct him as partiall in this advise he might farther tell him that a gentleman that would be namelesse that has written a book against him called Charity maintained by Catholiques though in many things he differ from him yet agrees with him in this that Tradition is such a principle as may be rested in and which requires no other proof As indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as Iulius Caesar or Cicero that there are such Citties as Rome or Constantinople though he have no other assurance for the one or the other but only the speech of people This tradition therefore he would counsell him to rely upon and to believe that the book which we call Scripture was confirmed abundantly by the workes of God to be the word of God Believing it the word of God he must of necessity believe it true and if he believe it true he must believe it containes all necessary directions unto eternall happinesse because it affirmes it selfe to doe so Nay he might tell him that so farre is the whole book from wanting any necessary direction to his eternall Salvation that one only Author that hath writ but two little bookes of it S. Luke by name in the begining of his Gospell and in the begining of his Story shewes plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary And what they wrote they wrote by Gods direction for the direction of the world not only for the Learned but for all that would doe their true endeavour to know the will of God and to doe it therefore you cannot but conceive that writing to all and for all they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all Besides that here he should finde that God himselfe has engaged himselfe by promise that if he would loue him and keep his Commandements and pray earnestly for his spirit and bee willing to be directed by it he should undoubtedly receiue it even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all truth that is certainly into all necessary Truths and suffer him to fall into no pernicious errour The summe of his whole direction to him briefly would be this Believe the Scripture to be the word of God use your true endeavour to finde the true sense of it and to liue according to it and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternall happinesse This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case and this is a way so plain that fooles unlesse they will cannot erre from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth and not being free from errour but endeavoring to know the truth and obey it and endeavouring to be free from errour is by this way made the onely condition of salvation As for your supposition That he would advise such a man to rely upon the Catholique Church for the finding out the doctrine of Christ hee utterly disclaimes it and truly very justly There being no certaine way to know that any company is a true Church but only by their professing the true doctrine of Christ. And therefore as it is impossible I should know such a company of Philosophers are Peripateticks or Stoicks unlesse I first know what was the doctrine of the Peripateticks and Stoicks so is it impossible that I should certainly know any company to be the Church of Christ before I know what is the doctrine of Christ the Profession whereof constitutes the visible Church the Beliefe and Obedience the invisible And therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the Catholique Church to the doctrine of Christ the contrary rather is most certaine and necessary that by the foreknowledge of the doctrine of Christ he must be directed to a certaine assurance which is if he meane not to choose at
towards a full satisfaction of it That the Creed containes all the fundamentalls of simple Belief you take no notice of the former and pervert the latter and make him say The Creed containes all fundamentalls of faith Whereas you know and within sixe or seven lines after this confesse that he never pretended it to contain all simply but all of one sort all necessary points of simple belief Which assertion because he modestly delivers as very probable being willing to conclude rather lesse then more then his reasons require hereupon you take occasion to aske Shall I hazard my soul on probabilities or even wagers As if whatsoever is but probable though in the highest degree of probability were as likely to be false as true Or because it is but Morally not Mathematically certain that there was such a Woman as Q. Elizabeth such a man as H. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable therefore it were an even wager there were none such By this reason seeing the truth of your whole Religion depends finally upon Prudentiall motives which you doe but pretend to be very credible it will be an even wager that your Religion is false And by the same reason or rather infinitely greater seeing it is impossible for any man according to the grounds of your Religion to know himselfe much lesse another to be a true Pope or a true Priest nay to have a Morall certainty of it because these things are obnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernable nullities it will be an even wager nay if we proportion things indifferently a hundred to one that every Consecration and Absolution of yours is void that whensoever you adore the Host you and your Assistants commit Idolatry That there is a nullity in any Decree that a Pope shall make or any Decree of a Councell which he shall confirme Particularly it will be at least an even wager that all the Decrees of the Councell of Trent are void because it is at most but very probable that the Pope which confirmed them was true Pope If you mistake these inferences then confesse you have injur'd D. Potter in this also that you have confounded and made all one Probabilities and even wagers Whereas every ordinary Gamester can informe you that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will happen yet it is not sure but very probable 58 To make the measure of your injustice yet fuller you demand If the Creed containes only points of simple belief how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practise D. Potter would have answered you in our Saviours words search the Scriptures But you have a great minde it seemes to be a despairing and therefore having propos'd your Question will not suffer him to give you Answer but shut your eares and tell him still he chalkes out new paths for desperation 59 In the rest of your interlude I cannot but commend one thing in you that you keep a decorum and observe very well the Rule given you by the great Master of your Art Servetur adimum Qualis ab incepto processerat sibi constet One vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it from the begining to the end Your next demand then is Are all the Articles of the Creed for their nature and matter Fundamentall and the Answer I cannot say so Which Answer though it be true D. Potter no where gives it neither hath he occasion but you make it for him to bring in another question and that is How then shall I know which in particular be and which be not Fundamentall D. Potter would have answered It is a vain question believe all and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamentall 60 But what saies now his prevaricating Proxy What does he make him say This which followes Read my answer to a late Popish Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken There you shall finde that Fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique verities as principally and essentially pertain to the faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved They are those Grand and Capitall Doctrines which make up our Faith that is the common faith which is alike pretious in all being one and the same in the highest Apostle and the meanest believer which the Apostle elsewhere calls the first Principles of the Oracles of God and the forme of sound words 61 But in earnest Good Sir doth the Doctor in these places by you quoted make to this question this same sottish answer Or doe you think that against an Heretique nothing is unlawfull Certainly if he doth answer thus I will make bold to say he is a very foole But if he does not as indeed he does not then But I forbeare you and beseech the Reader to consult the places of D. Potters book and there he shall find that in the former halfe of these as you call them varied words and phrases he declared only what he meant by the word Fundamentall which was needfull to prevent mistakes and cavilling about the meaning of the word which is metaphoricall and therefore ambiguous and that the latter halfe of them are severall places of Scripture imployed by D. Potter to shew that his distinction of Fundamentall and not Fundamentall hath expresse ground in it Nay of these two places very pertinent unto two very good purposes you have exceeding fairely patcht together a most ridiculous answer to a question that D. Potter never dream't of But the words you will say are in D. Potters Book though in divers places and to other purposes Very true And so the words of Ausonius his obscene Fescennine are taken out of Virgil yet Virgil surely was not the Author of this Poem Besides in D. Potters book there are these words Dread Soveraigne amongst the many excellent vertues which have made your Majesties person so deare unto God c. And why now may you not say as well that in these he made Answer to your former question what points of the Creed were and what were not Fundamentalls 62 But unlesse this question may be answered his doctrine you say serves only either to make men despaire or else to have recourse to these whom we call Papists It seemes a little thing will make you despaire if you be so sullen as to doe so because men will not trouble themselves to satisfy your curious questions And I pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it because as before I told you if you will believe all the points of the Creed you cannot choose but believe all the points of it that are fundamentall though you be ignorant which are so and which are not so Now I believe your desire to know which are Fundamentalls proceeds only from a desire to be assur'd that you doe believe them which seeing you may be assured of without knowing which they
be what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it Neither may you think to mend your selfe herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call Papists for they are as farre to seek as wee in this point which of the Articles of the Creed are for their nature and matter fundamentall and which are not Particularly you will scarce meet with any amongst their Doctors so adventurous as to tell you for a certain whether or no the conception of Christ by the Holy Ghost his being born of a Virgin his Buriall his descent into Hell and the Communion of Saints be points of their own nature and matter fundamentall Such I mean as without the distinct and explicite knowledge of them no man can be saved 63 But you will say at least they give this certain rule that all points defined by Christs visible Church belong to the foundation of faith in such sense as to deny any such cannot stand with Salvation So also Protestants give you this more certain rule That whosoever believes heartily those books of Scripture which all the Christian Churches in the world acknowledge to be Canonicall and submits himselfe indeed to this as to the rule of his belief must of necessity believe all things fundamentall and if he live according to his faith cannot fail of Salvation But besides what certainty have you that that rule of Papists is so certain By the visible Church it is plain they mean only their own and why their own only should be the Visible Church I doe not understand and as little why all points defined by this Church should belong to the foundation of faith These things you had need see well and substantially proved before you rely upon them otherwise you expose your selfe to danger of imbracing damnable errors instead of Fundamentall truth's But you will say D. Potter himselfe acknowledges that we doe not erre in Fundamentalls If he did so yet me thinkes you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security whom you condemne of errour in many other matters Perhaps excesse of Charity to your persons may make him censure your errors more favourably then he should doe But the truth is and so I have often told you though the Doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive but that some men who ignorantly hold them may be saved yet in themselves he professes and proclaimes them damnable and such as he feares will be certainly destructive to such as you are that is to all those who have eyes to see and will not see them 64 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. In the Remainder of this Chapter you promise to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which you said before But presently forgetting your selfe in stead of answering his Arguments you fall a confuting his Answers to your own The arguments objected by you which here you vindicate were two 1. The Scripture is not so much as mentioned in the Creed therefore the Creed containes not all things necessary to be believed 2. Baptisme is not contained in the Creed therefore not all things necessary To both which Arguments my Answer shortly is this that they prove something but it is that which no man here denies For D. Potter as you have also confessed never said not undertook to shew that the Apostles intended to comprize in the Creed all points absolutely which we are bound to believe or after sufficient proposall not to disbelieve which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him But only that they purposed to comprize in it all such doctrines purely speculative all such matters of simple belief as are in ordinary course necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men Neither of these objections doe any way infringe or impeach the truth of this Assertion Not the first because according to your own doctrine all men are not bound to know explicitely what books of Scripture are Canonicall Nor the second because Baptisme is not a matter of Faith but practise not so much to be believed as to be given and received And against these Answers whether you have brought any considerable new matter let the indifferent Reader judge As for the other things which D. Potter rather glanceth at then builâ—s upon in answering these objections as the Creed's being collected out of Scripture and supposing the Authority of it which Gregory of Valentia in the place above cited seemes to me to confesse to have been the Iudgement of the Ancient Fathers and the Nicene Creed's intimating the authority of Canonicall Scripture and making mention of Baptisme These things were said ex abundanti and therefore I conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them Prove that D. Potter did affirme that the Creed containes all things necessary to be believed of all sorts and then these objections will be pertinent and deserve an answer Or produce some point of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed which is not contained either in termes or by consequence in the Creed and then I will either answer your Reasons or confesse I cannot But all this while you doe but trifle and are so farre from hitting the marke that you rove quite beside the But. 65 Ad § 23. 24. 25. Potterâ—emands â—emands How it can be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had and the Church of their times You Answer That he trifles not distinguishing between the Apostles belief and that abridgement of some Articles of faith which we call the Apostles Creed I reply that it is you which trifle affectedly confounding what D. Potter hath plainly distinguished the Apostles belief of the whole Religion of Christ as it comprehends both what we are to doe and what we are to believe with their belief of that part of it which containes not duties of obedience but only the necessary Articles of siâ—ple â—aith Now though the Apostles Beleife be in the former sense a larger thing then that which we call the Apostles Creed yet in the latter sense of the word the Creed I say is a full comprehension of their belief which you your selfe have formerly confessed though somewhat fearfully and inconstantly and here again unwillingnesse to speak the truth makes you speak that which is hardly sense and call it an abridgement of some Articles of Faith For I demand these some Articles which you speak of which are they Those that are out of the Creed or those that are in it Those that are in it it comprehends at large and therefore it is not an abridgement of them Those that are out of it it comprehends not at all and therefore it is not an abridgement of them If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith this would be sense and signify thus much That all the necessary Articles of the Christian faith are compriz'd in it For this is the proper duty of abridgements to leave out nothing