Infidelity vnmasked, or, The confutation of a booke published by Mr. William Chillingworth vnder this title, The religion of Protestants, a safe way to saluation [i.e. salvation]

Author: Knott, Edward, 1582-1656.1652

INFIDELITY VNMASKED OR THE CONFVTATION OF A BOOKE PVBLISHED BY Mr. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH VNDER THIS TITLE THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS A SAFE WAY TO SALUATION.

I would thou wert colde, or hote, but because thou art luke-warme I will begin to vomitt the out of my mouth. Apocal: (C:3. V. 15. 16.)

Printed in GANT. By MAXIMILIAN GRAET. A ^o. D ^ni. M. DC. LII. Permissu superiorum.

[Page]

TO THE READER.

1. THe first thing that I am to request of thee (good Reader) is, to reade this Preface, before thou adress thyself to peruse the Booke: And then not to reade, irregularly, beginning, with the end, or at the middle, or with what shall be offered by meere chance; but to take the following Introduction, and Chapters, as they come in order; that so the former, may be a preparation to the latter, and the latter may receyue light, and strength from the former. For, the matters being connected of themselves, will growe to be either vnintelligible, or obscure, or confused; if their right Consequences, and orderly sequeles, be neglected, or inverted, and will certainly come by that meanes, to be perverted, and mistaken.

2. I cannot doubt, but that an Answer to Mr: Chillingworths Booke, hath bene expected, long since. But they who are acquainted, with the many, and long, and great, and insuperable obstacles of voyages to remote countreyes; long, frequent, and great sicknesses; and vnavoidable imployments (imposed by Authority, which I ought not to resist, though some can witness, that even in that, I strayned obedience, more than I should haue adventured to doe vpon any other occasion) which haue crossed my earnest, and constant desires, will not so much marvell, that this Work hath bene long in doeing, as that finally it is donne. This one thing is evident: That not any difficulty, to answer, could haue bene cause of so long, delay: since whosoever can answer now, could haue donne it much sooner, if extrinsecall impediments had bene removed.

3. As for that vnfortunate man, whom I confute, Truth obliges me to declare, that, beside his most contemning, disdaining, proud, bitter, and even bloudy, waie of answering, by seeking to make odious, both the Religion, and persons of Catholiques (as will appeare by what I note in due place) I must insist vpon this; that in reality his [Page 2]Book is no Confutation of Charity Maintayned, who answered Dr: Potter according to the grounds of Protestants, not of Socinians, or any other new Sect. And therefore Mr: Chillingworth, flying to new Principles, hath abandoned Dr: Potter, and all the elder kind of Protestants, and left his Adversary in possession, of being vnanswered; agreably to his ingenuous acknowledgment, when time was, that Charity Maintayned, could not be defeated by any forces of Protestants, and that he had a way to confute him. ^(a) Miserable Protestancy! That could find no Advocate, except an Enemy to it and all Christianity, who tooke this occasion, only to vent new Heresies, no less repugnant to Protestants, than to Catholiques. Did not Protestants foretell, and in f [...]ct prophecie, their owne ruine, in preferring this vnhappy man, before all England, to be Defender of their Faith? Who can wonder, to behold that Nation swimming in desolation, and bloud, which indures to behold a Book published, approved, applauded, which purposely, and directly teaches, Christian Faith not to be infallibly true, and consequently, that whatsoever Christians haue hitherto believed, of Scripture, of Christ, of all Christian verityes, may (for ought they can certainly know to the contrary) proue fabulous, false, or no better than dreames. If he who omitted to enact any Law, or decree any punishment for Paricides, gaue the reason thereof, by asking, whether there could possibly be any such Crime: Much more Charity Maintayned had no reason to fetch from Hell, this Antichristian doctrine, never imagining, that any Christian would profess to maintayne so wicked a Tenet, the contrary whereof even Dr: Potter delivers, not as a thing disputable, or which needed any proofe, but as a first Principle, to be supposed among Christians.

4. Presently vpon the publication of Mr: Chillingworths Book, he was by diverse printed Treatises; charged with this, and other vnchristian Doctrines, and expresly conjured to cleare himselfe, vnder paine of being esteemed guilty, if he were silent; as by the Church Conquerant over humane wit: The totall summe; The judgment of an vniversity-man; Christianity Maintayned; but never could be induced, to answer for himself, in any one particular; which silence, in a matter of this nature, could procede only from guiltiness, as he was expresly forwarned, in the Direction to N. N. (Chap: 3.)

5. If any vndertake a Confutation of my Book, he will doe himself manifest wrong, vnless he doe me so much right, as not to pretend an [Page 3]Answer to mee, if he abandon Mr: Chillingworth, and forsake his grounds, and so oppose me by new Principles, as Mr: Chillingworth injuriously delt with Charity Maintayned. Or if he will profess, not to defend the particular Tenets, or debates of Mr: Chillingworth; I must exact of him, that by declaring so much, the world may know, that Mr: Chillingworth hath bene confuted; whom, whosoever forsakes, he cannot be judged to answer my Book, but to commence, a new suite, or begin a new Work, of which I shall not esteame myself obliged to take any notice. For, as Charity Maintayned confuted Protestants, not Socinians; so I confute Mr: Chillingworths Book, and not the Principles of other Men, or Sects, disagreeing from him.

6. It is also desired, that he follow not Mr: Chillingworth, in seeking to draw his Adversary, to handle particular Points, nothing pertinent to our present generall Controversy: That he cite the places of those Authors, whose Authorityes he alledges, which Mr: Chillingworth frequently omitts to doe: That he propose my Arguments without fraude, disguise, or disadvantage; as I haue bene so very carefull, and even scrupulous, to relate with all sincerity Mr: Chillingworths Opinions, Reasons, and Words, that not seldome I had recourse to the Errata, noted in the end of his Book, holding it an vnjust thing, to charge him, with any over sight of the Print; though hee hath not delt so fairely with Charity Maintayned, whom he impugnes, even in things placed among the Errata of the Printer, and corrected.

7. I profess with all sincerity, and seriousness, that I haue not wittingly omitted to answer any one Point in my Adversaries whole Book, either particularly, and explicitely, or els in Principles, which involue an Answer to all particulars when they shall be proposed. I am necessitated to repeete the same things, either to answer my Adversarie in his repetitions, or for the connection of the matters, which require it; or because it is to be feared, that not every Reader will remember, or know, how to apply what is past. I am not ignorant, that in answering Mr: Chillingworth, I confute an Academy of Socinians, to whom he owes the matter, and substance of his Book, though it appeare vnder his name only. But Truth is Truth, and will be such, in despight of Heresie, Sophistrie, and witt. One favour I must acknowledg to receyue from Mr: Chillingworth (though I owe him no thanks for it) that his Contradictions are so frequent, as they alone are enough to confute himself: Whereof I giue no examples heere, in regard, they [Page 4]perpetually offer themselves, through his whole Book, as the Reader will perceyue, and, if I be not deceived, not without wonder that a man so cryed vp by some other, should so patently be decryed by himself, not vpon any sense of humility, but by the fate (as I may saie) of falshood, which cannot be long constant to itself. ^(a) And this must needs appeare credible, if we consider, that those Books, which were first published against him, agree in the same judgment of his Contradictions, though I am verie certaine, they could not borrow their censure, from one an other.

8. As for the bulk of my Book; I must acknowledg, that it might haue bene comprised in a lesser compass, if I could in wisdom haue measured the conceypts of men, by the matter, which certainly did oftentimes not require, or deserue any Answer. But we are debters sapientibus & insipientibus, to all sorts of persons, and many will be apt to Judge, and proclaime, all that to be vnanswerable, which is not actually answered to their hand. Nevertheless, vpon exact account, though Mr: Chillingworth answer one Parte only of Charity Maintayned, yet you see it is no small volume, but is more than three times greater than the Part answered. And so one half of Charity Maintayned temaines till this day vnanswered.

9. I meddle not with Mr: Chillingworths Answer, by waie of Preface, to a litle Work, intituled, A Direction to N. N.; because presently vpon the publishing of his Book, that Preface of his, was in such manner confuted, by a wittie, erudite, and solid Book, with this Title (The judgment of an Vniversity-man concerning Mr: William Chillingworth his late Pamphlet, in Answer to Charity Maintayned) that He was much troubled thereat, but yet thought fit to disgest his vexation by silence.

10. But the maine Point, which I must propose heere, and which I confide, everie indifferent Reader, will finde to be clearely evinced, even out of Mr: Chillingworths owne words, is this: That whereas he gives this Title to his Book (The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation) he might (and ought) in stead thereof either to haue saied, (The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation) Or, (The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe way to salvation) Or finally, (Christian Religion not a safe way to salvation.) For,

11. First; He confesses that some Protestants must be in errours, [Page 5]and proves it, because they hold Propositions contradictorie one to an other; and besides, he teaches, that millions of them erre damnably; in these words, (Pag: 21.) If any Protestant or Papist be betraied into, or kept in any Errour, by any sinne of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such Errour is, as the cause of it, sinfull and damnable: Yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation, but perdonable, if discovered, vpon a particular explicite repentance; if not discovered, vpon a generall and implicite repentance for all sinnes known and vnknowne. To which words if we add what he saieth (Pag: 16. N. 21.) The very saying they were pardonable, implies they needed pardon, and therefore in themselves were damnable; The Conclusion will be; that the errours of Protestants are damnable in themselves: Otherwise they needed no pardon or repentance, nor could it be a sinne to he betrayed into, or kept in them. And (Pag: 19. and 20.) he saieth; If they faile to vse such a measure of industry in finding truth, as humane prudēce and ordinary discretion shall advise them vnto, in a matter of such consequence, then their errors, begin to be malignant, and justly imputable, as offences aganst God, and that loue of his truth which he requires in vs. And he in the same place expresly affirmes, that the farre greater parte of Protestants are in this case. So that now, he sends to Hell, the greater parte of Protestants, for the errours which they hold; and yet makes no scruple to delude them, with a verball Mock-Title, that the Religion of Protestants is a safe way to salvation. But this is not all. He saieth (Pag: 218. N. 49.) I would not be so mistaken, as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants vnconsiderable things, and matters of no moment. For the truth is, I am very fearefull, that some of their opioions, either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, (though not of themselves so damnable, but that good and holy men, may be saved with them, yet) are too frequent occasions of our remisnes, and slacknesse, in running the race of Christian Perfection, of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God, of our frequent relapses into sinne, and not seldome of security in sinning, and consequently, though not certaine causes, yet too frequent occasions of men [...] Damnation. All these be his express words. And how can that Religion be a safe way to salvation, which, not accidentally, but even by the Doctrine thereof, gives so frequent occasions of me [...] Damnation? And (Pag: 387. N. 4.) he grants, that Charity Maintayned hath Something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions, or other to leaue their Communion. From which words it necessarily followes, that all Protestants are in state of sinne, and damnation, either because they themselves hold errours, or by [Page 6]reason, they leaue not the Communion of those who hold them. And (P. 280. N. 95.) he saith to vs Though Protestants haue some Errors, yet they are not so great as yours; which last, though it were true (as it is most false) yet it is impertinent; yea it makes against Protestants, by granting, that theyr errors are damnable (though not so damnable as ours) and consequently, that their Religion cannot be a safe way to salvation. And it is to be observed, that he writes the saied words, (that Protestants baue some Errors) in conformity to what Dr: Potter confesses (Pag: 69.) that errors and corruptions, are not perfectly taken away among Protestants, nor every where alike. And what a safe way can that Sect be, which by the Professors, and Defenders thereof is confessed to be guilty of Errors against Faith, and damnable in themselves? He speaks also fully to my purpose, when he saieth (Pag: 306. N. 106.) For our continuing in their Communion (he speaks of Protestants) notwithstanding their errors, the justification hereof, is not so much, that their errours are not damnable: As that they require not the belief and profession of these errors, among the conditions of their Communion: Which excuse of his, doth not extenuate, but aggravate the sinne of Protestants, who do not only erre, but also communicate with others who erre, from which Communion, we haue heard him confess, that Charity Maintayned hath some probability to disswade men. In the eyes of vulgar people, this mixture of different Sects, vnder one name of Protestancy, may seeme a kind of good thing, as bearing a shew of Charity, yet indeed, to wise men, such communicants must appeare, to be as litle zealous, constant, and firme in their owne Religion, as they affect to be esteemed charitable to others. And to every such Protestant doe fully agree those excellent words of glorious S. Austine (de Civit: Dei Lib: 21. Cap: 17.) He doth erre so much the more absurdly, and against the word of God more perversly, by how much he seemeth to himself to Judge more charitably.

12. Neither in this Discourse, doe we relie vpon his wordsonly, but on his Tenets, and Grounds, and such Truths, as both hee often delivers, and must be granted by all Christians; namely, that it is damnable, to deny any least Truth sufficiently propounded, to a man, as revealed by God; and therefore seing Protestants disagree about such Truths, some of them must of necessity erre damnably. And so, he ought to alter the Title of his Book, into the direct contradictorie, and saie, The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation. For, bonum [Page 7]ex integra causa, malum ex quocunque defectu; and as we cannot affirme, that Action to be vertuous, which failes in any one morall circumstance; so Protestants being confessedly guilty of damnable errours, he must giue this Title to his Booke, Protestancy not a safe way to salvation, but (vnrepented) a certaine way to damnation.

13. Or if he be resolved, not to chang his Title; vpon this Ground, That albeit Protestants erre damnably, yet they may be saved, because they erre not in Fundamentall Articles, absolutely, and indispensably, necessary to constitute one a member of the Church, and in that regard, may be either excused by Ignorance, or pardoned by Repentance: Then,

14. I proue my second Proposition; That, for the verie same reason he must say, and might haue put for the Title of his Book: The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safe waie to salvation: seing he expresly and purposely teaches through his whole Book, that we erre not in fundamentall points, and that we may be saved by ignorance, or Repentance. That our Errors be not Fundamentall, he declares in plaine termes. For Ch: Ma: in his preface to the Reader (N. 13.) having saied: Since he will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ, distinct from the Church of Rome, and such Churches as agreed with her, when Luther first appeared, whether it doe not follow, that she hath not erred fundamentally; because everie such errour destroyes the nature and being of the Church, and so our Saviour should haue had no visible Church on earth? To which demand Mr. Chillingworth answers in these words: (Pag: 16. N. 20.) I say in our sense of the word Fundamentall, it does follow. For if it be true, that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman, then it must be, either because there was no Church at all, which we deny. Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church, which we also deny: Or because she was a part of the Whole, which we grant. And if she were a true part of the Church, then she retained those Truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it. For this is precisely necessary to constiture any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique. In our sence therefore of the word Fundamentall, I hope she erred not Fundamentally: but in your sense of the word, I feare she did. That is, she held something to be Divine Revelation, which was not; something not to be, which was. Behold how he frees vs from all Fundamentall errors, though he feares we are guilty of errours, which he calls damnable, that is, repugnant to some Divine Revelation, whereas he professes as a thing evident [Page 8]that some Protestants must erre fundamentally in that sense, because they hold Contradictories, of which both partes cannot be true. And so even this for consideration, he must say: The Religion of Roman Catholiques a safer way to salvation, than Protestancy: seing he can not proue that we erre, by Reason of any contradiction among ourselves in matters of Faith, as it is manifest that one Protestant is contrarie to an other; especially if we reflect, that not onlie, one particular or single person contradicts an other, but whole Sects are at variance, and contrariety, as Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, new Arians, Socinians &c: The first point then it is cleare he confesses; I meane, that our supposed errours are not Fundamentall; which is so true, that whereas in severall occasions he writes, or rather declaimes against vs, for denying the cup, to laymen, and officiating in an vnknown toung, as being, in his opinion, points directly contrarie to evident Revelation, yet (Pag: 137. N. 21.) he hopes that the deniall of them shall not be laid to our charge, no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the foundations, not overthrowing the foundation itself.

15. But for the second; doth he hold that we may be excused by ignorance, or saved by Repentance, as he saieth Protestants may? Heare what he speakes to Catholiques (Pag: 34. N. 5.) I can very hardly perswade myself so much as in my most secret consideration to devest you of these so needfull qualifications of ignorancce and Repentance. But whensoever your errors come into my minde, my only comfort is amidest these agori [...]s, that the Doctrine and practise too of Repantance, is yet remaining in your Church. And this hee teaches, through all his Book, together with Dr. Potter; and they vniversally affirme, that those Catholiques may be saved, who in simplicity of hart believe what they profess; as they may be sure English Catholiques doe▪ who might be begged for fooles, or sent to Bedlam if they did not belieue that Faith, and Religion, be be true, for the truth whereof, they haue indured so long, and grievous persecution. Besides it being evident, that many learned Protestants in the chiefest points controverted betwene them and vs, agree with vs, against their pretended Brethren as is specified, and proved hereafter, and is manifest by evidence of fact) the Religion of Protestants cannot be safe, or free from damnable Opinions, vnless our Religion be also such. For I hope they will not say, that the selfe same Assertions, taken in the same sense, are true in the mouth of Protestants, and false in ours. We must therefore conclude, that if he will make good his title; The Religion, of Protestants a safe way to salvation, he must say the same of vs Catholiques, who [...] [Page 9]he acknowledges not to erre in fundamentall points, and to be capable of inculpable Ignorance, or Repentance, for which selfsame respects he pretends The Religion of Protestants to be a safe way to salvation.

16. But what if Mr. Chilling worth devest Protestants of that so needfull qualification by ignorance, which he denies not to vs? I will faithfully relate his words, and leaue others to judge what a champion Protestants haue chosen. Ch: Ma: (part. 1. Cap 5. N. 32.) objects to Protestants, that their departure from the Roman Church vpon pretence of errour could not be excused, seing by leaving her they could not hope, to avoide the like vnfundamentall, nor be secured from Fundamentall, errors. To this, Mr. Chillingworth (Pag: 290. N. 87.) answers; that Protestants are so farre from acknowledging, that they haue no hope to avoide errors of the like nature and quality with ours (which he confesses to be vnfundamentall) that they proclaime to all the world, that it is most easy and proue to so, to doe all those that feare God ād love the Truth, and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise, without supine negligence, and extreame impiety. I will not insist here how strange, and even ridiculous, it is, in him, to say, that it is most prone and easy for Protestants not to fall into errors, at least not Fundamentall, yea that it is hardly possible for them not to avoide such errours; seing they disagree so irreconciliably among themselves, and diverse of them fall into those (pretended) errours, which we maintaine against Protestants; all which one would think, could not happen, if it were most prone and easy for Protestants to avoide such errours, and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise (that is, not to avoide them) without supine negligence and extreame impiety. But that which I saie now, is; That seing de facto he confesses Protestants to hold errours (yea, millions, even the greater parte of them, to be in error by their owne fault, as we haue seene aboue) it followes, that in his judgment, they are actually guilty of [...]upine negligence, and extreame impiety, which vices, certainly cannot stand with invincible, or probable ignorance; and so all erring Protestants are excluded from Mr. Chillingworths Excuse, or Sanctuary of ignorance.

17. Nay, what if he hold the errours of Protestants to be vnpardonable? Sure I am, he saieth (Pag: 275. N. 58.) God is infinitely just, tod therefore as it [...] to be feared will not pardon them, who might easily haue come to the knowledg of the Truth, and either through prid [...], or obstinacy, or negligence would not. Now, we haue heard him avouch, that it is easy for Protestants to come to the knowledg of the Truth; and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extreame impiety, and therefore it is [Page 10]to be feared, God will not pardon them, even in the opinion of Mr. Chil: their selected Advocate, though for ends of his owne, he thought fit, to publish his Book vnder this Title; the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation.

18. I saied in the third place; That vnless he confess the Religion of Roman Catholiques to be a safe way to salvation, he must not only affirme, The Religion of Protestants not to be a safe way, but also; that, Christian Religion is not a safe way to salvation. And the Reason is cleare, out of what hath bene saied already. For seing he holds it not necessary, that any Church be free from errours vnfundamentall, and that the whole Church, before Luther was infected with such errours, and that at this day Protestants erre damnably, I wonder of what Christiā church, he can say with Reason; it is a safe way to salvation, if he deny it to the Roman Church, which he confesses not to erre fundamentally? And therefore if any Christian Church be a safe way, we are safe even in the Principles of Chil: and Potter. And what greater security can be desired, than when all sides, both friends, and Adversaries confess our possibility to be saved, whereas we cannot, with truth, giue any such hope to Protestants without Repentance, and retractation of their errors. ^(a)

19. I will say no more by way of Preface, but only signify, in a word, for the Readers necessary knowledg, or remembrace; that there having bene printed a litle, elegant, and pithy Treatise, with this Title: Charity Mistaken, with the want whereof, Catholikes are vnjustly charged, for affirming, that Protestancy vnrepented destroies salvation: And this Treatise having bene answered by Dr: Potter; the Doctors Answer was confuted, by a Reply, intituled: Mercy, and Truth, Or, Charity Maintayned by Catholiques. To this Reply Mr: Chillingworth published an Answer, with this Title; the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation; against which diverse litle Treatises were presently put forth, as I saied aboue; and now I haue endeavoured to answer it at large. By Cha: Mi: I shall hereafter vnderstand, Charity Mistaken, and by Ch: Ma: Charity Maintayned. I cite the Second Edition of Dr: Potters Book, and the Oxford Edition of Mr: Chillingworths (which only I haue, or could procure when, and where, I was to write this Answer;) and, for brevityes sake, speak to him, as if he were Living: As still he lives in his profane Booke, and his Booke lives in the vaine esteeme of men, who yet pretēd to be Christiās.

[Page]

A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS.

An Introduction. Touching the necessity of Divine Grace for all workes of Christian Piety. Pag: 1.
Chap: 1. Christian Faith necessary to Salvation, is infallibly true Pag: 37.
Chap: 2. All things necessary to be believed, are not in particular, evidently contayned in Scripture alone. Pag: 122.
Chap: 3. A Confutation of Mr: Chillingworths errours against Holy Scripture. Pag: 279.
Chap: 4. A Living infallible Judge is necessary for deciding Controversyes in Matters of Faith. Pag: 352.
Chap: 5. In what manner and order wee proue the infallibility of the Church. Pag: 426.
Chap: 6. About Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points of Faith. Pag: 440.
Chap: 7. Protestants are guilty of the sinne of Schisme. Pag: 458.
Chap: 8. Mr: Chillingworrths errours concerning Repentance, are examined, and confuted. Pag: 596.
Chap: 9. The answer to the Preface of Charity Maintayned is examined. Pag: 623.
Chap: 10. The answer to his first Chapter, about the state of the Question: and whether amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved. Pag: 630.
Chap: 11. The āswer to his Second Chapter concerning the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our vnderstanding, and which must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion. Pag: 648.
Chap: 12. The answer to his third Chapter, about Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Points. Pag: 707.
Chap: 13. That the Creed contaynes not all Points necessary to be believed: in answer to his fourth Chapter. Pag: 788.
Chap: 14. The answer to his fifth Chapter about Schisme. Pag: 846.
Chap: 15. The answer to his sixth Chapter about Heresy- Pag: 884.
Chap: 16. The answer to his seaventh Chapter; that Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves, to reunite themselves to the Roman Church. Pag: 932.

[Page]

[Page 1]

Touching the necessity of diuine Grace for all vvorkes of Christian Piety.

I. THe necessity I find of premisinge this Introduction, giues me iust cause to begin with those sad passages of the Prophet Ieremy ( c. 9.1.) VVho will giue water to my head, and to myne eyes a fountayne of teares? and v. 18. Let our eyes shed teares, and our eye liddes runne downe with waters. And c. 13. v. 17. My soule shall weepe because of the pride. ^a O England, what greater pride then to make humane reason the measure of Christian faith; and to beleeue Faith to be only a probable assent, because Reason cannot with euidency comprehend how it should be infallibly true! O soules, deny not the satisfaction of Christ our Lord for our sinnes, and his Merit of supernaturall Grace, to enable our nature towards workes of Piety! Be not eleuated (Jerem: 13.16.17.) but Giue you glory to our Lord your God before it wax darke, and before your feet stumble at the darke mountaynes: Otherwise, you shall looke for light, and he will turne it into the shaddow of death and into darknes. But if you will not heare this, in secret my soule shall weepe because of the pride. ^b Thus sayth our Lord: let not the wise man glory in his wisdome, but he that gloryeth, let him glory in this, because I am the Lord that doe mercy. For it is not (Rom. 9.16.) of the willer, nor of the runner, but of God that sheweth Mercy, by freely offeringe Pardon, Grace, and Glory. Let vs not, ô let vs not make vaine the Life, Sufferings, Death, Satisfaction and Merit of God incarnate, by setting vp an idol of reason: but let vs say with the Apostole (Galat. 2.21.). I cast not away the Grace of God. For if iustice by the Lawe (of Mòyses; if Faith by reason) then Christ dyed in vaine

[Page 2]

II. But heere some will not faile to aske the reason, why I should treate this (seeming farre fetchd) matter, in this occasion.

The Answer to this demand cannot be so fitly and fully deliuered by me in this place, as it will of it selfe appeare in severall occasions through this whole worke. For the present, I say, that the necessity of supernaturall grace being once established; the most substantiall parts of M. Chillingworths booke, will remaine confuted. For, jf Divine faith be the Gift of God, infused into our soules, and that we cannot exercise any one Act therof, without the particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost, it followes immediatly and clearly (against his fundamentall and capitall heresie) that Christian Faith must be infallible, and exempt from all possibility of errour, or falshood. It being an evident, and certaine truth, that the supreme and Prime. Ueritie cannot by his speciall supernaturall motion inspire a falshood S. Iohns aduise (1. Ioan: 4.1.) is, Beleeue not euery spirit, but proue the spirits if they be of God. But if we find our spirit to be of God, and yet maintayne, that it may be stayned with errour, what further triall can we make? must we raise vp the spirit of man, and rely on the strength of reason, to trye, and so perhaps to check, and reject the spirit of God, though knowne, and acknowledged, to be his spirit? We reade in holy Scripture (Deuter: c. 18.21.22.) If in secret cogitation thou answer: How shall I vnderstand the word, that our Lord spake not? This signe thou shalt haue: That which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord and cometh not to passe, that our Lord hath not spoken, but by the arrogancy of his mynd the Prophet hath forged it. Which yet were no good or infallible signe, if the spirit of God, who spoke by the Prophets, could inspire a falshood.

III. This truth is granted even by sectaryes themselues, who will not deny to be true what Caluin (Jnstit. l. 1. c. 7.) saith. Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo. I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferred before all reason. And even Chillingworth (Pag. 145 n. 33.) saieth that Potter ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance, and consequently infallibility, in a more high and absolute manner then any since them. Where we see he proportionates infallibility to the guidance of the Spirit.

IV. Besides, if the Theologicall vertues of Hope, and Charity be- [Page 3]the Gifts of God, and their Acts require supernaturall assistance, Faith also, by which they are directed, must be supernaturall and require Gods particular Grace, which excludes all falshood. Jf Faith, Hope, and Charity be Gifts infused by God, not acquired by Acts proceeding from our naturall forces, and for that reason we can not be assured of their presence by sensible experience, as we may be of acquired naturall Habits; Jf they be Powers to enable, not meere Habits, to facilitate vs in order to Actions of Piety; we must inferre, that they are not to be increas'd or diminishd, lost, conserved, or acquired, or measured, according to the rate of naturall Habits. Which truth being once granted, his doctrine that Repentance consists in the rooting out of all vicious habits; That Charity may consist with deadly sinne; and Faith with heresy, and the like Tenets, instantly fall to the ground, their whole foundation being an imaginary paritie. or rather identity, of infused and naturall Habits, or Gifts; as will appeare when such particular points shall offer themselues to be examined.

V. Heere I cannot forbeare to reflect, in what manner they who haue once withdrawne their beleife and obedience from Gods Church, and an jnfallible living judge in matters belonging to Faith, do runne into extremes. Some of them, to maintayne the necessity of Grace, denie freewill: others in direct opposition to these, giue all to freewill, and denie the necessity of Grace. Some reject inherent Justice though infused by God; yea they teach that the guilt of sinne still remaining, doth stayne all our actions, which therfore are in themselves deadlie sinnes. Some grant inherent Justice or sanctity, not infused by God, but acquired by the naturall forces of mans Freewill. But Catholiques hold the meane; and acknowledg true inherent Justice and sanctitie, infused by the Holy Ghost, not acquired by any acts of ours: They maintayne Actions of piety proceeding from our will, assisted by grace, or from grace with the cooperation of our will; and so they are morall, and free, as proceeding from our will; and yet supernaturall, pious, and meritorious, because they are dignifyed and produced by grace. Thus S. Bernard (lib. de Gratia) saith elegantly; Liberum ar [...]itrium nos fa [...]it volentes, gratia beneuolos: ex ipso nobis est velle, ex ipsà honum velle. From our Freedome proceeds that we [Page 4]vvill; from Grace, that vve vvill vvhat is good.

VI. To alledge for the necessity of grace, Fathers, and Councells, were as easie, as it is both needlesse, (none being ignorant of what the Fathers haue written, and Councells defined against Pelagius and hîs associates) and fruitlesse; in regard that such men despise all Authority, except that of Scripture, which alone they pretend to follow. Only I thought fit to set downe, what the sacred generall Councell of Trent, hath defined in this matter of Grace; not to proue the truth of our Assertions, since our Aduersaries reject it, but to lay open the falshood of the frequent calumnies, which Protestants are wont to lay vpon vs, as if we hoped to be saued by our owne, and not by the merits of Christ our Lord, who purchas'd for vs diuine grace, without which we are not able to thinke, speake, or performe, any least action of christian Piety; and so all our merits being by vs beleeved and acknowledged to be God's gifts, we come to say with the Angels; Glory in the highest to God, and in earth peace to men of good vvill; which good vvill being the gift of God, all glory is due to him alone.

VII. Be pleased then, indifferent Reader, to heare what the Councell defines, and then iudge whether our doctrine be not most orthodox, and holy, and the calumnyes of our Aduersaryes most vntrue, and vnjust.

VIII. The Councell Sess: 6. Can: 1. saith. If any shall say that man can be justifyed before God by his owne workes, which can be wrought eyther by the force of humane nature, or by the doctrine of the law without Gods grace by Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. And Can. 3. If any man shall say, that without the prevenient jnspiration and Help of the Holy Ghost, a man may beleeue, hope, loue, or repent as he ought that the grace of justification be giuen him: be he accursed. And in the same place, Cap. 5. The sacred councell declares, that the beginninge of justification in men who are come the the vse of reason, is to be taken from the prevenient grace of God by Christ Iesus, that is, from his calling, by which they are called without any merits of their owne, that they who by sinne were averted from God, by his exciting and helping grace may be disposed to convert themselues to their justification, by freely assenting [Page 5]and cooperating with the same grace, so that God touching the hart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neyther man himselfe doth nothing at all, receiuinge that inspiration, since it is in his power to reject it; neyther yet can he with his owne freewill moue him selfe to justice in the sight of God without his Grace. And therfore when the Holy Scripture saith: Convert to me, and I will convert to you: we are put in minde of our freewill. When we answer: Conuert vs ô Lord tothee, and we shall be conuerted, we acknowledge our selues to be preuented by Gods' grace. And Chap. 6. They are disposed to justice it selfe, while by beinge excited and help'd by Diuine grace, conceavinge faith by hearinge, they are freely moued to God, beleeuinge those things to be true which are reuealed and promised by God; and particularly this, that God iustifyes a sinner by his grace, by the redemption which is in Christ Iesus.

Chap 7. Although none can be iust except he to whom the merits of our Lord Iesus Christ are communicated, yet in this justification of a sinner, that is done while by the merit of the same most sacred Passion, the charity of God by the Holy Ghost is diffused, and is inherent in the harts of those who are iustifyed. Chap. 16. Neyther is our justice maintayned as of our selues, neither is the justice of God either vnknowne, or reiected: for that which is sayd to be our justice, because we are justifyed by it inherent in vs, the selfe same is the justice of God, because by him it is infused into vs by the merits of Christ. Neither is it to be omitted, that although in Holy Scripture so great reckoninge be made of good workes, that Christ hath promised that he shall not be deprived of his reward who shall giue to one of his little ones a cuppe of cold water. And the Apostle witnesseth, that our tribulation which presently is momentary and light, worketh aboue measure exceedingly an eternall weight of glory in vs: yet far be it from a christian man to confide or glory in himselfe and not in our Lord, whose goodnesse towards men is so great, that he will haue those to be their merits, which are his owne gifts. Chap. 8. We are justifyed gratis, because nothing which goes before justification, whether it be faith or workes, doth merit the grace of justification: for if it be grace, then not of workes: otherwise, as the Apostle saith, Grace is not Grace. Chap. 11. Almighty God commands no [...] [Page 6]things impossible, but by commanding admonisheth, both to do what thou canst, and to aske, what thou canst not, and helps thee, that thou mayst be able to doe it. Whose commandements are not heauy; whose yoke is sweet, and burden light. For they who are the sonnes of God, loue Christ; and they who loue him, as he witnesseth, doe keepe his words: which surely they may doe with the help of God.

Chap. 13. Men ought to feare, knowing that they are regenerated to the hope of glory, and not yet to glory it selfe, from the combat which remaynes with the flesh, world, and diuell: wherin they cannot be victorious, vnlesse with the grace of God they obey the Apostle, saying, we are debters, not to the flesh, to liue accordinge to the flesh. Chap. 16. Christ Jesus dayly giues vertue to the justifyed, as the head to the members, and the vine to the vine-branches: which vertue doth always goe before, accompany, and follow their good works, and without which they could not in any wise be gratefull to God, and meritorious. Lastly, the councell defines: If any shall say, that a man justifyed, either can without the especiall helpe of God perseuer in the justice he hath receiued, or that with it he cannot: be he accursed.

IX. More might be alledged out of the Councell, but this may suffice to demonstrate the Doctrine of Catholiques concerning the necessity of God's Grace, to belieue; Hope; Loue God; Keepe his commandements; Merit; Repent; Ouercome temptations; and perseuer to the end. All which is not inconsistent with, free-will which is assisted, and elevated, not hindered or impeached by grace; as it is wont to be sayd. Grace doth not destroy, but perfit nature. Our adversaryes grant that Adam in the state of innocency was indued with freewill, and yet grace was then necessary for the exercise of every supernaturall Act, with which humane nature can haue no sufficient proportion, (otherwise supernaturall were not supernaturall, but naturall or due to nature) and therfore it is cleare that the necessity and concurrence of God's grace agrees very well with mans freewill. Thus all difficultyes are clear'd, and Holy Scripture declared not to imply any contradiction, while it teaches both the freedome of our will, and the necessity of Grace.

[Page 7]

X. By this occasion I cannot chuse but begg of all who are desirous to know what Catholiques teach, not to heare and trust the clamors, and calumnyes of their Preachers, Ministers, or other either misinformed or disaffected, or passionate, or partially interessed persons; but that they would for the good of their owne soules, and loue to truth, reade the Councell of Trent, to which all Catholiques in matters of Faith subscribe; and I dare confidently promise, they will obserue such grauity in the stile, such piety in the matter, such grounds from Scripture, such consonancy with Antiquity, such clearnesse and reasonablenesse in the Definitions, that they shall never repent themselues of a few howers spent in that search, but will find to be true what I haue alwayes thought, and often spoken, that to set downe our Doctrines as they are beleeved by vs, (and not as our Aduersaryes falsify, or disguise them) or rightly to state the Question, would be a sufficient defense of our Assertions, and confutation of all the contraty Objections.

XI But I returne to the matter it selfe; intendinge to proue out of expresse words of holy Scripture, the necessity of grace, First, for all works of pietie in generall. 2. For Faith. 3. For Hope, 4. For Charitie. 5. For keepinge the commandements; and ouercoming temptations. 6. For repentance. 7. For perseuerance. These heades for better method we will distinguish into seuerall Sections

SECTION I. The necessity of Grace for all actions of Christian Piety, in generall.

XII. THe Necessity of Grace appeares sufficiently by the diuers wayes and metaphors vnder which holy Scripture labours (jf so I may say) to declare it vnto vs, as some Diuines haue well observed: as by a metaphor taken from him who knocks at the dore, ( Apoc. 3.) Behold I stand at [Page 8]the dore and knocke: Of one who awakes vs from sleepe, ( Ephes. 5.) Arise thou that sleepest and arise from the dead; and Christ will illuminate thee: of a calling, ( Matth. 20.) Many are called, and few are chosen: of Light, ( Iob 29.) when his lampe shined ouer my head, and I walked by his light in darknesse: of Preuentinge and having mercy on vs, (Psalm. 58.) His mercy shall preuent me. Other expressions of the same Grace will appeare in the places, which shall be alleadged, out of Holy Scripture. In the Concell of Trent (as we haue seene aboue) Grace is declared, vnder diuers names; as of Vocation, Illumination, Inspiration, Excitation, Touchinge, and Motion.

XIII. Let vs now alledge particular Texts of Holy Scripture Ps. 58. His mercy shall prevent me: Ezech. c. 36.2.26 I will giue you a new hart, and put a new spirit in the middest of you; and, I will take away the stony hart out of your Flesh, and will giue you a fleshy hart; and I will put my spirit in the middest of you: and I will make that you walke in my precepts, and keepe my judgements and doe them. Chap. 18.31. Make to your selues a new hart and a new spirit. (Behold in these Texts the possibility of keeping the Commandements; the Necessity of Grace; and the consistency of Grace with freewill; which are three principall doctrines beleeved by Catholicques) Isaiae 54.13. All thy children taught of out Lord. Matt. 20. v. 16, Many be called, but few elect. Ioan. 15. v. 5. Without me, you can doe nothinge. Rom. 8. v. 26. The spirit helpeth our infirmity, For what we should pray, as we ought, wee know not: but the spirit him selfe requesteth for vs with groanings vnspeakable. Rom. 3. v. 24. Justifyed gratis by his Grace, by the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Rom: 9. v. 16. It is not of the willer, nor of the runner, but God that sheweth mercy. Rom: 11. v. 6. If by Grace, not of works, otherwise Grace now is not Grace. And v. 35. Who hath first giuen to him, and retribution shall be made him? 1. Cor. 4. v. 7. Who discerneth thee, or what hast thou that thou hast not receaved. 1. Cor. 15. v. 10. By the Grace of God Iam that I am; and his Grace in me hath not bin voyd, but I have laboured more aboundantly then all they; yet not I, but the Grace of God with me. v. 57. Thankes be to God that hath given to vs the victory by our Lord Iesus Christ. 2. Cor. 3. v. 5. Not that we be sufficient to thinke any thing of our selves as of our selves, but our sufficiency [Page 9]is of God. Epehs. 1. v. 6.7. Vnto the prayse of the glory of his Grace wherin he hath gratifyed vs in his beloved son, in whom we haue redemption by his bloud, (the remission of sinnes) according to the riches of his Grace. Philip. v. 6. He which hath begun in you a good worke, will perfit it vnto the day of Christ Iesus. Philip: 2. v. 13. For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, accordinge to his good vvill. Apoc. 3. v. 20. Behold I stand at the dore and knock; if any man shall heare my voyce, and open to me the gate, I will enter in to him, and vvill sup with him and he with me. Behold agayne the force of Grace in knockinge at the dore, and the cooperation of freevvill in hearing the voyce of God, and opening to him the gate.

XIV. I need add no more Texts of Holy Scripture, for this poynt of the Necessity of Grace, to all vvorks of Piety in generall, since the same vvill also be proued by demonstrating the Necessity therof, for the particulars of Beleeuing, Hoping, &c. As also vvhat vve haue proued in generall, infers the Necessity for the same particulars, of Fayth, Hope, &c: Yea vvhile vve proue the Necessity of Grace for any particular, for example, Fayth, the same remaynes proved for all other poynts belonging to Piety, by reason of the same ground, and parity for all. And indeed since eternall Blisse in Heaven, to vvhich men are ordained, is supernatural [...], it is cleare of it selfe rhat it cannot be attained by the forces of nature, but by the particular Grace and assistance of Gods Holy Spirit.

This Necessity of Grace is so fundamentall a poynt, so prime a principle in Christian Diuinity, so intrinsecall and essentiall to Christianity, so fully, effectually, and frequently declared and vrged in Holy Scripture, that the greatest enemyes of Gods grace, Pelagius, and his fellowes, vvere forced to acknowledg it in vvords, though dissemblingly.

XV. The same necessity of Grace, is taught by the Protestant Church of England (once so stiled) in the 10. Article of the 39. in these vvords: The condition of man after the fall of Ad [...]m is such, that he canno [...] turne and prepare himselfe by his owne naturall strength and good works to Faith and calling vpon God, wherfore we haue no power to d [...]e good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the Grace of Ged by [Page 10]Christ preuenting vs, that we may haue a good will, and working with vs when we haue that good will. If anie say, these Articles are now of small account, and little less then disarticled: I answer; they haue this specious title: Articles agreed vpon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Prouinces, and the whole Cleargie in the Conuocation holden at London in the yeare 1562. For auoiding diuersities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion. If now they carry so small authority, their Title should haue bin, (directly contrary to what it is) Articles agreed vpon for the establishing diuersityes of opinions, and for the auoiding of consent touching true Religion. As these Atticles are now despised, so what soeuer shall euer be proposed, or sett downe by any other will neuer be to any purpose, for the establishing of consent in matters of Faith, and Religion, till England returne to the roote from which it hath diuided it selfe, and seriously reflect into what precipices it is fallen, by forsaking Rome, and rejecting an jnfallible liuing judge of controversyes: for who can giue any man of iudgment a satisfactory reason, vvhy so many pretended Bishops vvere not of as good credit as others, or wy others are not as much to be belieued, as those Bishops. I beseech euery one to whom the saluation of his soule is deare, to ponder in good earnest this consideration; and then to obey S. [...]hons saying, ( Apoc. 2.5:) Be myndfull from whence thou art fallen, and doe pennance.

SECTION II. The Necessity of Grace to Belieue.

XVI. FAith being, as the Apostle sayth ( Hebr. c. 11.1.) the substance of things to be hoped for, and foundation of our spirituall life; if it proceede from our naturall forces, or reason; the vvhole edifice of our saluation must be ascribed to our selues; vvhich vvere a most proude and luciferian conceypt; and yet I reade in M. Chillingworth ( Pag. 375. n. 55.) these words: Neither do we follow any priuate mē, but only the Scripture the word of God, as our rule, and REASON which is also the gist of God giuen to direct [Page 11]vs in all our actions, in the vse of this rule. And through his vvhole booke speaking of that Faith vvhich God requires of all men as their duty, he teaches that it is only such as is proportionable to humane probable Inducements, or a Conclusion by rationall discourse euidently deduced from such probable Premises; Pa. 36. n. 9. He speakes of jnfusion as of a particular fauour aboue the ordinary measure of Faith. And, ( n. 8.) God desires only that we belieue the conclusion as much as the Premises deserue. And, ( Pag. 212. n. 154.) Neither God doth, nor man may require of vs, as our duty, to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion then the Premises deserue; to build an infallible Faith vpon Motiues that are only highly credible, and not infallible. And, Pa. 381. n. 74. He speaking of our Catholique Faith, vvhich he denyes not, to be, for substantiall fundamentall poynts, true faith, (for he holds that true faith of some poynts, may stand with damnable errours in other) sayth: I desire to know, what sense there is in pretending that your persuasion is, not in regard of the object only and cause of it, but in nature or essence of it supernaturall? vvhich demand vvere very impertinent, if he did belieue that diuine supernaturall Grace vvere necessary, for euery act of true Christian faith. For, if it be not supernaturall in essence, how can the speciall motion, and grace of God be necessarily required to it in all occasions, though no particular temptatation, or difficulty offer it selfe? And he speakes very inconsequently in asking how vve know that our faith is, not in regard of the object only and cause of it, but in nature and essence of it, supernaturall, since it is cleare, that if the cause be necessarily, and vniuersally, supernaturall, the effect also must be such; and therfore he is convinced to belieue indeed that neither the cause, nor essence of faith is supernaturall. I grant that ( Pa. 409. lin. 3. ante finem) he vvould perswade vs that he hath no cause to differ from Dr. Potter concerning the supernaturality of Faith, which (sayth he) I know and belieue, as well as you, to be the gift of God, and that flesh and bloud reueald it not vnto vs, but our Father which is in Heauen. But euen in this we can gather only that he admits the necessity of some grace, consisting in externall Reuelation, or Proposition of the objects or mysteryes of Christian, faith, (vvhich Pelagius did admit) but not the necessity of internall Grace, or motion of the Holy Ghost, for enabling our vnderstanding to belieue supernaturall Objects, vvith an infallible diuine Faith: yea it is euident that he requires no such internall [Page 12]grace, seing he expresly requires no stronger assent by faith then evidently followes from probable Arguments of credibility, that is, only a probable beliefe or perswasion; vvheras if beside the proposition of the object, he did require a supernaturall motion of grace, eleuating our vnderstāding aboue its naturall forces, and measure of humane discourse it vvere very inconsequent to limit the assent of faith to the probability of jnducements, or Argumēts of Credibility: And yet he restraines our assent to such probability, expresly because in rationall and naturall discourse, the conclusion cannot exceede the premisses, and therfor must be only probable, vvhen the Premisses are such.

XVII. For which cause when he speakes of particular Grace given to some aboue the ordinary course, he confesses, that it gives them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence; as he expresly delivers pag. 37. n. 9. Which certainty in good consequence he could not denie to every Act of divine faith, if he did believe that every such Act, doth of it selfe; necessarily require particular internall Grace of God, aboue the forces of nature, and beside the externall proposition of the objects, or Mysteries of Christian belief. Neither can it be denyed but that an Object of it selfe supernaturall, may be belieued by the naturall forces of our Understanding, with some probable naturall assent, for Arguments euidently proposed; as Miracles, comparing of Historyes, and the lïke reasons, for which men belieue other matters of tradition: since therfor he teacheth, that Christian Faith is only a probable assent, he must affirme, that it doth not necessarily require the peculiar supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost. But why do J vse any proofe, since we haue his owne express words in the same Pag. 37. n, 9. Some experience makes me feare that considering and discoursing men, being possessed vvith this false principle, that it is in vaine to belieue the Gospell of Christ vvith such a kind or degree of assent, as they yeeld to other matters of tradition: And finding that their faith of it, is to them vndiscernable from the beliefe they giue to the truth of other storyes; are in danger not to belieue at all, or else to cast themselues into wretched agonyes and perplexityes, as fearing they haue not that, without which it is impossible to please God, and obtaine eternall happiness. Do not these words declare, that faith sufficient to please God, and obtain eternall happiness, is of the [Page 13] same kind and degree of assent as men yeeld to other matters of Tradïtion, and truth of other storyes, for the beliefe of which no man did euer say that a speciall motion, or grace of the Holy Ghost, was always necessary? And it is to be obserued, that he speakes of considering and discoursing mē, as still reducing Faith to Reason, wheras contralily experience teacheth, that oftentymes simple persons, belieue with humility and deuotion when the wisest mè of the world turne fooles in matters belonging to God; or if they embrace the Faith of Christ, they doe it not always, with such strength of beliefe, as many vnlearned people doe: which shewes that Faith relies on some more high, and diuine foundation, then the only forces of naturall Reason.

XVIII, To this we may add, what he teacheth ( Pag. 62. n. 24.) That our assurance that the Scripture hath bene preserued from any materiall alteration, and that any other booke is incorrupted, is of the same kind and condition, both morall assurances. And, Pag. 141. No 27. For the incorruption of Scripture, I know no other rationall assurance we can have of it, then such as we haue of the incorruption of otherr ancient bookes: such I meane, for the kind, though it be far greater for the degree of it. And if the spirit of God giue any mā any othe assurāce here of, this is not rationall and discoursiue, but supernaturall and infused. Marke how still he requires as necessary, only a rationall discourse for the incorruption and preseruation of Scripture from any materiall alteration, (and yet Protestants acknowledging Scripture to be the only rule of Faith and beliefe of all Christian Mysteryes, can be no more certaine of such mysteryes, then they are assured of Scripture it selfe) and still speakes of supernaturall infusea assurance, as of an extraordinary thing And yet further ( Pag. 116, N ^o 159.) he sayth: We haue, I belieue, as great reason to belieue, there was such a man as Henry the eight, King of England, as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate. I suppose he will not say, that a speciall grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue, that there was such a man as Henry the eight; Therfor he will, and must, say the same of the Article of our Faith, that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, since he saith, there is as much reason for the one, as the other. Which yet is made more apparent by what he sayth ( Pag. 327. N ^o 5.) in these words: Men may talke their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty, but did they generally [Page 14]belieue that obedience to Christ were the only way to present, and eternall felicity, but as much as Caesars Commentaryes, or the History of Salust, I belieue the liues of most men, both Papists and Protestants, would be better then they are. By which words it is cleare, that either most Papists and Protestants want true Faith, necessary to saluation, or that Faith sufficiēt to saluation need be no greater, concerning the Mysteryes of Christiā Faith, then the belief we yeld to profane Hystoryes; and certainly this requires no speciall Grace, or motion of the Holy Ghost. To conclude, since he professes, that Christiā Faith is of the same kind with rationall discourse, and belief of other matters of Tradition, and humane Historyes, it clearly followes, that it is in its essence naturall, and in kinde different from supernaturall: and therfor cannot vniuersally require the particular motion, and assistance of diuine Grace.

XIX. But les vs confute this proud Heresie, by Holy Scripture. S. Ihon. C. 6. V. 29. saith. This is the worke of God, that you beleeue in him whom he hath sent. V. 44. No man cā come vnto me, except the Father that sent me, draw him: and afterward he expourds what it is to come vnto him, namely, to belieue. V. 64.65. There be certaine of you that beleeue not. Therfor did I say, that no man can come vnto me vnles it be giuen him of my Father. V. 45. Euery one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned commeth to me. Mat. 11.25.26. Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast reuealed them to little ones. Yea Father; for so hath it well pleased thee. And C. 16. V. 17. Blessed art thou Simon Barjona; because flesh and bloud hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in Heauē. Which Text must be vnderstood of internall Grace, and not only of the externall Reuelation, or Proposition of the Object, which was made to the wise and prudēt, as well as to little ones, and to many other beside S. Peter, who yet were not therfor blessed as S. Peter was declared to be. Isai. 54.12. All thy children taught of our Lord. Act. 13.48. There belieued as many as were preordinated to life euerlasting. And Act. 16.14.15. A certain woman called Lidia, a seller of purple, of the citty of the Thyatirians, one that worshipped God, did heare: whose hart our Lord opened to atted to those thinghs which were sayd of Paul. And when she was babtized &c. Rom. 5.2. By whom (Christ) also we haue access through faith into the grace wherin we stand, and glorie, in the hope of the glorie of the [Page 15]sonnes of God. If by faith we haue access to the hope of glory, which is supernaturall, Faith it selfe must also be supernaturall, and require the speciall motion of the Holy Ghost. Rom. 8.26. The spirit helpeth our infirmity. For what we should pray, as we ought, we know not; but the spirit himselfe requesteth for vs with groanings vnspeakeable. Rom. 12.3. To euery one as God hath diuided the measure of faith. 1. Cor. 12.3. No man can say our Lord Iesus, but in the Holy Ghost. V. 9. To anoter faith in the same spirit. 2. Cor. 3. Not that we be sufficiēt to thinke any thing of our selues as of our selues; but our sufficiency is of God. 2. Cor. 4.6. Because God that hath cōmanded light to shine of darknes, he hath shined in our harts to the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Iesus. Galat. 5.22.23. The fruit of the spirit is Faith. Ephes. 1.16.17.18. I cease not to giue thankes for you, making a memory of you in my prayers. That God of our Lord Iesus Christ, the Father of glory, giue you the spirit of wisdom and of reuelation, in the knowledg of him, the eyes of your hart illuminated, that you may know what the hope is of his vocation, and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints. Ephes. 2.8. For by Grace you are saued with Faith; and that not of yourselves; for it is the gist of God. Ephes. 6.23. Peace to the Brethren, and charity with faith from God the father, and our Lord Iesus Christ. Philipp. 1.29. To you it is giuen for Christ, not only that you belieue in him, but also that you suffer for him. Colos: 1.2. Giuing thanks to God the Father, who hath made vs worthy vnto the part of the lot of the Saints in the light. 2. Pet. 1.21. The holy men of God spake inspired with the Holy Ghost.

XX, More Texts of Scripture might be alledged, but it is needles, since euē all Sectaryes, except Pelagius, and such as follow him, belieue Grace to be necessary for faith; and in particular, D. Potter, (to whom Chilling: is in this mayne poynt directly opposit) as is euident by these his expresse words ( Pag. 135.) Faith is sayd to be diuine and supernaturall, in regard of the author or efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith, which is the speciall grace of God preparing, enabling, and assisting the soule to belieue. For faith is the gist of God alone (1. Cor. 12.34.) 2. In regard of the object or things belieued, which are aboue ( Philipp. 1.29.) the reach and comprehēsion of meere nature and [Page 16]reason, Philip. 1.29. Thus D. Potter; and adds; that of these two respects there is no controuersie; he meanes, betweene Catholiques, and Protestāts. For by the euēt it is cleare, that there is a controuersy betweene him, and the Socinians, and in particular with Chilling worth, his champion. But necessity hath no law. Charity Maintayned could not with any shew be answered in the grounds of Protestants, who therfor chose rather to destroy their owne grounds, and the doctrine of all good Christians, then to confesse the truth of our Catholik faith, though conuicted by euident reasons. Besides, Pag. 140. D. Potter sayth: Humane authority, consent, and proofe may produce an humane or acquired faith, but the assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine: in which words he distinguisheth acquired faith, from diuine; and consequently holds, that this is not acquired, but infused. Pag. 141. That Scripture is of diuine authority the belieuer sees by many internall arguments found in the letter it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of the Church without, and of grace within. Mark how besides the externall proposition of the object by the Church, he requires internall grace. Pag. 142. There is in the Scripture it selfe, light sufficient, which the eye of reason cleared by grace, and assisted by the many motiues which the Church vseth for enforcing of her instructions, may discouer to be diuine, descended from the father and fountain of light. Pag. 143. he teaches, that by the ministery of the church in preaching and expounding, the Holy Ghost begets a diuine faith in vs. And in the same place he tearmeth the act of faith supernaturall, as also we haue heard him tearme it so pag. 135. and it is a plaine contradiction, that it should be supernaturall, or aboue nature, and yet be produced by the forces of nature, which were to make it aboue, and not aboue nature,

XXI. By the way it is to be noted, that D. Potter deliuers a very vntrue doctrine in saying (in this pag. 135.) that the efficient cause of the act and habit of diuine faith is the speciall grace of God. For, the speciall actuall grace of God is not the efficient cause of the habit of our faith, which is infused by God alone, as our naturall acts of vnderstanding, or willing, do not produce the Powers of our vnderstanding, or will; and supernaturall Habits of Faith, Hope &c. are giuen vs not to facilitate, but to enable vs to exercise Acts of Faith, Hope, &c: For which cause, they are compared to supernaturall Acts, as the naturall [Page 17]faculties or Powers of our soule are compared to their naturall Acts, which they produce, and are not produced by them. I omit his vnproper speach, that the speciall grace of God is the author of an act of faith.

SECTION III. The necessity of Grace to Hope as vve ought for saluation.

XXII. IF Grace be necessary for euery worke of Christian Pietie, and in particular for faith, as we haue proued, it will be needles to stand long vpon prouing that it is necessary for hoping, which is a work of Pietie proceeding from a Theologicall Vertue, to which Faith is referrd, and of which, mortall men, considering the sublimity of eternall Happynes and guiltynes of their owne meanes, frailty, and sinnes, stand in need, for raising vp their soules towards so supernaturall an Object, and preseruing them from dejection, pusilanimity, and despaire; yet we will not omit to alledge some particular Texts of Scripture, in proofe of this Truth. Rom 5.2. By whom (Christ) we haue access through Faith into this Grace wherin we stand, and glorie, in the hope of the glorie of the sonnes of God. Where it is cleare, that the Apostle placeth hope amongst the gifts of the children of God, which we receaue by Christ, Chap. 15. V. 4.5. That by the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we may haue hope, and the God of patience giue you to be of one mynd. Which words declare, that God is the author of those gifts. 1. Cor. 13.13. And now there remayne Faith, Hope, Charity. Where it appeares, that these three Vertues are specially numbred togeather, as belonging to the same rank and order, Psalm. 18.49. Be myndefull of thy word to thy seruant, wherin thou hast giuen me hope. Thessa [...] 5.8. But we that are of the day, are sober; hauing on, the brest plate of faith, and charity, and a helmet, the hope of saluation. Where wee see the apostle [Page 18]ioynes Hope with Faith, and Charity: and V. 9.10. declares that it is given for Christ, and is ordaynd, and conduces to a supernaturall end, saying; for God hath not appointed vs vnto wrath, but vnto the purchasing of saluation by our Lord Iesus Christ who died for vs. 1. Pet. 3.4.5. Blessed be God, and the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, who according to his great mercie hath regenerated vs, vnto a liuely hope, by the resurrection of Iesus Christ from the dead; vnto an inheritance incorruptible, and incontaminate, and that cannot fade, conserued in the heauens in you, who in the vertue of God are kept by faith vnto saluation.

SECTION IV. Grace necessary for Charity.

XXIII. IF Grace be necessary for faith and hope, much more is it necessary for Charitie, vvhich by the Apostle is preferrd before those other two vertues. 1. Cor. 13.13, Now there remayne Faith, Hope, Charity, these three, but the greater of these is Charity. Besides, Charity being the fulfilling of the law, if we cannot keepe the commandements without grace, (as we will proue in the next Section) it followes that without grace we cannot Loue as we ought for attaining saluation. But yet let vs alledge some places of Scripture, wherin this truth is set downe. 1. Ioan: 4.7. Charity is of God, and euery one that loueth, is borne of God, ād knoweth God Ioan. 14.23.24. If any loue me, he will keepe my word, and my Father will loue him, and vve vvill come to him, and will make aboad with him. He that loueth me not, keepeth not my words. Who dare ascribe to a loue acquired by humane forces, these priuiledges of keeping Gods word, in so supernaturall a way, as that the B. Trinitie will come, and remaine vvith him? Rom. 5.5: The charity of God is powred forth in our harts, by the holy Ghost vvhich is giuen vs. Rom. 13.8. He that loueth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the lavv. V. 10. Loue therfor is the fulness of the lavv. Galat. 5.22. The fruite of the spirit is charitie. Ephes. 6.23.24. Peace to the brethrē, and charitie vvith faith from God the father, and our Lord Iesus Christ. Grace with all that loue our Lord [Page 19]Iesus Christ in incorruption.

XXIV. Euen Chilling, (Pag. 20.) saith: what can hinder, but that the consideration of Gods most infinite Goodness to them (Protestants) and their owne almost infinite wickedness against him, Gods spirit cooperating with them, may raise them to a true and syncere, and a cordiall loue of God? In vvhich vvords he may seeme to require the particular grace of the holy Ghost, for exercising an Act of loue or charitie. I say, he may seeme; because it is no nevves for him to dissemble, or disguise his true meaning, vnder some shew of words vsed by good Christians, though it cost him a contradiction vvith himselfe, and his ovvne Grounds. Hovvsoeuer it be, at least his manner of speach shevves hovv christians must not deny this truth.

SECTION V. The Necessity of Grace for keeping the Commandements, and ouercoming temptations.

XXV. THis point giues me againe iust occasion to obserue, how they who deny a liuing jnfallible iudge of controuersies, cannot auoyd running into pernitious extremes.

Some hold, that Christians are not bound in conscience to keepe the Commandements; ^a in somuch as Luther is not afraid, nor ashamed to say: ^b When it is taught, that indeed faith in Christ iustifies, but yet so as we ought to keepe the commandements, because it is writtē, if thou wilt enter into life, keepe the cōmandemēts there Christ is instantly denyed▪ ād faith abolished. And elswhere ^c Let vs take heed of sinnes, but much more of lawes, and good works; Let vs attend only to the promise of God and faith. I wonder how a man can take heed of sinne, and ioyntly take heed of good workes. Shall he be still doing, and yet doe neither good, nor badd? Some teach, that it is impossible to keepe the commandements, euen with the assistance of diuine grace. Others, that they may be kept by the force of nature, [Page 20]and that the assistance of Gods grace is not necessary, except only to keepe them with greater ease or facility.

XXVI. The true Catholike doctrine is, that we may keepe the commandements, and ouercome temptations by the grace of God, not by our owne naturall forces: which is manifestly declared in Holy Scripture.

EZechiel 36.26. I will giue you a new hart, and put a new spirit in middest of you: and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh, ād will giue you a fleshie hart. And I will put my spirit in the middest of you: and I will make that you walk in my precepts, and keepe my iudgments, and doe them. 1. Ioan. 5.3. This is the charity of God, that we keepe his commandements. Ioan. 14.23.24. If any loue me, he will keepe my word, and my father will loue him, and we will come to him and will make abode with him. He that loueth me not, keepeth not my words. Behold, louing or not louing; keeping or not keeping the commandements, goe togeather: But we haue proued, that Grace is necessary to loue God; it is therfor necessary to keepe his commandements. Rom. 8.3. For, that which was impossible to the law, in that it was weakned by the flesh: God sending his son in the flesh of sinne, euen of sinne damnes sinne in the flesh. That the iustification of the Law might be fulfilled in vs. 1. Cor. 7.7. The Apostle teaches, that not only the continency of virgins, and widdowes, but maried people also, is the gift of God, saying: Euery one hath a proper guift of God, one so, and another so. Sap. 8.21. And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, vnless God gaue it, this very thing also was wisdom, to know whose this gift was; I went to our Lord▪ and besought him. Rom. 2.13. Not the hearers of the Law are iust with God; but the doers of the Law shall be iustifyed. And yet the same Apostle sayth Galat: 2, 21. If iustice by the Law, then Christ dyed in vaine. And we may say in the same manner, If iustice by nature, and not by Grace, Christ died in vaine. S. Iames 3.8. The tong no man can tame. Rom. 5.20.21. The Law entered in that sinne might abound, and where sinne abounded, grace did more abound; that as sinne raigned to death: so also grace may raigne by iustice to life euerlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord. Which words declare, that grace is so necessary for fulfilling the Law, that without it the Law was occasion of death, by reason of humane [Page 21]frailty, and corruption. Rom. 4.15. The Law worketh wrath. Rom. 7. V. 23.24.25. I see another Law in my members, repugning to the law of my mynd, and captiuing me in the law of sinne, that is in my members. Vnhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. 1. Cor. 15.56 57. The power of sinne is the law. But thankes be to God that hath giuen vs victory by our Lord Iesus Christ. 1. Cor. 10.13. God is faithfull, who will not suffer you to be tempted aboue that which you are able: but will make also with tēptation issue, that you may be able to sustaine. Psalm. 17.30. In thee I shallbe deliuered from tēptation. Psa. 26.9. Be thou my helper, forsake me not. Psalm. 29.7.8. I sayd in my aboundance, I will not be moued for euer. Thou hast turned away thy face from me, and I became troubled. Psalm, 117.13. Being thrust I was ouerturned to fall, and our Lord receyued me. 1. Pet. 5. V. 8.9. Be sober and watch: because your aduersary the Diuel as a roaring lion goeth about, seeking whom he may deuoure: whom resist ye, strong in faith. Not in naturall reason, humane discourse, orwitt, wherin the Diuell would be too hard for mortall men, not assisted by Gods holy Grace.

SECTION VI. Grace Necessary for true Repentance

XXVII. TRue Repentance being the immediate dispositiō to iustifying Grace, and Grace being, as diuines call it, Semen gloriae, the seed of glorie, which in Heauen shall be bestowed on whosoeuer dies in the state of grace, if Repentance were an effect of nature, grace and glory should proceed from nature: and it would not be sayd, Psalm. 83.12. Gratiam & Gloriam dabit Dominus: Our Lord will giue grace and glory to man; but mā by his owne sole forces will merit and offer thē to God.

XXVIII. Besides perfect Repentance or Contrition proceeding from Loue, and Attrition from Hope; since we haue proued that grace is necessary to Loue, and Hope, it must also be necessary for both those [Page 22]kinds of repentance. Thus we read Hierem. 31.18.19. Conuert me, and I shall be conuerted. After that thou didst conuert me, I did pennance: and after thou didst shew vnto me I strooke my thigh: Thren. 5.21. Convert vs, ô Lord, vnto thee, ād we shall be conuerted. Ezech. 36.26. I will giue you a new hart, and put a new spirit in the middes of you: and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh, and will giue you a fleshy hart. And I will put my spirit in the middes of you: and I will make that you walke in my precepts, and keepe my iudgments, and doe them. Psalm. 79. V. 4 O God conuert vs, and shew thy face, and we shall be saued. And V. 8. O God of Hosts, conuert vs, and shew thy face, and we shall be saued. Psalm: 84. Conuert vs, ô Lord our sauiour Psalm. 76. V. 11. I sayd, now haue I begunne: this is the chāg of the right hand of the Highest. Psalm. 118. V. 176. I Haue strayed as a sheep that is lost; seeke thy seruant, because I haue not forgotten thy commandements. Luc. 22, S. Peter wept not till our sauiour lookt vpon him. Act. 5.31. This Prince and Sauiour God hath exalted with his right hād, to giue repentance to Israël, and remission of sinnes 2. Timot. 2.24.25.26. The seruant of our Lord must not wrāgle: but be mild toward all men, apt to teach, patient, with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: least sometyme God giue them repentance to know the truth: and they recouer themselues from the snares of the diuell, of whom they are held captiue at his will.

SECTION VII. Grace is necessary for perseuerance.

XXIX. WE need not insist in prouing this truth. For if grace be necessary for Faith, Hope, Charity, Keeping the commandements, and ouercommig temptations, much more is it necessary to perseuer in the state of grace, which requires all those gifts of faith, hope, &c. And places a man in security for saluation, according to that of S. Matt. 10.22. He that shall perseuer vnto the end, he shall be saued: so that to [Page 23]say: Grace is not necessary to perseuer, is to affirme, that Grace is not necessary for saluation,

XXX. This truth we read in S. Io. 15.16. I haue appointed you that you goe and bring fruite, ād your fruite abide. And Heb. 3.12.13.14. Beware brethren, least perhaps there be in some of you an euil hart of incredulity, to depart from the liuing God. But exhort yourselues euery day, whiles to day is named, none of you be obdurate with the fallacy of sinne. For we be made partakers of Christ: yet so if we keepe the beginning of his substance firme vnto the end. And. Philip. 1.6. trusting this same thing, that he which hath begūne in you a good worke will perfit it vnto the day of Christ Iesus. Philip. 2.12.13. With feare and trembling work your saluation. For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.

XXXI. The reason of this truth, is cleare; because justifying Grace takes not away ignorance in our vnderstanding; freedom and inconstancy in our will; rebellion in the Appetite; which are the rootes and causes of sinne; and therfor wee need both externall Protection to remoue extrinsecall impediments of vertue; and occasions of euill; and internall Helps, effectualy assisting, and constantly moouing vs to good.

SECTION VIII That Habituall or justifying Grace is necessary to keepe the commandements.

XXXII THat there is inherent in the soules of iust men a reall qualitie or gift, wherby they are gratefull to god, we will proue hereafter; for as much as may belong to our purpose in this work, referringe the Reader for a full and exact profe therof, to the many learned Bookes of catholike Diuines.

XXXIII. Novv, to the former Heads concerning the Necessity of Actuall Grace, I add this about habituall; to confute more and more the ancient and moderne Pelagians in generall, and some Tenets of [Page 24] Chilling worth in particular; as will appeare when we come to examine his Chimericall doctrine about repentance.

XXXIV. That Habituall Grace is necessary for keeping the commandements, we may proue, in order to the more moderate Protestants, out of the Mileuitan Councell, which was celebrated within the compasse of yeares which they acknowledg for Orthodox, (namely Anno 416.) wherin can, 3. we read these words: Whosoeuer shall say, that the Grace of God wherin we are justifyed by Iesus Christ our Lord, auailes only for remission of sinnes already committed, and not also for Help not to commit them; be he accursed. Therfore hee who is not in state of Grace, wants some grace and help to auoide sinne. And in Concilio Arausicano (Anno 529.) Can. 13. it is defined: Mans freewill weakned in the first man, cannot be repaired but by the Grace of Baptisme: But the grace conferred in Batisme is habituall, and permanent: Therfore the weakness of our freewill is renewed, or the strength of it is restored by habituall Grace.

XXXV. The reason of this is; because God giues not particular protection and speciall helps of grace, on which the obseruation of the commandements depends, except to men in state of grace. For one deadly sinne drawes after it another, so much the more as a man remaines longer in that bad state, like to ponderous waights, which mend their pace, the longer theyr motion lasts: and so Dauid sayth, ( Psalm: 37.5.) Myne iniquityes are gone ouer my head: and as a heauy burden are become heauy vpon me. If veniall transgressions neglected, dispose to mortall, what can be expected from a voluntary abiding in deadly sinne? Thus we read Hierem. 23.11, 12. The Prophet and the Preist are polluted. Therfor their way shall be as slippery ground in the dark: for they shall be driuen on, and fall therin. And Thren. 1.8. Hierusalem hath sinned a sinne, therfore is she made vnstable.

XXXVI. For which morall poynt we can alledg none more fitly then S. Gregory the Great, whom the world acknowledges to be a most profound master of spirit. This holy Father ( Homil. 11. in EZechiel:) hath these remarkable words; If sinne be not speedily wiped away by repē tance, Almighty God in his iust iudgment permitts the soule of the sinner to fall into another sinne, that he who by weeping ād correcting himselfe would not wash away what he had committed, may beginne to heape sinne vpon sinne. The sinne therfore which is not washed [Page 52]away with the sorrow of repentance, is both a sinne and cause of sinne; because from it procedes that, wherby the soule of the sinner is more deeply intangled: But the sinne which followes out of another sinne, is both a sinne, and a punishment of sinne: because blindnes, encreasing, in punishment of the former fault, it falleth out, that increase in vice, is as it were a kind of punishment in such a sinner. For the most part one and the selfe same sinne, is both a sinne, and the punishment and cause of sinne. These last words he hath also in, Iob lib. 25. C. 13. Agreable to this, is the saying of the Author Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum C. 21. As when the sterne is broken, the ship is carryed whersoeuer the storme driues it: so a sinner hauing by his sinne lost the assistance of diuine Grace, doth not what he will, but what the diuell wills.

XXXVII. The same truth is also deliuered by the Apostle Rom. 8.5. They that are according to the flesh, are affected to things that are of the flesh; but they that are according to the spirit, are affected to the things that are of the spirit: and V. 8. concludes; they that are in flesh, cannot please God. But all they who want the spirit and grace of God are in flesh, according to the same Apostle V. 9. You are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, yet if the spirit of God dwell in you: Therfor they that want the spirit or grace of God, cannot please him, which is done only by keeping the commandements. Thus we find verefyed by daily experience, That he who is once fallen into deadly sinne, doth not easily abstaine from cōmitting more, vnless he speedily rise againe And in this, Gods holy will is most iust, not giuing those helps to his enemyes, which he bestowes on his friends, whose soules, as his temples, he often visits, enlightens, inflames, and effectually strengthens, to keepe his commandements.

XXXVIII. It is the true doctrine of Diuines, that an infidell cannot abstaine from deadly sinne, so long as one endued with Faith: He therfor who hath not Charitie, cannot auoide mortall sinne, so long as hee who is in state of grace and charity, and receyues those particular helps which are connaturall to that blessed condition. S. Thomas (1.2. q. 109. A. 8. corp. giues, as he is wont, a solid reason hereof As, saith he, the inferiour appetite ought to be subiect to reason, so reason ought to be subordinate to God. As therfor there cannot but arise disordinate motions [Page 26]in the sēsitiue apetite, if it be not perfectly subject to reason; so if reason be not perfectly subiect to God, there cannot but happen many disorders in the reasonable portion of our soule. For when man hath nor his hart setled in God (as in the last end of all his actions) many things offer themselues for the obtaining, or auoiding of which, he forsakes God by breaking his commandements, vnless his disordered will be speedily reduced to due order by grace. And indeed, he who wittingly and willingly perseuers in sinne, is not drawen from it either by considering that it is an offence against God, since he out of deliberate choyse and election remains in such an offence; or for the infinite, and innumerable euills which arise from sinne; all which he hath considered, and knowes that they, or the danger of falling into them, are incurred already, and yet is supposed not to forsake that damnable state: And custome in euill is apt to breede either a secret, or open dispaire of amendment, or els a pernicious insensibility, security, and presumption, laying the soule open to accept all impressions of spirituall enemyes; as in the barren season of winter, hedges are broken, inclosures become commons, and are turned to high wayes for all passengers.

But now it is tyme to performe what we promised in the beginning of this Section; that besides Actuall grace, there is also a permanent quality, or gift inherent in our soule, wherby we are called, and are indeed just, and Sonnes, and Heyres, to God, and Coheires to Christ our Lord.

SECTION IX. Of Habituall, or justifying Grace in it selfe.

XXXIX. HItherto we haue spoken of Actuall grace, necessary to workes of Christian Piety, Faith, Hope &c. Or of Habituall, in order to the keeping of the commandements. Now we cannot omitt to say, [Page 27]somthing of habituall and permanent justifying supernaturall Grace, in it self. Concerning which, heretiques, as their manner is, fall vpon contrary Extremes: Pelagius, teaching that we may be saued by the forces of nature, consequently must deny, that any infused inherent supernaturall Gift was necessary to saluation, but that some naturall [...]nherent quality was sufficient. Contrary to which, is the doctrine of Caluin ( Lib. 3. jnstit: C. 11. Num: 23. That man is not iust by any justice inherent in himselfe, but only because the justice of Christ is imputed to him. Catholiques, auoiding both these extreames, belieue, that we are truly just in, not, by our selues, or our naturall forces, but by supernaturall Grace infused into our soules, for the merits of our Sauiour Christ, as the sacred Councell of Trent ( Sess. 6. C. 7.) and ( Can. 11. hath defined.

XL. This is that diuine gift which makes men holy in this life, and happy in the next. ^a Other infused Habits are particular participations of Diuine operations, namely, Charity, and Hope (respectiuely) of that loue wherby God loues himselfe, and other things: Faith, of that infallible knowledg which God hath of himselfe, and all creatures. The light of glory, (lumen gloriae) of that sight which God hath of his proper essence; the morall infused Vertues, of those actions, which God exercises towards his creature: But Grace is a Gift immediatly participating of the whole Diuine nature, as it can be intellectually participated by an intellectuall creature As in our naturall life, our soule is the roote of its powers, which it requires as propertyes, and is more eminent than they: so in our spirituall life, this Grace is the roote of all supernaturall Habits, and farr exceedes them in perfection.

XLI. Of this, in a most singular, manner are verifyed the Elogiums which holy Fathers giue of grace; ^b which according to ( S. Gregory, Homil. 27.) is the roote of good works; which according to S: Chrisostome Homil 7.2. ad Thimoth: and 1. au Corinth: Hom. 40 takes away the rust of sinne, makes the soule resplendent and fiery; which according to S. Augustine Libro de Spiritu & littera Capite 30. & Libro ad Simpitcianum quaest. secunda, enables vs to worke aright; which according to S. Hierome Lib. 1. aduersus Pelagianos Capite tertio, [Page 28]doth whiten; which according to S. Gregory NaZianZen Orat. in sanctum Lava [...]rum: doth cast its beames vppon vs, and make vs liketo God; which according to N. Austin Epist: 85. is the beauty of the internall man, and the brightness of mans mynd; which according to S. Ambrose Lib. 6. Hexameren Cap. 8. is the picture of God; which according to S. Irenaeus lib. 5. aduersus haereses Cap. 8. is the image of God; which according to Macarius de libero arbitrio, is the garment of heauenly beauty; which according to S. Greg. Nyssen de perfecta hominis forma, is purity deriued from Christ, as the riuer from the fountaine; which according to S. Hierome, Lib: 3. aduersus Pelagianos, is the First stole and heauenly dewe; which according to S. Gregory Nyssen, Homil. 4. in Cantica, is the riches of the Diuine essence; which according to S. Austin de spiritu & litera Cap. 28. is the stamp of God; which according to S. Isidore in primum Regum C. 10. is the milke of a mother.

XLII. But if we consult holy Scripture; this truth, that we are iust by true inherent iustice, is so frequently, and so clearly deliuered therin, that it may seeme a wonder, how it can be so much as called in question, by any who belieue the Scripture. Let vs alledg some few Texts of the many which might be produced Rom. 5.19. As by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. Since therfor none can deny but that we are sinners by sin or. iniustice truly and really inexistent in our soules, it followes that we are just by true inherent Justice. And V. 17. If in the offence of one, death raigned by one; much more they that receyue the aboundance of Grace, and of donation and of justice, shall raigne in life by one Iesus Christ. But death, though proceeding from, and by one (Adam) was truly participated by all, and not meerly imputed to them: Therfore the aboundance of Grace, justice, and life is really in all, though by one, Jesus Christ. Ioan. 4.14. The water which I will giue him, shall become a fountayne of water springing vp vnto life euerlasting. And that this fountaine is the Holy Ghost dwelling in vs by Grace, or Grace giuen by the Holy Ghost dwelling in vs, appeareth in the 7. Chap: v. 38. of the same Evangelist, where our Sauiour hauing sayd: He that beleeueth in me, as the Scripture sayth, out of his belly shall flow riuers of liuing water, adds; and this he sayd of the spirit that they should receyue which belieued in him. S. Cyrill [Page 29]also ( Lib. 2. in Ioan: Cap. 82) and Theophilact in cap. 4. Ioan. call this fountaine of liuing water, the grace of the Holy Ghost. S. Hierome in Cap. 55. Isaiae, and S. Chrisostome Hom. 31. in Ioan: Somtyme call it the Holy Ghost, somtyme the grace of the Holy Ghost; neither can any man doubt but that a fountaine signifyes a thing stable and permanent, Rom. 5.5. The charity of God is powred forth in our harts, by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. 1. Ioan: 4.7. Euery one that loueth, is of God, V. 16. God is charity, and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him. Galat: 3.29. You are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus: In which words, that the Apostle speakes of a liuing faith, appeares by the Chap: 5. where hauing sayd: V 4. you are euacuated from Christ, that are iustifyed in the law: you are fallen from grace V. 6. he explicates what that grace is, saying: in Christ Iesus neither Circumcision auayleth ought, nor vncircumcision; but faith that worketh by charity. And Chap. 6. v. 15. this liuely faith he calls a new creature, saying: In Christ Iesus neither Circumcision auayleth ought, nor vncircumcision, but a new creature, 1. Cor. 6.15.16.17.18. Know you not, that your bodies are the members of Christ? Taking the members of Christ, shall I make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Or know you not that he which cleaueth to an harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, sayth he, two in one flesh. But he that cleaueth to our Lord, is one spirit. Fly fornication. What then shall we say of them who blasphemously joyne the spirit of God with the spirit of satan; the spirit of fornication; and all other vices?

XLIII. 1. Ioan: 4.13. In this we know that we abide in him, and he in vs, because he of his spirit hath giuen to vs. Ioan: C. 15.5. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruite. Behold a permanency or abiding, before fruite, or good workes. 1. Ioan; 3. v. 9. Euery one that is borne of God, committeth not sinne; because his seed abideth in him v. 24. He that keepeth his Commandements, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in vs by the spirit which he hath giuen vs. Tit: 3.5.6.7. He hath saued vs by the Lauer of regeneration and renouation of the Holy Ghost, which he powred vpon vs abundantly by Iesus Christ our Sauiour. That being iustifyed by his grace we may be heyres according to the hope of life euerlasting. All these words clearly signify a supernaturall [Page 30]thing permanent and inherent in vs, 2. Cor. 1.21.22. He that annointed vs, God who also hath sealed vs, and giuen the pledge of Spirit in our harts. 1. Ioan:. 2.27. The vnction which you haue receiued from him, let it abide in you. 2. Pet. 1.4. By whom he hath giuen vs most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the diuine nature. Ioan: 15.15. Now I call you not seruants, but you I haue called friends. 2. Cor. 5.18. If then any be in Christ a new creature. 1. Cor. 15.49. As we haue borne the image of the earthly, let vs beare also the image of the heauenly. Ioan. 14. v. 16.17. I will aske the Father, and he will giue you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for euer, the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receaue, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but you shall know him: because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. v. 23. If any loue me, he will keepe my word, and my Father will loue him, and we will come to him, and will make aboade with him. 1. Ioan. 3.1. See what manner of charity the Father hath giuen vs, that we should be named, and be the sonnes of God. Rom. 8.14. Whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God, are the sonnes of God. V: 15.17. If sonnes, heyres also: heyres truly of God, and coheyres of Christ. Ioan. 1.12.13. As many as receiued him, he gaue them power to be made the sonnes of God. to those that beleeue in his name: who not of bloud, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God are borne. Ephes. 1.4. As he chose vs in him before the constitution of the world, that we should be holy and immaculate in his sight in charity; and V. 13.14. In whom you also, when you had heard the word of truth (the Gospel of your saluation) in which also belieuing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, which is the pledge of our inheritance. (This promise is made to vs, and so we being the Creditours, the pledge must remaine with vs; and signed signifyeth a thing both permanent and intrinsecall.) Like to this we reade Ephes. 4.23.24. Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man which according to God is created in justice, and holyness of the truth: and V. 30. contristate not the holy spirit of God; in which you are signed vnto the day of redemption. And 2. Cor: 1.21. He that annoynted vs, God, who also hath sealed vs, given the pledge of spirit [Page 31]in our harts. Rom. 6.23. The stipends of sinne, death; but the grace of God life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our Lord. Rom. 8.14. Whosoeuer are led by the spirit of God, are the sonnes of God. 1. Cor: 3.16.17. Know you not that you are the temple of God; and the spirit of God dwelleth in you? The temple of God is holy, which you are 2. Cor: 6.16. You are the temple of the liuing God; as God sayth because I will dwell and walke in them. Ephes: 2.21.22. In whom all building framed togeather groweth into a holy Temple in our Lord: in whom you also are built togeather into an habitation of God in the Holy Ghost. 2. Timoth: 1.14. Keepe the good depositum by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in vs. Ioan: 6.57. As the liuing Father hath sent me, and I liue by the Father, and he that eateth me, the same shall liue by me. (Who can deny but that life signifyes an intrinsecall permanent thing?)

XLIV. To these authorityes of holy Scripture, which clearly proue that just men are such by a gift inherent, and not due to nature, but supernaturall: we might add conuincing Reasons, grounded in principles of faith, if it were my purpose to treat this matter at large. But I will content my selfe with one, taken from the many Texts of holy Scripture which we haue alledged (and many more might be brought) in this manner: God concurres to certaine Actions, (v. g. Belieuing hoping &c.) with a particular influence aboue the naturall exigence of humane nature; therfore such Actions are both Good and Supernaturall: Good, because it were impiety to say that God doth, or can, by speciall motion, produce an ill, and sinfull Action: Supernaturall, because no naturall cause alone can produce them, nor hath any naturall exigence that they be produced by some more high and powerfull cause: as, though our soule cannot be produced by any naturall Cause or Agent, yet there is an exigence in nature that it be created by God, when sufficient dispositions are preexistent in the Body. Now it being once granted, that there are good and supernaturall Actions, it followes that there must be in our soule some supernaturall powers, or facultyes, as connaturall Principles, or Causes of such Actions: therfor such Powers must be grāted, as in thēselues are supernaturall, and absolutely good, without any tincture or staine, or inclination to sinfulness. Which sequeles are so cleare, that protestants [Page 32]not deny them, but grant at least the supernaturall Habits of the three Theologicall Vertues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, which is sufficient for our present purpose (though I know not any generall ground or doctrine of theirs for which they doe, or must, deny the supernaturall infused Habits of Morall Vertues) but they denie, that either by these, or any other quality, or Gift we are just in such manner, as that we do not still remayne stayned with habituall deadly sinne: which heresy is clearly confuted by the Elogiums of the Fathers, and Texts of Scripture, alledged in this, and the former Sections.

XLV. For if deadly sinne still remaine, how doth Grace take away the rust of sinne, make the soule resplendent; whiten it; enlighten, and make vs like to God? is it the beauty and brightnesse of our mynd; the picture and image of God; the garment of heauenly beauty; purity derived from Christ; the first stole; the riches of the diuine essence; the marke of God; since deadly sinne is of a direct opposite nature, and produces contrary effects?

XLVI. How shall holy Scripture be verifyed in saying; that, as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, many shall be made just, if we remaine truly sinners by the disobedience of Adam, but not truly just by the obedience of Christ, who merited for vs iustice and grace? How is it true, that if in the offence of one, Death raigned by one, much more they that receiue the aboundance of grace and of donation and of justice, shall raigne in life by one, Iesus Christ? For if sinne remaine, Death also remaines, with which. Life cannot raigne. How can the holy Ghost be giuē vs while we persist in sinne? How can he abide in God, and God in him, in whom sinne and satan abides? How can Faith worke by charity in him who is voluntarily possesd by deadly sinne; than which nothing is more repugnant to charity, whose inseparable effect is, effectually to detest all mortall sinne; how is he a new creature, who is in state of sinne, which alone makes one a child of Adam or the old man, not of Christ; How doth he cleaue to God, and is one spirit with him, who cleaueth to sinne, and is one spirit with it vnles men haue a mynd to blaspheme and say, that, the spirit of sinne, and the spirit of God is all one; how can he who abides in God, and God in him beare much fruite, if ioyntly he abide in sinne, and sinne in him; Yea for this very cause that sinne still abides in man, these heretikes [Page 33]teach, that all our workes, or fruites, are deadly sinnes: so farr are they from being fruites of Gods abiding in vs! And how doth this agree with that saying, 1. Ioan. 3.9. Euery one that is borne of God, committeth not sinne, because his seed abideth in him; seing sinne the seed of the serpent abides in him? Or how doth the continuall breach of Gods commandements agree with what is sayd, V. 24. He that keepeth his commandements, abideth in him? How can regeneration and renouation of the holy Ghost powred vpon vs aboundantly, stand with deadly sinne. which is directy opposite to regeneration and renouation? How is the seale and pledge of spirit in our harts, togeather with the seale and pledge of the diuell? How can the vnction which we haue receiued from him, abide in vs in company of deadly sinne? How are men partakers of the Diuine nature, while they remayne in sinne, which is most opposite to God and all the Diuine perfections; How cā we be called frendes, being deadly enemyes: How can we performe that exhortation of the Apostle. As we haue borne the image of the earthly, let vs beare also the jmage of the heauēly; if we neither are, nor can be free from the jmage of the earthly, which is sinne? How doth the Father giue vs another Paraclete to abide with vs for euer, the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receiue; seing, if all men be in state of deadly sinne, they are all comprehended vnder the name of the world, and so cannot receiue the Paraclete, the spirit of truth; How can men be named, and be, the sons of God, heyres of God, and coheyres of Christ, and in the meane tyme be sons of Satan, heyres to him, and coheyres to damned ghosts How are any borne not of bloud, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, if all remaine ouerwhelmed in the will of the flesh, and will of man, in sinne, and corruption; How are we both holy and immaculate in his sight, and in his sight wicked ād polluted; How can wee be renewed in the spirit of our mynd, and put on the new man, which according to God is created, in justice and holyness of the truth, being in state of deadly sinne, which is contrary to renouation of spirit, to the new man created in justice and holy ness; How are we signed in the holy spirit of God, while we are signed with the wicked spirit of Gods enemyes; How are the stipends of sinne death, but the Grace of God life euerlasting, if there be no Grace of God without sinne, and so no Grace that can be life euerlasting; How [Page 34]are men the holy Temple of God; how doth he dwell and walke in them; how are they his habitation, how do we liue by him, if they be still the Temple and habitation of satan, and liue in him?

XLVII. Certainly, if any do hartily belieue Scripture, and consider vnpartially these and the like Texts, and what is sayd of our Sauiours Satisfaction, and Merit for mankind, and nothing of humane Reason, or forces of nature, except to declare the weakness of them, (contrary to the speaches of Chillingworth) it is inpossible for him, to belieue, that men are justifyed either by any naturall Act, or Habit, (which were to euacuate our Sauiours Death) or that we haue no inherent true supernaturall justice at all, but remaine still vgly and defiled in the sight of God, which is to turne both Earth and Heauen (notwithstanding, that, of Heauen it is sayd Apoc. 21.27. There shall not enter into it any polluted thing) to Hell, in which the worst thing is not the endless payne, but those sinnes, for which the damned merited that just punishment. For if the torments in Hell were only paynes and not punishments, that is, the effect and wages of sinne, they were nor so much to be abhorred and auoided, as any least sinne or offence of God: Yea, innumerable Saints in Heauen, by this doctrine, are greater sinners than diuerse who liue on earth, or burne in Hell; because many are saued, who were once guilty of sins, more for number, and greater in quality than some other who are damned. ô doctrine deseruing all detestation!

XLVIII. Besides, it is a true Axiome, Bonum est ex integrâ causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. One defect is sufficient to make a thing be absolutely ill, but good must be good in all respects, both for substance, and circumstance. How then can holy Scripture so often call men holy, immaculate, just &c. if indeed they be not perfectly so, but full of the impiety, and staines of sinne? Holy Scripture describing the happy fruites, and diuine effects of our B. Sauiours Merits, amongst the rest, sayth: ( Isaia 35.7.) In the dennes wherin dragons dwelt before, shall spring vp the green [...]esse of reede and bulrush; that is, in the soules of Gentiles, which once were the dennes or receptacles of Diuells, and vices, there shall arise the greenesse of Grace, and Vertue; But that in the dennes wherin dragons not only [Page 35]dwelt for the tyme past, but dwell for the present, ther should spring the greenesse of reed and bulrush, no scripture doth set downe as a benefit. For to couple Grace with sinne, were, not to destroy sinne, but deforme Grace; which to doe, cannot be any effect of the Messias his comming, and our Redemption.

XLIX. We must therfore conclude, that just men are indued with a supernaturall Gift, which is the nature, and soule of a spirituall man as such; and with which the infused supernaturall Habits of Faith &c: are conjoyned by jnfusion of the Holy Ghost, and are not produced by our, euen supernaturall, Acts. Thus glorious S. Austine teaches that these words ( Psalm: 118.) I haue done judgment and justice, are to be vnderstood of the Act, and not of the Vertue of justice; because, saith he, none produces in man this Vertue of Iustice, but he who justifyes a sinner, and makes him from vnjust become just.

L. From this ground, that the infusd Vertues and Habits of Faith, Hope &c: are not produced by any Act of ours, but immediatly by the Holy Ghost, and that they giue vs not a facility, but an ability, to produce Acts of Belieuing, Hoping &c: it further followes, that, we cannot by any, as it were, sensible feeling, or experience, know that we haue such Habits; because, as S. Thomas profoundly saith [1.2. Q. 65. A. 3. ad 3. of the infused Habits, euen of Morall Vertues, Habitus moralium virtutum infusarum patiuntur interdum difficultatem &c: The Habits of the Morall infused Vertues somtymes find difficulty in their operations, by reason of contrary dispositions remaining of the former Acts, (of vices) which difficulty is not found in morall acquired vertues, in regard that by the exercise of Acts by which they are acquired, the contrary dispositions (for example, Passions, indisposition of corporall organs, and the like) are taken away.

LI Now these things being so, in vaine would Chilling: prooue, that the vertue of Charity may stand with deadly sinne, or Faith with Heresy, (as I touched aboue) by reason men fynd facility in some seeming Acts of Charity, or Faith, though they be guilty of deadly sinns, or Heresy. Because, as I sayd, the infusd vertues, cannot be prooud by experience, but the sayd facility may proceed [Page 36]from some other reason, as for example, from acquired Habits of Faith, Charity &c. or from the remouall of impediments, Passions, disposition of the materiall organs of our body, and the like: and much lesse can we gather that we haue, or want; or haue in a more intense, or remisse degree, the infused supernaturall Habits, by our hauing, or wanting, or possessing in a greater, or lesse measure or number, Habits acquired by exercise of naturall acts, seing naturall and supernaturall habits are in nature and kind wholie different.

LII. This I hope, may suffice for what I intended for prouing the necessity of grace, and weaknesse of nature in matters belonging to heauen; As also for shewing the vtility ād necessity of this Introduction.

LIII. Let vs now come to handle the matter it selfe: for which I know, and acknowledge the necessity of grace: and therfore renouncing all confidence in humane reason, and force of nature, with profoundest humility begge of the Eternall Father, for the Merits of his only son Christ Iesus, true God and true Man, the assistance of the holy Ghost, and his diuine spirit of Wisdome, Vnderstanding, Counsell, Strength, Knowledge, Piety, and aboue all, the spirit of the Feare of our Lord, mouing and assisting me willingly to suffer death, rather than wittingly vtter any least falshood, or conceale any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion; and so prostrate in soule and body, I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10. O Lord of mercy, giue me wisdome the assistant of thy seates: send her from thy holy Heauens, and from the seate of thy greatness, that she may be with me, and may labour with me, that so my labours, of themselues most weake, may by Grace tend, first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity, and next, to the eternall good of soules.

[Page 37]

CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH, NECESSARY TO SALVATION, IS INFALLIBLY TRVE.

1. AS all Catholiques haue reason to grieue, that we were necessitated, to proue the necessity of Gods grace, against our moderne Pelagians; so euery Christian, yea euery one who professes any Faith, Religion, or worship of a God, may wonder that dealing with one who pretends to the name of Christian, I should be forced to proue the Certainty, and Infallibility of Christian Faith, which M. Chillingworth not only denies, but deepely censures (Pag. 328 N ^o 6.) as a Doctrine most presumptuous and vnchariatble; and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great errour, and of dangerous and pernitious consequence: and takes much paines to proue the contraay. that is, the fallibility of Christian Faith. A strang vndertaking! wherby he is sure to loose by winning, and by all his Arguments to gaine only this Conclusion, that his Faith in Christ, of Scripture, and all the mysteryes contained therin, may proue fabulous and false. And yet I confesse it to be a thing very certaine and euident, that the deniall of jnfallibility in Gods Church, for deciding controuersyes of Faith, must ineuitably cast mē Vpon this desperate, vnchristian, and Antichristian doctrine: and while Protestants mayntaine the Church to be fallible, they cannot auoide this sequele, that theire doctrine may be false; since without jnfallibility in the Church, they cannot be absolutely certaine, that Scripture is the word of God. O what a scandall doe these men cast on Christian Religion, by either directly acknowledging, or laying grounds from which they must yeild Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true; while Iewes, Turks, Pagās and all who professe any religion, hold their belief to bee jnfallible, and may justly vpbraide vs, that euen Christians confess themselues not to be certaine that they are in the right, and haue, with approbation of greatest men in a famous [Page 38]Uniuersity, published to the world such their sense and belief! In the meane tyme, in this occasion, as in diuerse others, I cannot but observe, that Heretiques alwayes walke in extreams. This man teacheth Christian Faith in generall, and the very grounds therof not to be infallibly certaine. Others affirme, Faith to be certaine euen as it is applyed to particular persons, whom they hold to be justifyed by an absolute certaine beliefe, that they are just.

2. But now let vs come to proue this truth: Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true, and not subject to any least falshood. wherin although I maintayne the cause of all Christians, and of all men, and mankind, who by the very instinct of nature, conceiue the true Religion to signify a thing certaine, as proceeding from God, and vpon which men may, and ought securely to rely, without possibility of being deceiued; and that for this reason the whole world ought to joyne with me against a common adversarie: yet even for this very reason, I knowe not whether to esteeme it a more dissicile taske, or lamentable necessity, that we are, in a matter of this moment and quality, to proue Principles, or a Truth which ought to be no less certaine, then any Argument that can be brought to prove it; as hitherto all good Christians haue believed, nothing to be more certainly belieued by Christian Faith, than that it selfe is most certaine. Yet confiding in his Grace, whose Gift we acknowledg Faith to be, I will endeauour to proue and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth, against the pride of humane witt, and all presumption vpon naturall forces.

3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we haue touched already of the joynt conceypt, vnanimous concent, and inbred sense of men, who conceyue Diuine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth: and if they did once entertayne a contrary perswasion, they would sooner be carryed to embrace no religion at all, than weary their thoughtes in election of one rather than another, being prepossessed, that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty. Thus by the vniversall agreement of men we proue that there is a God, and from thence conclude, that the beliefe of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature; which also assures vs that God hath a prouidence ouer all things, and cannot want meanes to communicate himselfe with reasonable creatures by way of some light, ād knowledg exempt from feare, or possibility of fraude or falshood; especially since Rationall nature is of it selfe [...] truth and Religion or worship of a God. This consideration [Page 39]is excellently pondered and deliuered by S. Austin. (de vtilitate credendi, Cap. 16.) in these words. Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons, that they make hast to wisdome. Till we can of our selues vnderstand the truth, it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority: yet more miserable it is not to be moued therwith. For if the Divine prouidence do not command humane thinges, no care is to be taken of Religion. But if the beauty of all things, which, without doubt, we are to belieue to flow from some fountayne of most true pulcritude, by a certaine internall feeling doth publikly and priuatly exhort all best soules to seeke and serue God: We cannot despaire, that by the same God there is appointed some Authority, on which we relying, as vpon an infallible stepp, may be eleuated to God. Behold a meanes to attaine certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God, which can be none but the Church, from which we are most certaine, what is the writtē, or vnwrittē, word of God

4. M. Chillingworth professes to receiue Scripture from the vniuersall Tradition of all Churches, (though yet there is scarcely any booke of Scripture, which hath not beene questioned or rejected by some) much more therfore ought all Christian to belieue, Christian Faith to be jnfallible, as beinge the most vniversall judgment and Tradition of all Christians, for their Christians beliefe, and of all men for their seuerall Professions in poynt of Religion. And as men ought not to be remooued from belieuing that there is a God, though to our weake vndestandings, there be presented Arguments touching his Nature, Freedom of will, Prouidence, Preuision, and the like, of farr greater difficulty to be answered, than can be objected against the jnfallibility of Faith; so, ought we not to deny the jnfallible Truth of Christian Faith, notwithstanding those poore objections, which this man and his Associates with equall impiety and boldness make against it. And therfore both in the beliefe of a God, and certainty of Faith, Religion, and worship of him, we are to follow the certaine instinct of Nature, and conduct of Piety, not the vncertainty of our weake vnderstanding, or liberty of will.

5. For this cause, as I sayd, not only all Catholiques with a most Unanimous consent belieue, profess, and proclaime this truth, (in somuch as S. Bouauēture in 3. Dist. 24. Art. [...]. Q. 1. auoucheth Faith to be as jnfallible, as the Prescience of God; and H [...]ensis 3. P. Q. 68. memb. 7. affirmeth, that Faith can be no more subject to falshood, than the Prime [Page 40]Uerity) but Protestants also, and in particular, D. Potter, who Pag. 143. speakes clearly, thus: The chiefe principle or ground on which Faith rests, and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds, is diuine Reuelation made in the Scripture. Nothing less than this, nothing but this, can erect or qualify an act of supernaturall Faith which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine; and without this, Faith is but opinion, or at the most, an acquired humane belief. And (Pag. 140.) Humane authority, consent, and proofe may produce an humane or acquired Faith, and infallibly (in some sort) assure the mynd of the truth of that which is so witnessed, but the assent of diuine Faith is absolutely diuine, which requires an object, and motiue so infallibly true, as that it neither hath, nor can possibly admit of any mixture of errour or falshood. Behold how he affirmes, that Christian Faith doth more than only, in some sort, assure vs of the truth, (as Chillingworth will say it doth by an assent highly probable) but that it must be absolutely diuine, which he contradistinguishes from humane Faith, making this, not that, absolutely certaine And indeed to litle purpose should Potter, and all other Diuines require an Objest and Motiue jnfallibly true, if likewise our assent to it be not jnfallible. What auayles it, that Diuine Authority be certaine and jnfallible in it selfe, if in the meane tyme it remayme vncertaine, whether such a Divine and jnfallible Authority interpose it selfe, or witness any thing.

6. But nothing can be imagined more effectuall and express against Chillingworth, who ( Pag. 325. N. 3.) saith; That there is required of vs a knowledg of the Articles of our Faith, and adherence to them, as certaine as that of sense, or science, is a great errour, and of dangerous and pernitious consequence; Nothing, I saie, can be more cleare against this pernitious doctrine of Chillingworth, than these words of Potter Pag. 199. Though the assent of Faith be more certaine (if it be possible) than that of sense, or science, or demonstration; because it rests on diuine Authority, which cannot possibly deceiue: yet it is also an assent ineuident and obscure both in regard of the object, which are thinges that do not appeare, [Hebr. 11.1.] And in respect of the subject, the eye of Faith, in this state of mortality, being dimme, and apprehending heauenly things as through a glass darkly. [1. Cor. 13.12.] What could haue beene spoken more directly of the certainty, and yet ineuidency, of Faith against Chillingworth, who both denyes that Faith is absolutely certaine and that certainty cā be without euidency, as may be seene Pag. 330. N. 7.] D, Lawd [ Pag. 227.] saith, As for morall certainty, thats not strōg enough in points of Faith. and [ Pag. 360.] he directly affirmes, [Page 45] that an jnfallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to saluation: which is the very same with our Title of this Chapter. And Pag. 142. he saith: That falshood, may be the subject of the Catholike Faith were no lesse then blasphemy to affirme; and yet Mr. Chillingworths Booke where in this blasphemy is purposely taught, is expresly approud as agreable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, by euery one of the three Approbators, who can best giue account, by whose Authority they were induced to so pernicious, and foule a fact.

7. But why do I alledg particular Persons: This of the fallibility of faith is opposd by all Protestants; and particularly they who teach that we know the Scripture to be the word of God, by the spirit or instinct of the Holy Ghost, hold Faith to be infallibly true. Thus Caluin (Lib. 1. jnstit: C. 7. Sect. 4.] saith: Petenda est haec persuasio ab arcano spiritus testimonio: This belief (that Scripture is the word of God) is taken from a secret testimony of the spirit. And afterwards; Testimonium spiritus omni ratione praestantius esse respondeo; I answer that the testimony of the spirit is to be preferrd before all reason.

8. And here is to be obserued, that Chillingworth, disagreeing from Protestants in this maine, generall, transcendentall point, differs from them for euery particular, in an essentiall attribute or perfection of Faith; seing an assent only probable, is essentially distinguished from an assent absolutely and infallibly certaine; and so he opposes them in a higher degree, then if he did contradict them in one, or more chiefest particular Articles of faith; or rather he cuts of at one blowe all the true belief of Christians, by making it not certaine; wherby men become no Christians, as not belieuing in Christ with diuine certaine faith. His tenet [ Pag. 367. N: 49.] that he who disbelieues one Article, may yet belieue an other with true diuine faith, is in no wise to be approoud but this his doctrine, that Faith is fallible, is farr worse, as disbelieuing all, and positiuely denying that certainty which is essentiall to diuine Faith, and distinguisheth it from Opinyon, or humane beliefe.

9. This fundamentall truth, that faith is absolutely certaine, is very clearly deliuered in Holy Scripture. S. Paule saith, [ Hebr. 11.1.] Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not appearing: or, as the Protestants English translation hath, The substance, (and in the margine,) the ground or confidence of things hoped for, the euidence of things not seene. All which signifyes a firme, certaine, and, as I may say, substantiall faith, stronger than [Page 42]any assent only probable. Thus holy S. Bernard [Ep. 190.] disputing against Abailardus, who taught that Faith was but Opinion, saith. Audis substantiam? non licet tibi in fide putare, vel disputare pro libitu &c Doest thou heare the name of substance? it is not lawfull for thee in Faith to thinke or dispute at thy pleasure, nor wander hither and thither, through the emptynes of opinions, or strayings, of errours. By the name of substance something certaine and setled is appoynted thee. Thou art shut vp within certaine bounds, and confined within limits which are certaine, for faith is not an Opinion, but a certainty. But concerning this Text of S. Paul, more shall be sayd herafter out of excellent words of S. Chrisostome. The same Apostle, [ Heb. 6. V. 17. 18. 19.] sayth: God meaning more aboundantly to shew to the heires of the promise the stability of his counsell, he interposed an Oath. That by two things vnmooueable, wherby it is impossible for God to lie, we may haue a most strong comfort, who haue fled to hold fast the hope proposed, which we haue as an anker of the soule, sure and firme. But how can we haue a most strong comfort, an anker of the soule, sure and sirme; or how doth he shew to the heires of his promise the stability of his counsell, if the faith of Christians be reduced to probabilityes, which are not stable, but, of themselues, subject to change, and falshood, and for ought we know, may finally prooue to be such, as long as we haue no other certainty to the contrary? Or how can we be assured of that concerning which, God interposed an Oath, if we be not sure that he euer interposed an Oath, or euer witnessed, or reuealed any thinge? [1. Thessall. 2.12.] We giue thankes to God without intermission, because when you had receiued of vs the word of the hearing of God, you receyued it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God; which must signify, that they receyued it by an Assent proportionable to such an Authority, Motiue, and Formall Object, and therfore, certaine, infallible, and aboue all humane faith, opynion, and probability. For this cause the Apostle giues thanks to God, because when they had receyved the word of God, they receyued it as such, declaring that they belieued with an assent requiring Gods speciall Grace, (for which, thankes are to be giuē) eleuating the soule aboue the forces of nature to a super naturall certaine Act proportionable, as I sayd, to so sublime an Authority. [2. Tim. 1.12.] I know whom I haue belieued, and I am sure that he is able to keepe my depositum vnto that day: Where S. Paule speakes [Page 45]of God as a judg, and of the day of judgment, and reward of the just, which are Articles of Christian Faith, not knowne by the light of reason. This Text is alledged by S. Bernard [ Ep. 190.] to this very purpose, saying: Scio cui credidi, & certus sum, clamat Apostolus, & tu mihi subsibilas, Fides est aestimatio; tu mihi ambiguum garris, quo nihil est certius; The Apostle cryes out, I know whom I haue belieued, and I am certaine; and dost thou whisper, Faith is opinion; dost thou prate as of a doubtfull thing, concerning that, than which nothing is more certaine? [ Act. 2.36.] Let all the house of Israel know most certainly (not only probably) that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Iesus, whom you haue crucifyed. (2. Pet. 1.19.) We haue the propheticall word more sure: which you doe well attending vnto, as to a cādel shining in a darke place. In which words the Apostle compares the saying of the Prophets (which we belieue by faith) concerning Christ our Sauiour, with the sight of the eyes, and hearing of the eares of the Apostles on Mount Thabor, when they sawe our Sauiours glory, and heard the voyce of his Father, saying, This is my beloued Son, and yet saith, that the Propheticall word is more sure. And by this place we also gather, that faith, though it be jnfallible ād certaine, yet is ineuident and obscure, like to a candle in a darke place which obscures the light of the candle: against the doctrine of Chillingworth, that certainty and obscurity are incompatible. ( Luke. 21.33.) Heauen and Earth shall passe; but my words shall not passe. Surely, if his words were belieued by vs only with a probable assent, we could not in good reason thinke they were more stable than heauen and earth, which by euidence of sinse, and reason, we see to be constant, firme, and permanent. (1. Ioan. 5.) Yf we receyue the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, But as I sayd aboue, what imports it that the testimony of God is greater in it selfe, if we can assent to it no more firmely than the Arguments of Credibility, or history, and humane tradition, and testimony of men enable vs? For by this meanes we shall finally be brought as low as humane faith. (1. Cor. 2.5.) That your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. The contrary wherof we must affirme in his principles, who reduceth Christian Faith to the Power (or rather jmpotency) of humane tradition, and reason. Which last Texts do clearly ouerthrow his doctrine, that we belieue the Scripture for humane fallible Tradition, and testimony of men, not for the jnfallible Authority of Gods Church. 2. Pet. 1.21. For, not by mans will [Page 40]was prophecy brought at any tyme: but the holy men of God spake, inspired with the Holy Ghost. What neede of diuine inspiration for assenting probably to a Conclusion, euidently deduced from premisses euidently probables or how can the Holy Ghost inspire an assent which may prooue false? [1. Pet. 5.9.] Whom resist ye, strong in Faith. [ Tob. 3.21.] This hath euery one for certaine, that worshippeth thee, that his life, if it be in probation, shall be crowned. [ Ioan. 10.35.] If he called them Goddes, to whom the word of God was made, and the Scripture cannot be broken. May not the Scriptures be broken in order to vs, if, for ought we certainly know, their Authority is not divine, nor the poynts they contayne, true? [ Act. 2.24.] Whom God hath raysed vp loosing the sorrowes of Hell, according as it was impossible that he should be holden of it. Now, if our belief of Scripture and contents therof, be only probable, we cannot be certaine that the contrary assertions or objects are impossible, or that it was impossible he should be holden of it: since possibility of being true is excluded only by a contrary certainty: and whosoeuer belieues any poynt only with probability, hath in his vnderstanding no disposition, which of it selfe, is repugnant to probability, and much less to possibility, for the contrary part. Coloss. 1. V. 21. 22. 23. And you, wheras you were sometyme alienated, and enemyes in sense, in euill works: yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by death, to present you holy and immaculate and blamelesse before him; if you continue in the Faith, grounded and stable, and vnmoueable from the Gospell which you haue heard, which is preached among all creatures that are vnder Heauen. Obserue, that the Apostle not only speakes of a Faith which is stable, and ground of immobility, but also declares that such a Faith is necessary to be reconciled to God from being alienated and enemyes, and to be presented holy and immaculate, and blamelesse before him, that is, such a faith as is absolutely necessary to saluation, which is that which Chilling: expressly and purposely denies. See of this place what I alledg afterward out of S. Chrisostome. Gal. 1.8.9. Although we, or an Angel from Heauen, euangelize to you, beside that which we haue euangelized to you, be he Anathema. As we haue sayd before, so now I say agayne; if any euangelize to you, beside that which you haue receyued, be he Anathema. Certainly if our Faith be but probable, it were against reason not to belieue an Angel from Heauen auouching the contrary. But of [Page 41]this Text more hereafter. Now let vs see what is the sense of the holy Fathers for this poynt.

10. S. Dionysius Areopagita [ Cap: 7. de Diuin: Nomin:] sayth: Eum qui in veritate credit iuxta Scripturae fidem, nihil remouebit a verae fidei auctore in quo constantiam immobilis atque immutabilis habebit. Nouit enim penitus is, &c. Him, who in truth belieues according to the faith of Scripturè, nothing will remoue from the author of true faith, in whom he being vnmoueable and immutable will haue constancy. For well knowes he who is joyned vnto truth, how well he is, albeit many reprehend him as a mad man and distracted, S. Basill. [ Ep. 43.] ad Gregor. Nyssenum. Euen as in those things which appeare to the eye, experience seemes to goe further than the reason of the cause; so in sublime matters of doctrine, faith it selfe is of more accoūt thā the reach of discourses. And [ in a Serm. vpō the 115. Psalm.] Let faith goe before and guide speaches concerning God. Faith, and not Demonstration, Faith which drawes the soule vnto assent, aboue rationall methodes. (Faith aboue logick discourses, and aboue Demonstration.) In Regulis moralib: Regula 80. Faith is a most certaine satisfaction of the mynd concerning the truth of diuine wordes. [ S: Chrysostome Hom: 21. in Ep: ad Hebr.] vpon those wordes Cap: 11. Est autem Fides sperandarum substantiâ rerum, argumentum eorum quae non videntur, saith: O how admirable a word vsed he, saying: An Argument of those things which are not seene. For it is an Argument in things very hidden: Faith therfore is (sayth he) a seeing of things which appeare not, and it leades vnto the same certainty, to which those also lead which are seene. Therfore neither can it be called credulity or incredulity of those things which are seene; nor againe can it be called faith, but when one shall haue certainty concerning those things which are not seene, more than concerning those things which are seene. And Hom: 4. in Ep: ad Coloss. vpon those words Coloss. C. 1. Siquidem permanseritis Fide fundati, ac stabiles, & non dimoti in Spe Euangely: he saith: He did not absolutely say; shall persist. For it may come to passe that he persist also who wauereth and disagrees. He also may stand and remaine who wanders vp and downe and errs: but if (saith he) yee shall persist grounded and stable, and not mooved. What could be spoken more clearly for the stable infallibility of Faith against the probable floating faith of Chillingworth; as if this Sainct had purposely impugned him out of holy Scripture, so many ages before [Page 46]he appeared; And ( Hom. 8. in Epist. ad Rom.) he so declares the sublimity and difficulty of Faith, and necessity of a great strength for ouercoming temptations against it, that it clearly appeares he requires an other kind of Faith, then only a probable Assent. For speaking of one who belieues, he saith. This man hath God a debter, and a debter not of vulgar matters, but of great ād high ones. Moroeuer hauing shewed the sublimity and spirituall thought of such a mans mynd, he did not absolutely say, (credenti: to him that belieues, sed credenti in eum qui justificat impium: but to him that belieues in him who justifyes the wicked) For thinke with thy selfe, how great a matter this is, namely, to belieue, and to conceyue a certaine perswasion that God can on a suddaine not only free from deserued punishment him who hath spent his life in jmpiety, but also make him just, and furthermore bestow on him immortall honours. And vpon these words: Sed robustus factus est side. But hee (Abraham) was made strong in faith, he saith; Seing that he treated both of those who performe works, and of those also who belieue, he shewed that he who belieues, does a greater worke than the other, and hath need of greater fortitude ād strength. And he shewed, that not he only who exerciseth temperance, or some other like vertue, but he also who belieueth needs very great strength and power. For, euen as he hath need of great strength for resisting the assaults of intemperancie; so likewise this man must haue great courage to resist and keep himself from thoughts of disbelief. Wherin then did he proue himself to be strong; he committed (saith he) the matter to Faith, not vnto conjectures. Otherwise he would haue fayld and lost courage. Neither sayd he (S. Paule of Abraham) meerly belieuing, but hauing conceyued a certaine perswasion, (our vulgare hath plenissime sciens, Rhemes Testament, most fully knowing.) For such a manner of thing Faith is, to wit, more open, and more manifest than that demonstration which is begotten by the discoursing of a considering mynd, and therfore hath greater force in perswading. For it wauereth not if perhaps some other thought do present it self. For he that lyes open to the discourses of a mynd moved hither and thither, may verily also alter his iudgmēt. But one that firmly settles himself by Faith, shutteth his hearing and fortifyeth it as it were vvith a trench, against hurtfull thoughts. These words of this holy Doctour do not only affirme, but proue the necessity of an jnfallible Faith, vnless vve vvill be alvvays in perplexityes, doubts, [Page 47]and danger of denying Christian Religion. (S. Ambrose. Enarratione in Psalm. 40.) As there are some vvho haue eyes, and see not; so there be some vvho not seeing with their eyes, are beleeued to see more. Whence also Prophets vvere called Seers, euen those vvho did not see vvith their eyes. (S. Hierome. Ep. 61. ad Pammachium. C. 3.) will you know, hovv great the feruour is of those vvho belieue aright? Giue eare to the Apostle. Although we, or an Angell from heauen should euangelize othervvise vnto you, be he accursed. And, (in Cap. 1. Ep. ad Galat.) the Apostle shewes the firmeness of his fayth, saying. I knovv, that neither death, nor life, &c. And contralily, if Faith vvere not most certainly true, vvho could be obliged to die for auerringe the truth therof; vvhich is the argument brought by S. Bernard against Abailardus, saying. (Ep. 190.) Fooles therfor vvere our Martyrs suffering so grieuous punishments for vncertaine things, not doubting through a hard passage to suffer a long banishment for a doubtfull revvard. (S. Austine, Tom. 10. de verbis Dom. Serm. 63.) Speaking of an Article of Christian Faith, sayth. Albeit vve see not this vvith our eyes, nor vvith our hart, as long as vve are clensed by Faith, yet doe vve belieue it by faith most rightly and most strongly. (Surely this signifyes more than to belieue only with probability.) [Richardus de S. Victore, 1. de Trinit. Cap. 2.] As many of vs as are truly faithfull, hold nothing vvith more certainty, than that vvhich vve belieue by faith.

11. What vve haue proued by Authority, vve now will conuince by Theologicall Reasons and Arguments.

First; vve haue demonstrated out of holy Scripture, that Faith is an especiall Gift of God, and that the Act or Assent therof proceeds from a particular Grace, Motion, Preuention, and Supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost: Therfore it cannot be but true; othervvise vve might distrust the Truth of Scriptures, and the predictions of the Prophets, though we did belieue those to haue bene written, and these to haue bene spokē, by the direction and instinct of God himselfe. And vvhat more satisfying assurance can there be giuen to any Christian, yea to any reasonable creature, than this; God leades me this vvay therfore it cannot be but right, neither can I erre in follovving it, and euery vvay contrary to this must [Page 44]be wrong, and erroneous Chilling, [ Pag. 258. N. 16.] confesseth that a thing vntrue cannot be foreseene by the Prophets. Which he could not affirme, if God could moue men to belieue a falshood. And [ Pag. 36. N. 8.) he says. We cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of the conclusion than of the weaker of the Premises, which supposes that by supernaturall meanes we may be more certaine: And [ N. 9.] he doubts not but that the spirit of God may and will aduance his seruants, and giue them a certainty of adherence, beyond their certainty of euidence. Since therfore euery Act of Faith proceeds from the particular motion and spirit of God, we must say, that his supposition concerning some, is actuated in all who belieue by a true Act of Christian Faith, that is, we must say, that euen according to Chillingworth, all true Christians belieue with absolute certainty, and vvith an assent higher than that which we yield to probable premises.

12. And out of this most certaine and Christian truth, that Faith is the gift of God, and requires his particular assistance aboue the force of nature, it follows also by euidence of Reason, that it must be an Assent aboue all Probabilityes, or Arguments of Credibility. For abstracting from some accidentall impediment, or temptation, our Vnderstanding is able of it selfe, to draw a probable Conclusion from euident probable premises. And therfore seing wee can neuer by naturall forces exercise an Act of true Christian Faith, it followes clearly, that it must be an Assent more than probable, and raysed aboue all arguments of credibility. Chilling. saith [ Pag. 116. N. 159.] We haue, I belieue, as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England, as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate. But as I noted aboue, no man in his witts wil say, that we cannot by naturall forces of humane reason belieue that there was such a man as Henry the eight, Therfore no man ought to say, that with the same forces of humane Reason we cannot belieue that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, if Faith be only such a probable Assent.

13. Beside, if Faith do not excèede the force of nature, seing Faith is the first beginning of Obediēce, Merit and Saluation, the beginning of all these should be attributed to nature, and not to Grace; yea if one can belieue by the force of nature, so also he may Hope, and Loue, and attaine Beatitude by the same. And how shall Beatitude it selfe be Supernaturall, if the meanes to attaine it, be naturall? Thus the maine ground of Chilling. That Faith is a Conclusion or Assent drawen from probable [Page 49]Premises, and proportioned to them, being ouerthrovvue, all his Reasons relying on this ground, vanish into nothing.

But yet let vs more and more proue this truth, and turne the vveapons of our Aduersaryes agaynst themselues, by demonstrating that Christian Faith must raise vs aboue the Arguments of Credibility; vvhich I doe in this manner.

14. If Faith exceede not the assent vvhich we giue to the probable motiues of Credibility, there could be no captiuating of our vnderstanding, nor Obedience or Freedom of will in belieuing the Articles of Faith. But we are to captiuate our vnderstanding, and exercise free obedience of our will in belieuing the Articles of Faith; Therfor Faith must raise vs aboue the Arguments of Credibility. The maior is cleare. For where there is euidence and necessity to assent, there is no place for captiuating or submitting our vnderstanding, or free and voluntary obedience of our will, which Chilling: confesses (Pag. 329. N. 7.) wher speaking of obedience in Faith, he saith: which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience, as there is not where the vtderstanding does all, and the will nothing. Neither can it auaile him to say, as he sayth in the same place, that the Faith of Protestants implies an act of obedience, because it is not pretended to haue the absolute euidēce of sence or demōstration. For this is nothing to the purpose, as long as he belieues the Articles of Faith, with no higher thā a probable assēt, proportionable to probable Arguments, and rises not to a certainty of sense, demonstration, or any other, aboue these probable Motiues; because his fallible, and only probable faith hath the certanty and euidence of demonstration for such a degree of probability; it being no more certaine and euident, that a Conclusion drawen from necessary Premises, is necessary; than that a Conclusion rightly deduced from probable Premises, is probable; which is all he requires for an assent of faith, as he expressly affirmes (Pag. 36. N. 8.) saying: God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue; and (N. 9.) God requires of all, that their faith should be proportionable to the motiues enforcing to it; mark enforcing, and Pag. 112. N 154. Neither God doth, nor man may require of vs as our duty (obserue what obedience and duty he requires) to giue a greater assent to the Conclusion than the Premises deserue. And finally, this is his maine ground to proue, that Christian Faith is not infallible, but only probable, that is, such only as he holds the Premises and Arguments of Credibility [Page 50]to be: wherby it is euident that in his way there is left no place for captiuating our vnderstanding, by a voluntary free submission, and obedience to Christ and his doctrine.

15. Which yet to be necessary (as I assumed in my Minor proposition) cannot be denyed by any who belieues Holy Scripture; as appeares (2. Cor. 10.5.) B ringing into captiuity all vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Christ. (Rom. 1.5.) By whom (Iesus Christ) we receyued grace and Apostleship for obedience to the Faith in all nations for the name of him. (Philip. 2.17.18.) But if I be immolated vpon the sacrifice and seruice of your Faith, I rejoyce and congratulate with you all. And the selfesame thing doe you also rejoyce, and congratulate with me. What great sacrifice, seruice, or obedience is a faith only probable, and necessarily inferrd from probable Premises▪

16. Morouer, that Faith doth not necessitate our vnderstanding, but is free and voluntary euen quoad specificationem, as Diuines speake, that is, in such manner, as it is in our will to belieue the contrary of what we belieue by Faith, and for that cause requires Gods particular assistāce, and a pious affection in the will, and a submitting, or captiuating of our vnderstanding, is gathered out of diuine Scriptures, that vpon the same preaching of the Ghospel, some belieued, and some belieued not, as we reade (Act. 17.32.34.) Certaine mocked, but certaine sayd; we will heare thee againe concerning this poynt. But certaine men joyning vnto him, did belieue. (Marc 16.15.16.) Going into the whole world preach the Ghospell to all creatures. He that belieueth ād is baptized shall be saued; but he that belieueth not shall be condemned. (V. 14.) he exprobated their incredulity. Which shewes, that jnfidelity is a sinne; and sinne supposeth liberty to the contrary. (Rom. 10.16. But all do not obey the Ghospel. This supposeth that some belieue not, and that some other belieue, and in belieuing exercise a free Act of obedience Gen. 15.) Abrahā belieued God, and it was reputed to him vnto justice. [Heb. 11.] it is sayd that God prepared for the Fathers an euerlasting citty, and that they got a repromission by Faith. [Ioan. 20.] Blessed are they, who haue not seene, and haue belieued. [Luc. 2.] Blessed art thou who hast belieued. But a meritorious act, or deserving such prayses, must be free. Now Chillingworths faith is such as necessitates the vnderstanding to assent, (at least that it cannot assent to the contrary) as hath bene shewed; Therfor his Faith is not that [Page 51]Christian belief, which Holy Scripture commands, that is, a free Assent, captiuating our vnderstanding, and raysing it aboue all the Motiues of Credibility or Probability, and consequently, absolutly certaine and infallible; wherby we voluntarily submit, and perfectly subject our soule to God, and his supreme authority. For wheras we may distinguish foure sorts of Knowledg; wherof the First is Experimentall or of senses. 2. Scientificall. 3. Humane Faith. 4. Diuine Faith; Man ought to be subject to God by a voluntary knowledg, and such the first and second sort is not. The third is imperfect, as the authority on which it relyes, is subject to errour. The fourth then remaynes, as it were Religion, or highest worship, called latria, or the greatest submission, wherby the will perfectly subject vnto God, subjecteth vnto him the other powers, which are subordinate vnto it selfe; and it is great impiety to belieue, that God hath not enabled Christians, to offer to theyr creatour, and Redeemer, a seruice or Obedience, connaturall to the Diuine Autority, Perfection, and Testimony.

17. This reason drawen from Obedience, exercised in the act of Christian Faith, is further enforced thus. The command of the will, or Pious affection which Diuines require in Faith, produceth in the vnderstanding a more firme assent, than would be produced without ^(a) it, as we see by experience, that men obstinate in errour, or strongly affected to some truth, produce by theyr will a more firme assent than otherwise it would haue bene: yea the command of the will, affection, passion, and the like, moue men to assent to that, vnto which otherwise they would not assent, or from which perhaps they would dissent. Therfor seing the will can moue the vnderstanding to produce the substance of an act, much more may it determine vs to produce more degrees of assent, or dissent, than otherwise it would. Although therfor it were granted, that a Conclusion formally as such, can haue no greater strength than it receyues from the Premises, yet the same conclusion, or object taken materially, may receyue greater strength, from some other cause, than it did receyue from the Premises, as such; as the same materiall truth, which, being inferred from probable Premises, is only probable, may grow to be certaine, if it be deduced from demonstratiue arguments. Therfore Chillingworths [Page 52]ground, that the Assent of Faith, being a Conclusion drawne from probable Premises, can be noe more than probable; is either false; if it be vnderstood, that by no other meanes it can be made more than probable; or impertinent, if he meane, that it cannot exceede probability, precisely and formally as it is a Conclusion inferd from probable Premises; it being sufficient for our purpose, that it be improued to a certainty by some other meanes. Yea since he grants that our Assent of Faith receyues from the Arguments of Credibility the highest degree of probability, and that indeed it receyues a further perfection from the Pious Affection, and prudent command of the will, we must conclude, that it is raised aboue the highest degree, of a probable to a certaine Assent: Which yet is more and more euinced by this following consideration.

18. It is impossible that Christian Faith can retaine the highest degree of probability (as Chilling. pretends) if it haue no greater perfection, than it receyues from the sole probable Arguments of Credibility. Therfor we must find some other ground on which, Christian Faith relyes, than meerly such arguments. The antecedent I proue thus: For (to omit what some perhaps will say, that at least the Assent of Faith, which he sayth is a Conclusion, is not so probable as the Premises on which it depends, and so is not probable in the highest degree) although it were granted, that the Motiues of Credibility, considered alone, may mooue the vnderstanding to the highest degree of probability, and such as one cannot entertayne without a prudent doubt of the contrary; yet if they be compard and confronted with very great difficultyes objected against them, by reason that the Mysteryes of Christian Faith, which really are superiour, and seemingly are contrary to naturall Reason, and Philosophy; that supposed highest pitch of probability must needs be abated, and lessened, and come to some lower than the highest. As althongh the will do necessarily loue an object which appeares good, when it attends not to any reason or formality of some euill, neuerthelesse it is not necessarily carryed to loue that object, when it perceyueth any euill therin; so the vnderstanding, so long as truth is proposd without any thing offered to the contrary, necessarily, or easily yelds assent; but if contrary difficultyes be represented, it is apt to pause, and consider, and perhaps doubt, or feare, and must needs fall somwhat from its former confidence, adhesion, and assent, if it be left to it selfe, and not assisted [Page 53]with greater strength, than can arise from meere probabilityes, encountred, and balanced with contrary seeming strong reasons. And as Chilling. speaking to Catholiques, sayth (Pag. 113. N. 154.) I hope you will giue vs leaue to consider whether the motiues to your Church be not impeached, and opposed with compulsiues and enforcements from it: so others will say of the Motiues to Christian Religion; that they are impeached with contrary compulsiues from it, besides the sublimity of the Misteryes themselues aboue humane Reason, which is apt to doubt of whatsoever it doth not ynderstand; as we feare not only bad, but also vnknowne pathes, and as to our eye the clearest skye, if it be almost beyond our kenning, seemes to be a kind of darkness. Thus then the probability of Chillingworths faith, being brought downe frō the highest pretended degree of probability, becomes compatible with good, and great probability of the contrary side; (as heate and cold, if neither of them be in the most intense degree, may stand togeather) and consequently, the vnderstanding may conceyue not only a possibility, but a probability also, and a feare that the Christian Religion is false. For auoiding which wicked sequele, there is no other remedy, except to acknowledg Faith to be an Assent certaine and infallible, aboue all probability of humane Motiues, or arguments of Credibility.

19. And in this occasion we may obserue, that the examples vsually alleadged to proue, that we can no more doubt of the Conclusion drawne from the Arguments of Credibility, than a man doubts whether such an one be his father, and the like; doe not vrge, but rather may be retorted. For in such cases, it is supposed, that there are many good reasons for one side, for example, that such a man is father to such a child &c. and none to the contrary. But it happeneth otherwise in our case: there being many and hards objections obuious to humane reason, against the Mysteryes of Faith, which may diminish that degree of assent, which otherwise might be grounded vpon the Arguments of Credibility, if they were considered alone; as one could not belieue such a man to be his father, if he had some very probable proofes for the contrary, with the same firme perswasion, as he would doe, in case no such proofes did offer themselues: and so, as I sayd, this and the like Arguments and examples, may be retorted againist those who bring them: and still we must conclude, that we cannot belieue Christian Religion as we ought, without an absolute, certaine, ād jnfallible Assent; which will more appeare by the Reason following.

[Page 54]

20. These very Motiues of Credibility manuduce and send vs vp to an Authority, which is able to transfuse greater perfection to our Assent, than they themselues can giue. Because they tell vs of Objects to be belieued for Diuine Reuelation, and so proclaime themselves to be only Dispositions and Preparations, which being supposed, God affords his particular Grace for producing an Act proportionable to his Diuine Testimony, as, with some proportion, by hearing or reading spirituall things, the species are excited, and God by that occasion giues inspiration for Faith, Hope, Charity &c. aboue the naturall power of the externall words; and as Experimentall knowledg by sense, is a Disposition to Scientificall knowledg, which yet takes not its nature, essence, and perfection from the senses.

21. From hence it followes, that men are obliged to belieue Christian Religion, not in what manner soeuer, but as a Doctrine deliuered and reuealed by God, and therfor to be embraced aboue all; that is, aboue all contrary objects or objections, and not to be altered vpon any occasion, supposition, or authority of men or Angels, as S. Paule teaches vs by an impossible supposition, to express the matter home. Galat 1.8. Although we, or an Angel from Heauen euangelize to you, beside that which we haue euangelized to you, be he anathema. This admonition or denuntiation of S. Paule, must needs suppose Christian Faith to be aboue all probability. For it is euidently against reason, to joyne togeather these two judgments, or Assertions: This doctrine is only probable, and grounded only in probable and credible Arguments, and yet; That it is reasonable, or necessary, òr euen possible to assent to it in such manner, as neuer to belieue the contrary, though reasons, seeming, vpon the best examination a man can make, better than the former, should offer themselues against it; seing it is certaine that he cannot be certaine, that better reasons cannot possibly be offered. For if he be certaine that better reasons for the contrary are not possible; his assent is not probable, but certaine. Therfor since we are not to forsake Christian Religion for whatsoeuer possible motiue, or Reason, or Authority of Men, or Angels, we must giue it absolute certainty, and not only probability.

22. And because this kind of Argument, is of greater moment than perhaps appeares at first sight, I will dilate it by saying further; that [Page 55]according to his Assertion about the probability of faith, no Christian, yea no man can be setled in any Religion; since he must be ready to chang whensoeuer better reasons shalbe presented against it; neither can he be certaine that he may not sooner, or later fynd some such reason. For, a faith only probable is a perpetuall Temptation to it selfe; and we may truly say, Accedens tentator dicit, in the present Tense, seing Probability doth not exclude some feare that the contrary may be true. Nay euery consideration about Faith, to such men as Chill., who loue to be esteemed considering and discoursing men, is more than a Temptation; it is a yeelding, or consent against Faith, inuoluing this judgment; Perhaps that which I belieue, is false, and the contrary true.

23. Yea this vast absurdity doth not only flow from this doctrine, but it is in effect acknowledged by him in express words [Pag. 380. N. 72.] Where he deeply taxes all Catholiques, because they eyther out of idleness refuse the trouble of a scuere tryall of their Religion, or out of superstition feare the euent of such a triall, that they may be scrupled, and staggered, and disquieted by it; and therfor for the most part doe it not at all; or if they doe it, they doe it without indifference, without liberty of judgment, without a resolution to leaue it if it proue apparentily false. My owne experience assures me, that in this imputation I doe you [Catholiques] no injury: but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrine among mortall sinnes. For from hence it followes, that seing euery man must resolue he will neuer commit mortall sinne, that he must neuer examine the grounds of it at all, for stare he should be moued to doubt: or if he doe, he must resolue that no motiues, be they neuer so strong, shall moue him to doubt, but that with his will and resolution he will vphold himselfe in affirme belief of your religion. Doth not it appeare by these words, that he must haue no such resolution as he reprehends in vs, but must be ready to doubt, or to leaue his, and all Christian Religion? [And Pag. 326. N. 4.] he endeauours to proue, that Faith cannot be absolutely certaine, because if it were so, any least doubting would destroy it; which shewes, that doubting may well consist with his kind of probable faith; which is that very absurdity which we inferrd, as impious against true Religion, of which we must resolue neuer to doubt, though per jmpossible an Apostle, or Angel should moue vs therto, (as we haue heard out of S. Paule) and yet the Authority of an Apostle, or perswasion of an Angell should in all reason be preferrd before Faith, if it be only probable.

[Page 56]

24. This inconstancy in Religion appeares further by what he confesses of himselfe (Pag. 389. N. 7.) where speaking of a command of obedience to the Roman Church, he hath these words: sure I am, for my part, that I haue done my true endeauour to find it true, and am still willing to doe so, but the more I seeke, the further I am from findinge &c. Behold, how after so long tyme, so much deliberation, so many changes of Religion, euen after the writing of his Booke, he is still willing to find and embrace a Religion different and contrary to that which he professed. Also (P. 184. N. 90.) he sayth: Shew vs any way, and do not say but proue it to haue come frrm Christ and his Apostles down to vs, and we are ready to followit. Neither do we expect Demonstration herof, but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary. Agreable to this is his professing, (Preface N. 2.) that he had a trauellers indifferency, most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way, or from it. And (N. 5.) he professes, that his constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heauen which for the present seemed to him the most probable. A poore comfort and miserable faith, only probable, and of no longer continuance than for the tyme present! I willingly omitt, that his deeds were agreeable to his words, changing, first from Protestants to Catholike, then from Catholike to Protestant, and about againe to Catholike, till at last he became neyther Precisian, nor Subscriber to the (39. Articles,) nor confessed Socinian, nor any thing vnless that mhich S. Bernard sayth of Abailardus, (Ep: 193.) Homo sibi dissimilis est, totus ambiguus. He is a man who disagrees euen from himselfe, wholy compounded of doubts. I willingly leaue out his middle words, Intus Herodes, for is Ioannes; inwatdly a Herode outwardly a Iohn. If the Apostles be to be belieued only in that which they deliuered constantly as a certaine diuine truth, as he teaches (Pag. 144. N. 31.) surely this man, and his fellow Socinians, ought not to be belieued in any thing, seing according to their doctrine that faith is fallible, and but probable, they neither are, nor can be constant in any poynt they deliuer: and so we cannot say so much of them as of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt: 23.2.) whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you, doe, but according to their works, doe not: but, doe neither what they shall say, nor according to their works. And heere I beseech, and euen begg of the Reader, if he haue any care to saue his soule, that he will consider how far the faith of this man, and his Associates, is from true Christian Faith, of which we haue heard S. Paule saying: [Page 57] Although we, or an Angell from Heauen euangelize to you beside that which we haue euangelized, be he an Anathema.

25. But this is not all that strongly offers it selfe in this poynt. For, not only his Faith cannot affoard any rest or satisfaction, wherby a man may cease from further inquiry, but leaues him with a strict obligation to be incessantly examining his Religion, and seeking whether he can fynd some more probable, and better grounded. This sequele seems cleare. Because the true Faith and Religion being absolutely necessary to saluation, charity towards ones self obliges euery man, to seeke the safer way, and the most certaine Religion. And seeing he is not certaine, that the Religion, or way to Heauen which for the present seemes to him most probable (as we haue heard him speake) is indeed the right way; what remaynes, but that men are obliged to be continually busied, and perplexed in the search of the true Faith necessary to saluation? This my inference seemes to be acknowledged by him. For beside what hath beene already cited, he sayes of himselfe, P. 278. N. 61.] If I did not put away idleness, and prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of diuine matters, being prepard in mynd to fellow God, and God only, which way sceuer he shall lead me; if I did not hope, that I eyther doe, or endeauour to d [...]e these things, certainly I should haue little hope of obtaining saluation. Loe heere little hope of saluation, vnless a man be still examining to the bottome his opinions, and be prepard in mynd to follow, &c. But in Vaine it is to seeke that rest, which will neuer be found, except in a Faith, and Religion, acknowledged to be absolutely certaine and infallible, which alone can put an end to all further inquiry. Finally, [Pag. 376. N. 57.] he sayth: This is the Religion which I haue chosen after a long deliberation, and I am verily perswaded that I haue chosen wisely. Ponder, verily perswaded: And were not you verily perswaded in those your changes which you acknowledg [Pag. 303. N. 103.] from a moderate Protestant to a Papist, from a doubting Papist to a confirmed Protestant, were you not, I say, verily perswaded that you did choose wisely? Yea you expresly tell vs in the same [Pag. 303.] that, of a moderate Protestant you turned a Papist, and that, the day that you did so, you were conuicted in conscience that, your yesterdayes opinion (that is, Protestantisme) was an errour. By all which appeares, how inconstant you were, and must be in matters of Faith and Religion, till you acknowledg an infallible Faith, taken from an infallible liuing Guide, which [Page 56] [...] [Page 57] [...] [Page 58]is Gods true Church.

26. From this liberty of Belief, what can follow but liberty of life? Seing his belief of Heauen and Hell, is but an opinion concerning things of an other world; wheras worldly pleasures are in present possession, and certaine. If the absolute certainty wherwith all Christians hitherto haue belieued their Faith to abound, hath not bene able to stop the course of mens licentiousness; what can we now expect, but that they who before did runne, will now fly after the Idols of whatsoeuer may appeare to their soules or bodyes, objects of profit, or delight? (Pag. 326. N. 4.) he teaches, that, if faith be infallible, no Christian could committ any deliberate sinne, yea and must be perfect in Charity; because Faith is the victorie which ouercomes the world, and Charity is the effect of Faith. If this be so, we may say on thecontrary side, that, if faith be weake, or only probable, what victory, what perfection in Charity can be hoped from it? But let vs now come to some other kind of Argument.

27. Hitherto Christians haue belieued, that true Christian Faith is a Theologicall vertue, that is, it hath for its Formall object and Motiue God, as he is infinitly Wise, and True; as Hope respects Him, as infinitly Powerfull; and Charity, as infinitly Good. But the Faith of these men cannot be a Theologicall vertue: Therfore their faith is no true Christian Faith. The Minor cannot be denyed in the grounds of this man. For, although they will pretend to belieue the Articles of Christiā Religion, because God hath reuealed them; yet the Argumēts of Credibility, or humane testimonyes are the only formall object or Motiue of this Assent, God hath reuealed the Mysteryes of Christian Religion. They are, I say, Premises from which the sayed Conclusion or act and assent of Faith is deduced, and according to which it is to be measured, and not only Preparations or Dispositions to it, (as Catholike Diuines teach) so that the infallible Diuine Reuelation comes to be only a materiall object, belieued for another fallible Motiue, or Formall Object, infinitly beneath the Testimony of God, which alone is able to constitute a Theologicall vertue. Thus he plainly saith (Pag: 36. N. 8.) God desires only that we belieue the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserue, that the strength of our faith be equall or proportionable to the credibility of the Motiues to it. and most expresly he saith in the same place: Our faith is an assent to this Conclusion, that the Doctrine of Christianity is true, which being deduced from a Thesis, which is metaphysically [Page 59]certaine, and from an Hypothesis, wherof we can haue but a morall certainty, we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of it then of the weaker of the Premises. You see he holds the Assent of Faith to be a Conclusion, not proportioned to Diuine Reuelation, which is most infallible and strong, but measured by the weaker of the Premises, grounded vpon humane inducements, which cannot giue Species or nature and essence to a Theologicall vertue: and so his probable Faith, is no more than an humane Opinion. For, euen as he who concludeth out of Mathematicall Principles knowne only probably, hath not knowledg but opinion; so he that belieues out of Principles not certaine, a Reuelation of its nature certaine, hath not certaine knowledg, but only opinion. And therfor his saying (Pag: 35. N. 7.) that he conveyues Faith to be an assent to Diuine Reuelations vpon the authoty of the Renealer, will in no wise free him from the just imputation of turning Diuine Faith into Opinion; since his assent to Diuine Reuelation is grounded, and measured, and receyues its essence, from testimonyes and Principles only probable and humane, and not from the Diuine Reuelation, without which, euen Dr. Potter (Pag. 143.) expressly sayes: Faith is but Opinion, or perswasion, or at the most, an acquired humane belief. And it is to be obserued, that the Doctour speakes expresly of the Authority of the Church, which he sayth can beget only an Opinion, and yet Chillingworth resolues our belief of the Scripture into the Tradition and teaching of the Church, and therfor his belief of the Scripture cannot passe the degree of Opinion, or humane belief.

28. Children are taught in their Catechismes, that, Faith, Hope, and Charity are vertues, and all Diuines agree that Faith is a vertue infused, and seing it resides in the vnderstanding, it must be a Vertue of the vnderstanding, which of its nature cannot produce any but true acts, because vertue, out of S. Austine, Lib 2. de Libero arbitrio, is a quality which by no man is vsed ill. And, vertue, as Diuines teach togeather with Aristotle, disposes the Power to that which is best. Wherfor the vertue of the will disposeth it vnto Good, which is the wils good, and an intellectuall vertue must dispose the vnderstanding to that which is True, which is the intellectiue Powers greatest Good. Since therfor Faith is of its owne essence an intellectuall vertue, it must haue an intrinsecall reference and tye vnto true Acts, and an incapacity and repugnance vnto false ones and errours.

[Page 60]

29. Besides; Faith is the first Power of supernaturall Being, and ought not to be inferiour to Habitus Principiorum in our naturall Being, which Habits cannot incline to any false assent. And whence comes it that the Habit of Faith for producing an Act, requires Gods speciall helpe, which cannot moue vnto falshood, but that such a Habit is determinated to Truth? Or how is it giuen vs as a fitt, sufficient, and secure meanes, wherby to captiuate our vnderstanding with great considence to the obedience of Faith, and of God, if it be not determined to truth, without all danger of errour? Will he deny that it exceeds Gods Power to produce such a Habit, or to concurre with our vnderstanding to such an Act, as shalbe incapable of errrour? Or what imaginable reason can there be, to deny that Faith is such, in which concurre, Diuine Reuelation; a Pious Affection, and command of the will; and the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost? What? A supernaturall End of eternall Happyness; a supernaturall Habit; a supernaturall Grace; a supernaturall Act; an infinite Authority or formall Object; and all to end in meere weake Probabilityes? Doth water rise as high as the source from which it flowes, and shall not all these diuine and supernaturall fountaynes, raise vs higher than Opinion; Good Christians can correct naturall Reason, in poynts which to Philosophers seemed euident truths and Principles, as in the Creation, against that Axiom (Ex nihilo nihil fit, of nothing nothing is made) In the Resurrection, against; (From priuation there is not admitted a retourning back to the former Being;) In the incarnation, against (A substance is that which exists by it selfe; and yet our Sauiours sacred Humanity exists in the Eternall Word) in the Mystery of the B. Trinity, against, (Those things which are the same with a third, are the same amongst themselues; and, not to alledge more particulars, all miracles wrought by our Sauiour aboue the strength of all naturall causes, seemed in humane reason, to imply a contradiction, or impossibility; and whatsoeuer is belieued aboue Reason, would seeme false and against it, if we did not correct Reason by Faith; which could not be done, vnless we did judge the light of Faith, to be more certaine, than the light of Reason, or the Principles therof. And this, Chilling: must either grant, and so yield faith to be infallible; or els must be content to acknowledg a plaine contradiction to himselfe. This appeares by these words, [Pag. 376. N. 56.] Propose me any thing out of this booke, (the Bible) and require whether I belieue it or no, and seeme it neuer so incomprehensible [Page 61]to humane reason, I will subscribe it with hand and hart, as knowing, no demonstration can be stronger then this, God hath sayd so, therfor it is true. And in the Conclusion of his Booke (§ And wheras) he professeth that he will not belieue any thing contrary to any Verity reuealed in the Word of God, though neuer so improhable or incomprehensible to Naturall Reason. For if his Faith be, to his vnderstanding, only probable, how can he in prudence prefer it before the contrary therof, which to his vnderstanding seemes euident, and certaine? Or how can an assent, which I judge to be only probable, enable me to belieue that which I judg to be euidently improbable? And it is in vayne for him to tell vs of the certainty of Gods Reuelation, since we do not compare Naturall Reason with Gods Reuelation, but with those Motiues, for which we belieue the diuine Reuelation; which being to him only probable, and esteemed such, and no more, must yeald to appearance of certainty of the contrary: and therfor he must either confess that he contradicts him selfe, or yield that Faith is infallible ād more certaine thā naturall reasō.

30. To speake truth, if we consider well, this Socinian Faith, can haue no other vse or effect, except only to damne men by contenting themselues with a faith of probability, when they may, and ought to attaine a certainty. He himselfe, [Pag. 36. N. 9.] doubts not but that the spirit of God being implored by deuout and humble prayer, and sincere obedience, may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher, and giue them a certainty of adherence, beyond theyr certainty of euidence. And those that belieue and liue according to their faith, he giues by degree the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how, they know not) what, they did but belieue: And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares, which looked vpon it, and whose hands handled the word of life. Now if some men may arriue to so absolute an assurance; why may not others: why must not all? Are not all bound to liue according to their Faith, and to obserue the lawes of charity, and obedience, which doing, you say, they shall arriue to a full and resolute assurance, euen aboue that which you call faith? You say (Pag. 227. N. 61.) Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote the Church farther; on condition she does implore it. And, (Pag. 175. N. 75.) You grant the spirit of truth shall be giuen, and will abide with those that loue God and keepe his Commandements. Yea since true Faith is alwayes the Gift of God, raysing vs vp by Grace aboue the strength of nature: And that [Page 62]euery one is obliged ro haue true Christian Faith, it is consequent, that de facto all are bound to beleiue with a Faith, produced by Grace, aboue the forces of nature, and consequently infallibly certaine. For heere that excellent saying of S. Leo (Serm. 16. de Pass. Domini) hath place: Iustè Deus instat praecepto, quia praecurrit auxilio. He may well exact of vs, an infallible Act of Faith, seing he giues vs sufficient Grace to performe what he exacts. And (Pag. 34. N, 6.) you say, The essentiall character of Charity is to judg and hope the best, by which you are obliged to judg and hope (vnless the contrary be manifest) that euery one liues according to his belief, by obseruing the Commandements; and so in fact is arriued to a certaine and infallible Faith. Since therfore you grant, that the faith of those who liue according to their Belief, is not to be regulated by the Lawes of Logicke, and formes of Syllogismes; with what shaddow of reason would you make men belieue, that the Faith of all Christians, necessary to saluation, which is a speciall infused Gift of God, must be subject to such Rules; as if it were a meere Conclusion, following only the weaker of the Premises, and not measured by the speciall Grace and Motion of the Holy Ghost, aboue all Logick. Thus all your Objections against the infallible Faith of Christians, must be answered by your self, as false and sophisticall, and consequently all Christians may, and ought in despight of such paralogismes, to assert and belieue the necessity of an infallible Faith. And, as I sayd, the contrary doctrine can serue only to delude, and damne those vnhappy soules, who will be harkninge to such noueltyes; I say, to damne soules, euen though it were falsely supposed, that his doctrine were true. For, all Christians, beside this man and such as hee, sirmely belieuing, Christian Faith necessary to saluation to be infallibly true, and he acknowledging all poynts of Christian Faith to be but probable, (and surely he will not be so shamlesse as to say, he belieues this particular fancy, wherin he disagrees both from Catholiques and Protestants, to be more certaine than all other Articles of Faith) it cannot be denyed, but that men are bound to belieue with an infallible Assent; because, as I sayd [...] in matters absolutely necessary to saluation, we are bound by the Law of God, and Charity to our selues, to embrace the safer way by meanes of an infallible Faith, which he confesses may be obtained, by prayer, and obedience to Gods commandements. And so vpon one account or other, all are obliged vnder payne of damnation, to belieue with an infallible Faith.

[Page 63]

31. As it is very true, that there is no greater, nor more foolish sinne, than the sinne of Desperation, irreuocably bringing damnation, which might haue been auoided by Hope, for which Gods Grace is neuer wanting, if we cooperate; so we may say, that this fallible Faith infallibly dispatches men to Hell; which mischief all may auoide by endeauouring to rayse their faith to certainty, as he confesses they may doe, by obeying and praying, which endeauours the Grace of God puts in their power, and will; and if they reject it, to none more justly then to this infortunate man and his fellowes may be applyd these words of the Prophet Ezechiel, (C. 18. V. 31.32) Why will yee dy; returne and liue. Which that they may doe either with more ease, or become inexcusable, if they doe it not; we will more and more confute that Ground, on which he doth in a manner wholy relie; That the Conclusion following the weaker of the Premises, one of which is in our case but probable, the Conclusion can be no more than probable.

32. For, First I would for disputation sake, aske of him, whether he meane, that the Conclusion doth so follow the weaker of the Premises, that it receyues no strength or perfection from the fellowship of a better Premise than it selfe is; If he answer, that it receyues no strength; then one will infer, that one Premise contayning the Testimony, or Reuelation of God, an other the testimony of men, could produce no stronger conclusion, than if both Premises did containe only the testimony of men; and so he must confess, that de facto he belieues the Articles of Christian Faith, no more than if by probable arguments, they were proued to be testifyed by men alone. If he answer, that rhe stronger Premise, may eleuate the weaker, to produce a Conclusion stronger than it selfe, he should not haue spoken so rawly as if one strong and another weaker premise had no greater influēce into the Conclusion, than if both the premises were weake.

33. But to omitt this; he should haue declared, whether a conclusion, deduced from one certaine and another probable premise, although precisely and formally and Reduplicatiue as it is a conclusion can beget only a probable assent, yet, I say, whether such a conclusion taken materially, and Specificatinè, may not be sufficient to bring our vnderstanding to an infallible Act of Faith, not by it selfe, but by applying the Diuine Reuelation, which growing by that meanes and application, to be the immediate and formall Object of our vnderstanding [Page 64]may moue it to an Assent proportionable to such an Object and Authority, that is, absolutely certaine and infallible; as he who applyes fire to a combustible subject, is occasion that heat is produced by the fire immediately applyed, and not by him who applyed it; or as a Preacher, or Pastour, whose testimonyes are humane and fallible, when they declare to their hearers, or subjects, that some Truth is witnessed by Gods word, are occasion that those people may produce a true infallible Act of Faith, depending immediately vpon Divine Reuelation applyed by the sayd meanes. This if he had declared, (as he should haue done not to deceaue his Reader) his mayne argument, that the conclusion followes the weaker premise, had bene answered, and confuted by himselfe.

34. And this same ground and consideration, wholy euacuates the examples which he alledgeth (pag. 36. N, 8.) That a man cannot goe or stand strongly, if either of his leggs be weake. That a building cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pillars therof be infirme and instable: That, if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me, but by a messenger that is not so, my considence of the truth of the Reuelation, cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour. For in our Case, humane testimonyes are not the leggs on which Faith stands: nor the pillars which vphold it; nor the message or messenger for which we belieue; but it is only the Diuine Reuelation on which the Act of Faith relyes, and from which it receyueth perfection, nature, and essence, and which alone is strong enough for that end.

35. If you object, that perhaps, that humane authority is false, and proposes to my vnderstanding, Diuine Reuelation when God doth not reueale; Therfor I cannot vpon humane testimony, representing or applying Diuine Reuelation, exercise an infallible Act of Faith. I answer: it is one thing, whether by a reflex Act I am absolutly certaine, that I exercise an infallible act of Faith; and an other, whether indeed and in actu exercito I produce such an Act. Of the former I haue sayd nothing, neither makes it to our present purpose. Of the latter, I affirme that when indeed humane testimony is true, and so, applyes a diuine reuelation which really exists; in such case, I may belieue by a true infallible Assent of Christian Faith. The reason of this seemes cleare, because although a truth which I know only by a probable assent, is not certaine to me; yet in it selfe it is most immoueable and certaine, in regard that while a thing is, it cannot but be for that tyme in which [Page 65]it is, and so it implyes contradiction that, Diuine reuelation should not exist, when by a true judgment I affirme it to exist; which certaine existance once supposed, it is able to tansfuse certainty and infallibility to that Act of which it alone, and not any precedent thing is the Formall Object and Motiue; Neither will God be wanting to concurre on the belieuers part, with his speciall Grace, necessary for producing a supernaturall Act of Christian Faith. And so his argument, (ibidem) that a riuer will not rise higher than the fountaine from whence it flowes, turnes against himselfe; and proues, that our Assent flowing from Diuine and infallible causes, Will rise as high, as those fountaines; to a supernaturall infallible Assent. This is sufficient to shew, how the probability of a Conclusion taken specificatiue doth not hinder, but that by meanes therof, I may come afterward to an infalliblity in my Assent deriued, not immediately from that Conclusion, but from the Diuine Reuelation: Wherby his chiefest Ground is ouerthrowne, That it is vniuersally impossible, to exercise an infallible Act of Faith, vnless the existence of Diuine Reuelation, be certainly foreknowne in one of the Premises.

36. But yet further; if we consider all the other Causes of Christian Faith, they do euince that it is certaine and infallible, as I haue touched before: For beside the object of infinite Authority on the belieuers part, God doth infuse the Habit of Faith: He giues a particular Actuall Motion of Grace for exercising the Act therof; He effectually moues the will by a Pious assection and Command, to determine the vnderstanding to a firme assent of Faith, aboue the precedent Arguments of Credibility. If a better vnderstāding conceiue the same Object, with more perfection than another of lesse capacity, what stint can we put to that vnderstāding, which is directed and strengthned by rayes from the light quae illuminat omnem hominem? Which enlightneth euery man?

37. Alas! how perniciously foolish will men needs be towards their owne perdition? All things euē by the instinct ād strēgth of nature pass from an imperfect to a perfect state: from the outward senses to the inward, which cā correct the errours of our outward, from which it tooke its first notions; from them to the vnderstanding: and finally by probable Arguments is prepard to finde out Demonstrations. And yet men will not vnderstand how we may rise from arguments of Credibility, to a certainty in Faith, though assisted with Diuine Grace.

38. To what hath beene sayd for the infalliblity of Faith, I add this [Page 66]consideration. If Faith require not absolute certainty, it were sufficient to belieue, that the authority of Scripture is only probable, or that it is on ly probable that God cā neither deceyue, nor be deceued. For, this were sufficient to ground a probable assent, that Christian Faith is true: Because according to his Principles, that, Faith is a Conclusion, and that the Conclusion followes the fallible and weaker Premise, what difference is there to belieue that Scripture is fallible, or to affirme that we do but probably and fallibly belieue that it is infallible, or the word of God. (in his Principles: or what imports it for attaining certainty, that Gods Reuelation is in it selfe infallible, if I doe but fauibly know, that he hath reuealed any thing▪ And yet S. Paule ( Heb: 6), groundes Christian Faith vpon this, that it is impossible For God to lie: Therfore he did suppose that Christian Faith is infallible.

39. But what if [...]: himselfe pretend to belieue, that Christian Faith is infallible? I do not say he belieues it to be such, yet he hath words which I propose to the Reader, who may either see by this, the disposition of the man and his contradiction to himselfe, or gather how the infallibility of Faith, is as it were the naturall sense of Christians, since he who so much impugnes it, cannot chuse but make ashew of defending it. (Pag. 410.) he sayth: For Arguments tending to proue an impossibility of all Diuine, supernaturall, jnfallible Faith and Religion, I assure my selfe, that if you were ten tymes more a spider than you are, you could suck no such poyson from them. My hart, I am sure is innocent of any such intention; and the searcher of all harts knowes, that I had no other end in writing this Booke, but to confirme to the vttermost of my ability the truth of the Diuine and jnfallible Religion of our deare, lord and Saujour Christ Iesus. If this be true, surely the Booke which goes vnder his name, is supposititious or a changeling, telling vs, that the Conclusion followes the weaker of the Premises, of which one is but probable, wheras now you heare him auouching, that Christian Faith and Religion is supernaturall; Diuine; and infallible. To this I will add what he hath (Pag: 357. N. 38.) Certainly I know, [and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know) that I doe belieue the Gospel of Christ (as it is deliuered in the vn loubted Books of Canonicall Scripture) as verily as that it is now day; that I see the light; that I am now writing: and I belieue it vpon this Motiue, because I conceyue it sufficiently, aboundantly, superabundantly prooued to be Diuine Reuelation. And yet in this, I do not depend vpon any succession of men that haue [Page 67]always belieued it without any mixture of Errour; nay I am fully perswaded there hath bene no such succession, and yet do not find my selfe any way weakned in my faith by the want of it, but so fully assured of the truth of it, that though an Angell from Heauen should gainsay it or any part of it, I perswade my selfe that I should not be mooued. This I say, and this I am sure is true. The Reader may make of those words, as verily as that it is now day: That I see the sight, &c: What he pleases: I will only say, that if Christian Faith be only probable, it is either foolery, or hypocrify in him, to tell the world that he would not be mooued though an Angell from Heauen should gainsay it, or any part of it. For who would not sooner belieue an Angell from Heauen, than the confessed fallible testimonyes of men on earth? And therefore if he speake as he thinkes, he must either acknowledg Christian [...] be infallible, (and so no authority gainsaying it can be by liued or else he cannot avoyde a non sense in preferring [...] probability, before an Angell from Heauen.

40. Whatsoeuer his words, and Do [...] be against the infallibility of Faith, I am sure that in deeds none doth bring better proofe for it, than hee, by pleading against it, with Reasons and Arguments, which may be so clearly answered, as that euery one cannot but giue sentence for the Possession of Diuine infallible Faith, seing no new Argument of worth or weight, is produced to impugne it

41 That I may not seeme only to say, and not proue this, I must craue pardon, if in answering his Objections, I may perhaps seeme long, and might justly be censured for tedious, vnless my desire and intention were not only to answer, but by Gods holy assistence to confute and retort his Arguments, and so proue the Truth: as also incidently to treate some materiall poynts, which will offer themselues, by occasion of his Objections, and for themselues should not haue bene omitted. And so I hope this length, will bring with it a fourfold commodity. This being done, Christian Faith will keepe its Right to infallibility; without any other positiue Reason to proue it (though I haue brought diuerse, and many more might be alledged) and some who are sayd to cry vp Chillingworths Arguments, will, I hope, see how flat and low they will be found to lye, by being impartially considered, and duly examined.

42. His first and chiefest Objection, which only hath any shew of dissiculty (namely, that, The Motiues of Credibility being only probable, [Page 68]Faith it selfe cannot be certaine) he tooke from Catholike Diuines, but dissembled their Answers, and wanted humility to captiuate his vnderstanding vnto the obedience of Faith, as they did, and all good Christians ought to doe, though neuer so many difficultyes should offer themselues to the contrary. But this Objection I haue answered at large, and turned it vpon himselfe in seuerall wayes and occasions needless to be repeated: and therfor I come to his other Objection.

43. Object 2. pag. 326. N. 4. Euery text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake, or of any that were strong in Faith; of any that were of little, or any that were of great faith; of any that abounded, or any that were rich in Faith: of increasing, growing, rooting, grounding, establishing, confirming in Faith: Euery such text is a demonstratiue refutation of this vaine fancy, prouing that Faith, euen true and sauing Faith, is not a thing consisting in such an indiuisible point of perfection as you make it, but capable of augmentation and diminution: Euery prayer to God to increase your Faith (or if you conceyue such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your Faith) the Apostles praying to Christ to increase their Faith, is a conuincing argument of the same conclusion.

44. Answer: Not to take notice of his improper speach of augmentation and diminution in Faith, which are appropriated to Quantity, as intension and remission are propertyes of Quality: the grouud and supposition on which this whole objection goes, is manifestly vntrue, namely, that we make Faith to be a thing consisting in an indiuisible point of perfection, wheras all Catholike Diuines teach that it hath degrees of perfection and intension, no less then Hope, and Charity, and that de facto it receyues increase by euery meritorious act, togeather with justifying Grace. The Holy Councell of Trent ( Sess. 6. C. 10.) gives this Title to that Chapter. Of the merease of justification already receiued &c. And concludes it with these words; Hoc justitiae incrementum petit Sancta Ecclesia (Dominica 13. post Pentecosten) cum orat: Da nobis Domine, Fidei, Spei, & Caritatis augmentum. This increase of justice the Holy Church doth ask, when she prayes; Giue vs, ô Lord, increase of Faith, Hope, and Charity. You see we thinke it not derogatory from the perfection of our Faith (as you are pleased to speake) to pray for increase therof. Who is ignorant, that in Qualityes, We are to distinguish, between their essence (which consists as it were in an indiuisible poynt) and degrees of intension, which may be increased within the compass of the same Essence; otherwise it were [Page 69]not intension, but the production of another Species or Essence, as we experience in heate, light, and other such qualityes; and know in scientificall Demonstrations; and belieue in Hope, and Charity. Is not the same truth knowne with more euidence (and consequently with more certainty, according to his grounds) by a perspicatious vnderstanding, than by one more dull? Which argues that there are degrees in certainty. What is more knowne, than that Axiom of Aristotle, Propter quod vnumquodque tale, illud & magis tale; That, for which euery thing is such is it self much more such? Chilling: himself (Pag. 377. N. 59.) Saith, we must be surer of the proofe, then of the thing proued, otherwise it is no proof. If then the conclusion be certaine by vertue of the Proof, or Premises, these must be more certaine; which supposes different degrees of perfection, euen in certaine and infallible acts of our vnderstanding; and then why not in Faith, though it be certaine and infallible? And his objection, that according to vs, all true Faith must be most certaine, and the most perfect that is, cannot be more than most certaine, hath no more strength than it receyues from ignorance. For, when Faith is sayd to be most certaine the comparison goes not betweene different degrees of graduall perfection in Faith it selfe, but betweene Faith, and naturall knowledg: Or els Faith is sayd to be most certaine for its essence; because with euery degree of true Faith, we must belieue articles reuealed, with an assent super omnia, aboue all, essentially excluding all doubt, or dissent from such articles; as Hope relyes Vpon God super omnia, aboue all, and essentially refuses to admitt any voluntary act of desperation; and Charity essentially loues God aboue all things appretiatine, choosing to loose all things, rather than to offend God, and therfor effectually moueing vs not to consent vnto any deadly sinne. In these essentiall perfections there is an indivisibility, and a most or greatest perfection, which being taken away, the Vertue is destroyed; but it passeth not so in Graduall perfections of Faith, Hope, Charity, and other Vertues, either infused, or acquired.

45. What knowledg is so certaine, euident, and perfect, as the Beatificall Vision? which may truly be called most perfect: but how? In respect of other knowledg, terminated only to created Objects: but in respect to it selfe, in order to Graduall perfection, it consists not in an indiuisible poynt, because one Angell, or Saint beholds God intuitiuè, with more perfection, than another. Thus euen your probable [Page 70]Faith, must essentially exclude all Doubt. Taken in the most proper sense, that is, not as it signifyes formidinem oppositi, some feare least the contrary be true; but as it is taken for a suspension of our assent to either side, which cannot possibly consist with a probable possitiue assent to one part; and in this essentiall notion of excluding all such Doubt, all probable judgments must agree, and yet you will not deny but there are different Graduall degrees in probable assents, and in particular in your probable Faith, which you proue to be but probable, that so you may, as you pretend, agree with Scripture, mentioning different degrees of Faith.

46. Not in this instance only, but in others also, I conuince you by your owne assertions. [Pag. 36. N. 9.] you say; The spirit of God, being implored by deuout and humble prayers, and sincere obedience, may and will by degrees aduance his seruants higher, and giue them a certainty of adherence, beyend their certainty of euidence. And; To those that belieue, and liue accordingly to their faith, he giues by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how, they know not) what they did but belieue; And be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares, which saw it with their eyes, which looked vpon it, and whose hands handled the Word of life. Heere you speake of certaine persons, arriuing by degrees to an absolute certainty; and I hope you will not deny but that there might be disserent degrees of perfection among them, according to the degrees of their deuout and humble prayers and sincere obedience; and that the same man might by degrees be aduanced aboue himself; as also that they might pray for such increase. Therfore there are degres in certainty, for attaining of which one may praye, as in your objection you alledg the Apostles pr [...]ing to Christ to increase their Faith: which is directly for vs against your selfe. For, [Pag. 329. N. 7.] you teach, that the Apostles for some points had absolute certainty in their faith, or an assent which was not pure and proper and meere faith, but somwhat more: an assent containing faith, but superadding to it. Therfore certainty may be increased, and this increase may be prayed for, as the Apostles did: and among the Apostles who doubts but that one might belieue with more certainty than an other Surely you will be content that S. Paule enter into the number of those who liuing as they belieue, attaine an absolute certainty, and yet he made progress in charity, as himselfe witnesseth [1. Tim: 4. V. 6.7.8.] I am euen [Page 71]now to be sacrificed, and the tyme of my resolution is at and. I haue fought a good fight, I haue consummate my course; I haue kept the Faith. Concerning the rest, there is layd vp for me a crowne of justice, which our Lord will render to me in that day, a just judge. You see this blessed Apostle, not long before his death speakes of a crowne due for his Faith, and good workes or Charity, without exception of any tyme wherin his Faith was fallible, which indeed was alwayes most certaine and infallible, by the particular appearing of our Sauiour to him, and most express reuelation: which certainty had bene no favour, but a great harme, if it had depriued him of all increase in charity, notwithstanding his continuall exercise of heroicall good workes, and a death glorious by martyrdome, the highest pitch of Charity and perfection; and yet he sayd Phil. 3.12. Non quod jam perfectus sim, not that I now am perfect. And the like might I say of all the Apostles, and other Saints, who liued as they belieued, and were eminent in Prayer, Obedience and all sanctity.

47. But this is not all that may be alledged against you, out of your owne doctrine, [Pag. 330. N. 8.] You say: that we are to belieue the Religion of Christ, we are and may be infallibly certaine; and this you endeauour to proue by some arguments which you stile certaine, and then conclude from all these premises, this conclusion euidently followes, that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian Religō. Now it cannot be denyed, but that in this assent, ( It is infallibly certaine that we are firmily to belieue the truth of Christian Religion,) there may be degrees of certainty or perfection, both in different persons at the same tyme, and in the same person at different tymes, as he may more and more ponder the Reasons which proue the truth of Christian Religion aboue all other; and consequently that men may pray for the conservation and encrease of that infallible assent, from which we see diverse do fall, and others would do so without Gods speciall Grace: for which therfor we may and ought to pray. (Heer by a parenthesis, it may be asked, what you meane in saying: that we are to belieue the Christian Religion we are and may be certaine, as if any were actually certaine, and yet could not be certaine. Ab esse ad posse surely is a known good argument. It had bene better sayd, we may be, and are certaine) Men haue a certaine assent that there is a God, and yet some belieue this certainty with more perfection than others, an all may pray God to encrease it, since we see so many turne Atheists. Lastly this very [Page 72]Objection, (wherin you measure the perfection of charity by the perfection of Faith, and thence inferr, that, if Faith be perfect and infallible, Charity must be perfect, and that no man could possibly make any progress in it) I retort vpon your selfe. For, seing charity may be encreased by prayer and obedience, while we liue vpon earth, according to that in the Apocalips [21. V. 11.] He who is just, let him be justifyed yet: Faith also must be capable of greater intension and increase in all sorts of persons, euen in those who you say by degrees may arriue to a certainty in belief. Therfor still we infer from your owne tenets, that absolute certainty consists not in an indiuisible poyat, but may be encreased, and persited.

48. By what hath bene sayd, I conceiue your objection to be not only sufficiently answered, but also confuted, and demonstrated to make against your selfe. Yet, by way of supererogation, I must add two considerations. First; The Apostles praying to Christ to encrease their Faith, Domine adauge nobis Fidem. [Luc. 17.5.] Lord, encrease faith in vs, makes nothing to the purpose, of prouing any thing at all touching Faith necessary to saluation; because that prayer of the Apostles did concerne fides miraculorum, the Faith of working miracles, as is manifest by the same Text of S. Luke, compared with S. Matthew [C. 17. V. 19.] Where to the Disciples asking why they could not cast out the diuell, our Saujour answered: Propter incrednatatem Vestram, By reason of your incredulity; and yet it were impious to thinke, that the Apostles vnder such a Maister, were ignorant of Articles necessary to saluation in those tymes, and therfor their want was only of Faith required to work miracles: and accordingly our Sauiour in both those Euangeitsts tooke that occasion to speake of the faith of miracles, wherby they would be able to remooue mountaynes: Therfore this your proofe, taken from the prayers of the Apostles for increase of their faith, is manifestly nothing to the purpose: as neither is the Argument which you bring [Pag: 37. N. 9.] out of those words, Lord I belieue, helpe my vnbelief, which concernes only faith of miracles, of deliuering that mans sonne from a deafe and dumbe diuell. [Marc: 9.23.] Woe be to Protestants if faith of working miracles, be necessary to Saluation! In the meane tyme, you were wise enough not to set downe the particular places of Scripture, which, you say, speake of a weake, strongh; little, great faith &c: least vpon examination, they might haue bene found subject to this, or some such cleare exception.

[Page 73]

49. My second consideration is: that, wheras he saith: (Euery Text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake, or of any that were strong in faith; of any that were of little, or any that were of great faith: Euery such Text is a demonstratiue refutation of this vaine fancy) all this proues nothing at all, vnless when mention is made of a weake and little faith, he had proued, such a weak faith to be sufficient for Saluation; or that such a faith, though strong in it selfe, yet be not called weake in comparison of a stronger; as Diuines teach, Faith to be obscure compared with some more euident naturall, or supernaturall knowledg, though it selfe be a great light, according to that; To a candel shining in a darke place [2. Pet: 1.19.] and all true Acts of the vnderstanding are lights. Our Sauiour sayd: [Marc. 10.18.] None is good but one, God; because all created Goodness, though in it selfe it be truly good, yet compared to God, is as if it were not. In this comparatiue way, some may be sayd to be weake in supernaturall Hope, or Charity, and yet euery least degree of those vertues is in it selfe very great and strong, as I explicated aboue. I suppose you will not affirme euery weake kind of faith to be sufficient for saluation; since [Pag. 37. N. 9.] you say: God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith, if it be liuing and effectuall vnto true obedience; which supposes, that some faith may be so weake, that it will not be accepted; and therfor when the Scripture mentioneth a weak faith, you must proue that such a faith is sufficient to saluation; or if it be sufficient, you must then shew, that by a weake faith is vnderstood a faith only probable and fallible in it selfe, and not only compared to another stronger faith: otherwise you will be found to say no more to the purpose, than when your Objection spoke of faith of miracles, in stead of Faith necessary to saluation. And yet we must take such proofes as these for demonstratiue refutations and conuincing arguments; for so you stile these your reasōs.

50. No better than these, is your Argument [Pag. 37. N. 9.] where you say: He commands vs to receyue them, who are weake in faith, and therby declares that he receiues them. I know not what command of our Sauiour you meane, vnless it be that of which S. Pauie speakes (Rom. 14.1.) Insirmum in side assumite, non in disceptationibus cogitationum: Take to you the infirme in faith, not in disputations of cogitations. Which Protestants translate, Him that is weake in faith, receyue you, but not in doubtfull disputations: And in the margent; or, not to judge his doubtfull thoughts: And in the argument before this [Page 74]Chapter: men may not contemne nor condemne one an other for things indifferent. All which shew, that the Apostle speakes not of Christian Faith, necessary to saluation, which cannot be esteemed a thing indifferent, but of some other matter, as indeed he doth; namely, of a doubt amongst Christians at that tyme, about eating certaine meates, once forbidden to the jewes, which some made a scruple to doe, others not; and so weakness in faith signifyes only a scruple, or tenderness of conscience, for this particular case; and therfor the Apostle in the next verse mentions the contrary perswasion of others: One belieueth that he may eate all things, that is, is not troubled with scruple of conscience in this matter. What is this to our question, about faith, and belief, of Articles necessary to be belieued by all Christians? Or how doth this proue, that, Faith common to all Christians, is sufficient to saluation, though it be but probable, and not certaine? I beseech you consider what you say. In the matter of which the Apostle speakes, the comparison was not, betweene a strong and weake faith, or belief of the same thing, as our case goes, but the question was of contrary perswasions, one part judging that to be lawfull, which the other held to be vnlawfull. And therfor if you will haue your Objection rightly applyed, or not to be clearly impertinent, a man weake in Faith must be he, who belieues Christian Faith not to be true, nor the practise of it lawfull: And doe you belieue such a weake Faith to be sufficient to saluation? or that the Apostle will haue vs receyue them who are weake in Faith in that sense, that is, who belieue errours contrary to Christian Faith? Your passing from Faith necessary to saluation, to Faith of Miracles, was an inpertinency: but this your substituting to Christian Faith, errours contrary to it, hath too much of the Impious.

51. Object: 3. (Pag. 326. N. 4.) You goe forward in impugning the infallibility of Faith, in this manner: If this doctrine were true: then seing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty, it will follow, that euery least doubting in any matter of Faith, though resisted and inuoluntary, is a damnable sinne, absolu tely destructiue, so long as it lasts, of all true and sauing Faith: which you are so farr from granting, that you make it no sinne at all; but only an occasion of merit.

52. Answer: First, Your selfe must answer this objection: In those, whom, (Pag. 36. N. 9.) you say Gods spirit, may, and will aduance beyond the certainty of euidence to the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know what they did not belieue: And to be as fully and resolutely assured [Page 75]of the Gospell of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ him selfe with their eares &c. In the Apostles; to whom you grant (P. 329. N. 7.) an absolute Certainty in respect of the things of which they were eye-witnesses: In those who belieue (as you Pag. 330. N. 8. pretend to do) that it is infallibly Certaine, that we are firmety to belieue the truth of Christian Religion: In those who haue an absolute Certainty of this Thesis, All which God reueales for truth, is true, which (Pag. 36. N. 8.) You say is a proposition euidently demonstrable, or rather euident of it selfe: In those who denying Christian Faith to be certaine, yet pretend to be certaine that it is probable, as you and your fellowe Socinians doe: In all these Certaintyes, I say, you must answer, what you object against vs. For, seing as you say, not any the least doubting can consist with Certainty, it will follow, that euery least doubting in the rehearsed truthes (all which concerne matter of Faith) though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sinne, absolutely destructiue, so long as it lasts, of the belief of the Gospell; and particularly of that part, of which the Apostles were eye-witnesses; of the certainty that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmi [...]y to belieue the truth of Christan Religion; of the assent to this truth, All which God reueales for truth, is true (which is a most fundamentall article of Faith▪) of certainty, that Christian Religion is probable: all which I conceyue you will be farr from granting, seing that euen according to the Doctrine of Socinians, there can be no actuall sinnes meerly involuntary.

53. But this is not all. It must follow by your argument, that euery Doubt taken properly, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sinne, absolutely destructiue, so long as it lasts, euen of the Probability of Christian Faith, which being destroyed, there remaynes no belief at all (either certaine, or probable) of Christian Religion. I sayd, every doubt taken properly, which is, when our vnderstanding finding not sufficient reason to belieue one side, more than another, can only doubt of both, without a positive assent to either, as contrarily it happens in a probableact, which assents determinatly to one part, though not without feare that the contrary is true. For, it is cleare, that such a doubt which abstracts from a positiue assent to either part, is absolutely incompossible with a probable perswasion, which positiuely determines to one side, (it being a manifest contradiction, for the same act to abstract from both parts, and yet to determine vs to one) and so every such Doubt, must be, as you sayd against vs, a Deadly sinne. But why do I seeke after other instances, than this most obvious and common to [Page 76]all Christians, euen to Socinians? You pretend to belieue that Christian Religion is true, and consequently cannot judg, at the same tyme, that it is false: Therfor this judgment, Christian Religion is false, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sinne, absolutely destructiue, so long as it lasts, of all faith where by you belieue Christian Religion to be true. And so in vaine you sayd, no least Doubt could consist with the contrary certainty, as if your objection did touch only our infallibility of Faith, wheras it ouerthrowes euen your belief that Christian Faith is true. I do therfore end as I began, and say, you (yea all Christians) must answer your objection.

54. Secondly; directly to your Objection of a doubt resisted and involuntary, and yet destructiue of infallible Faith, because any the least Doubting cānot consist with certainty: I answer: If he who doubts, conceiue his doubt to be against that which he belieues by Faith, and yet doth not resist, such a doubt is voluntary, and destroyes true Faith, but makes nothing for your purpose, who speake of a doubt resisted, and not voluntary. If he resist, then he rejects the Doubt, and so doubts not, but retaines his former vndoubted assent, with advantage of a new victory against the temptation to doubt; and it is nonsense, or implicatio in adjecto, to talke of doubting, and resisting, at the same tyme. For if it be resisted, it is not accepted, nor is it a doubtfull assent, or secunda operatio intellectus, which affirmes or denyes by way of judgment, but is a meere apprehensio, or prima operatio of our vnderstanding, representing to our mynd a doubt, which by resistance is stopt from passing to a judgment; as when Dauid sayd [Psalm. 52.1.] The foolish man sayd in his hart; there is no God; these words, there is no God, affirmed by the foolish man, were in respect of the Prophet, represented only by way of apprehension, and not of judgment, or affirmation that it was so: And Aristotle teaches, that men may perhaps think they belieue express contradictions, when indeed they only apprehend them without any assent, or belief. How easy then is it to conceyue, that a doubt offered, but resisted, neither is, nor can be destructiue of infallible Faith, seing the resistance is cause that we do not doubt? But now, if we suppose that such a doubt is not perceyved to be repugnant to our Faith, one may assent to it, because one may belieue contradictions, not vnderstood to be such, as dayly experience teaches; but then that doubt is not voluntary as it stands in opposition with Faith, (in regard that no such opposition is represended to our vnderstanding) [Page 77]and so it is no way destructive of Faith.

55. I need not say any more for confutation of this Objection. Yet I deeme not this an vnprofitable Demand; vpon what ground you say, Euery least doubting in any matter of Faith (if it be infallible) though resisted and inuoluntary, is a damnable sinne, absolutely destructiue, so long as it lasts, of true and saving Faith? For, one act formally excludes only that which is naturally opposite to it; and therfor why should One involuntary and inculpable Act be destructiue of all sauing Faith? If the Doubt be voluntary and culpable, it destroyes, I grant, all true Faith, both Habituall, and actuall: though euen in this case of sinfull errour you must say the contrary, and so ouerthrow your owne argument: you, I say, who [Pag. 368. N. 49.] teach, that a voluntary and sinfull errour against one Article of Faith may stand with true Faith, and belief of other Poynts, and the contrary doctrine you tearme a vaine and groundless fancy; and therfor in your Principles one may belieue with absolute certainty some Poynts, (V. G. that there is a God, or that Christian Religion is probable, which you pretend to belieue with certainty; or the other examples which I specifyd aboue out of your owne doctrine) and yet doubt of euidency in some other poynt of Faith; and so you must grant, that euery inuoluntary doubt is not destructiue of all infallible and certaine Faith, as you assumed in your Objection, which now your selfe must answer.

56. Beside, you speake very confusedly in affirming, that euery least doubting, though resisted, would be destructiue so long as it lasteth, of all true and sauing Faith, without declaring, whether you speake of Habituall or actuall Faith, or of both. Acts, if we speake naturally, and Philosophically, do not directly and immediatly destroy the contrary Habit, and therfor there is no reason why an involuntary doubt, should destroy the Habit of Faith. But you will say; At least euery Doubt is destructiue of the Act of Faith. because we cannot at the same tyme doubt of that thing which we belieue with Certainty, whether such a doubt be voluntary, or inuoluntary. I Answer: I haue sayd already, that an inuoluntary doubt, or a doubt resisted, is not receyued in our vnderstanding, and therfor cannot exclude the contrary certaine Act of Faith. Yet if for declaring the matter, we will make an impossile supposition, that an errour inuoluntary, ād consequently no sinne, is receyued in our vnderstanding, I say, in that case it will not destroy the act of Diuine Faith, morally; but only physically (by a naturall in compossibility, [Page 78]or incompatibility in the same subject, or vnderstāding) it hinders the exercise therof; which may happē, not only by such a doubt as we speake of, but also by other lawfull occasions, as sleepe, serious application to some business requiring a perfect attention, or by a resolution not to exercise an Act of Faith in some circumstances, wherin one knowes he is not obliged therto; and yet these thinges, and the like, which for the tyme exclude an Act of faith, must according to your Objection, be damnable sinnes, as destructiue of all both infallible and probable Faith, because they are incompatible with the actuall exercise of any either certaine, or only probable Assent. In how many respects is your Objection proued to be weake, and contradictory to your selfe?

57. Object: 4. In the same Pag. 326. N. 4. you say: The same is invincibly confirmed by euery deliberate sinne that any Christian committs; by any progress in charity that he makes. For, seing as S. Iohn assures vs, our faith is the victory which ouercomes the world, certainly if the faith of all true belieuers were perfect, (and if true faith be canable of no imperfection, if all faith be a knowledge most certaine and infallible, all faith must be perfect; for, the most imperfect that is, according to your doctrine, if it be true, must be most certaine, and sure the most perfect that is, cannot be more than most certaine) then certainly their victory over the world, and therfor over the flesh, and therfor over sinne, must of necessity be perfect; and so it should be impossible for any true believer to committ any deliberate sinne; and therfore he that committs any sinne, must not thinke himselfe a true believer. Besides, seing faith worketh by Charity, and Charity is the effect of faith: Certainly if the cause were perfect, the effect would be perfect, and consequently as you make no degrees in faith, so there would be none in Charity, and so no man could possibly make any progress in it, but all true believers should be equally in Charity, as in faith you make them equall: and from thence it would follow vnavoidably, that whosoever finds in himselfe any true faith, must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity: and whosoever discovers in his Charity any imperfection, must not believe that he hath any true faith.

58. Answer: I haue had the patience to set downe your Objection at large, (though the full substance therof might haue bene exprest in very few words) notwithstanding your repetitions, inferences, and inuolutions, which I will indeauour to vnfold by degrees, and lay open the weakness of your Argument, in these following reflections. [...], In conformity to your owne Argument, you must grant, that your [Page 79]victorie ouer the world, the flesh, and sinne, as also your Charity, cannot be perfect, because your faith being acknowledged to be only probable, is supposed by your selfe to be imperfect, since you say, we must hold that our faith is perfect, because we belieue it to be certaine. And who would not detest such an imperfect faith, if it were but for this cause, that your Charity cannot be perfect with it, if your owne Argument be good? And heere you put me vpon a necessity to add a new Argument for the infallibility of Faith, to all the reasons alledged aboue. For, seing men may by Gods assistance ouercome the world, and be perfect in Charity, both which according to you, are measured by Faith, it followes that they may haue perfect faith; and if you can say, as you doe; If the cause were perfect, the effect would be perfect, much more I may say; if the cause be imperfect, the effect (which neuer exceeds the perfection of the cause) must be imperfect; and so if your faith, which you say is cause of our victory, and of Charity, be imperfect, the effect must be imperfect. And therfore, seing the effect of victory, and Charity in Christians, may be, and in many de facto is perfect, it followes clearly, that they haue not a meere probable, but an infallible perfect faith.

59. Secondly, your Objection still goes vpon that ground, that there are no Degrees of perfection in Faith; which I haue demonstrated to be euidently false, and that all Faith is of the same kind, but not of the same Degree; besides that it hath the imperfection of obseurity, and for that cause doth not so conuince the vnderstanding, but that it may be resisted, and the contrary belieued: And therfor you cannot inferr vpon equality of faith in all true Belieuers, that our victory of the world must be equally perfect in all.

60. Thirdly, if you had cited the testimony of S. Iohn as you ought, the weakness and impertinency of your Argument would haue clearly appeared. His words are; [1. Ioan: 5. V. 3.4.5.] This is the Charity of God, that yee keepe his commandements, and his commandements are not heauy. Because all that is borne of God, ouercomes the world: and this is the victory that ouercomes the world, our faith. Who is it that ouercomes the world, but he that belieues that Iesus is the son of God? Where it is cleare, that S. Iohn speakes of faith with Charity, which is called by Diuines Fides formata, faith informed with Charity, by which we keepe the commamdements, as he sayth [V. 3.] This is the Charity of God, that yee keepe his commandements. [Page 80]And [V. 4.] All that is borne of God, ouercomes the world: Now we are borne or regenerated to a new life, or Being, by justifying Grace, and the Gifts which are giuen with it, of Faith, Hope, and Charity; and therfor he adds; This is the victory which ouercomes the world, our faith, that is, such a faith as the Regenerate, or they who receyue a new life, haue, or a liuing faith working by Charity.

61. Fourthly, according to this true sense, your Objection is wholy impertinent, as speaking of a naked faith taken alone as it goes before Charity; as like wise it doth not proue that such a naked faith doth necessarily bring with it Charity, and so is the victory ouer the world. For, what consequence is it to say? Faith as informed with Charity, cannot be without Charity, or is the victory ouer the world. Therfor Faith taken by it selfe, and considered only according to its owne nature and essence, and abstracting from Charity, is inseparable from Charity, and the victory ouer the world. An Argument, no better than this: The Body with the soule, liues and makes a man: Therfor the Body of it selfe liues and makes a man; which is directly against S. Iames [C. 2. V. 26.] saying: Euen as the body without the spirit, is dead; so also faith without workes, is dead. This appeares also by what S. Iohn sayth (V. 5.) Who is he that ouercometh the world, but he that belieueth that Iesus is the son of God? Which must be vnderstood of him who so belieues in our Sauiour, as that he loues him, and keepes his commādements. For, meerly to belieue Christ is the son of God, is but that Faith, which Protestants call Historicall, and unanimously teach that it doth not justify, nor is inseparable from Charity, nor is the victory ouer the world. And therfor interpreters vnderstand this Text of a liuing Faith, or joyned with Charity. And so this place makes against you, and proues that Faith of it selfe (though neuer so infallible) is not the victory ouer the world. But the weakness of this mans Socinian probable Faith forces him to reele from faith to faith; From Historicall, to Faith of working Miracles; From justifying faith to Historicall; From both to a No-faith, that is, to a faith so weake, that by it a man may belieue Christian Faith not to be true, as we noted against you by occasion of the text of S. Paule about receyuing him who is Weake in faith.

62. Fistly, the whole force of your Argument must rely vpon the truth of this Proposition; Whatsoeuer the vnderstanding proposes to [Page 81]the will with absolute certainty, as a thing to be done, the will cannot but follow the prescript of the vnderstanding; and therfor if Christian Faith be infallible certaine, our will must embrace what it proposes, and so ouercome the world and sinne, and be perfect in Charity, which Principle to be palpably false, is euident by Reason, Experience, Faith, and by the Doctrine of all Protestants, at least for as much as concernes that kind of Faith wherof we speake, that is, Historicall Faith. Reason dictates, that notwithstanding the certainty of Faith, the vnderstanding may propose profitable, and delightfull objects. For these thinges haue no repugnance, but do consist togeather: It is certaine that this object is honest, and that the same object is vnpleasant, repugnant to sence, honour, profit, &c: and therfore the will placed betweene these different motiues, the vnderstanding, which proposeth them all, hath no power to necessitate the will to any of them, it being represented with as great certainty, that such an object is difficult, vnpleasant, or vnprofitable, as it appeares honest and Vertuous. Neither doth certainty in the vnderstanding, necessitate vs more to embrace it as honest, than the like certainty doth necessitate vs to fly from it as vnpleasant; especially considering that Faith is obscure, and alluring objects are cleare, euen to sense; Faith respects things to come, or els aboue the reach of our vnderstanding; humane objections and objects are of things present, or not farr of. Befides, if certainty did impose a necessity, it must follow, that at the same tyme we must effectually embrace the same object as honest, and fly from it as vnpleasant, which is impossible. We must therfor say, that it remaynes in the will, to determine it selfe to which part it pleaseth, hauing sufficient direction from the vnderstanding for either side. Sinnes were wont to be diuided into sinnes of Ignorance, and of Knowledg, that is, committed by Ignorance, or with knowledge: but now if certaine knowledg of good necessitate our will to embrace it, no sinne can consist with certaine Knowledg of good, and so all sinnes are sinnes of ignorāce: and that old distinction of Philosophers, and Diuines, must be corrected by this your new Philosophy and Diuinity.

63. As for Experience, who knowes not, or rather who teeles not, that vulgar saying: Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor. I see that which is better, and like it well, but follow that which is worse.

64. Lastly, Faith teaches, that we are indued with Free-will, which may embrace, or reject, what is proposed by the vnderstanding: Wherin [Page 82]all Protestants, for our present purpose, agree with Catholikes, both in regard that they yeald Freedom of will to Angels, and Adam before their fall, who yet belieued by an infallible assent, that there was a God, and other mysteryes reuealed to them; as also because they profess that Historicall Faith (and of that Faith we speake) doth not justify, nor infallibly bring with it Charity. Therfor it doth not necessitate our will. Yea euen those Protestants who deny Free-will, hold not that the will is necessitated by the Act of Faith which directs, but by the effectuall particular motion of Grace, which irresistably drawes it. Therfor from certainty of Faith, we cannot inferr a necessary cooperation of the will, or perfection of Charity. You pre [...]d to belieue, or know, wit [...] [...] to be obayed in all things, and co [...]equently, that the wo [...]d [...] ouercome; you may know with certainty, that the morall [...] [...]ments, forbidding Actions repugnant to the light, and law of natura [...]eason, are to be kept: You cannot but know certainly, in generall, that all sinne is to be auoyded: You teach, that men euen by euidence of reason, are to belieue with infallible certainty, that they are firmely to belieue the truth of Christian Religion, and consequently that all the commands of that Religion are to be obserued: These things, I say, you belieue, or know with certainty: and yet I hope you will not grant, that you cannot but obey God in all things, and so ouercome the world; that you cannot but keepe all the morall commandements; that you cannot but auoyde all sinne; that you cannot but obserue what is commanded in Christian Religion: Therfore you must yield, that certainty in the vnderstanding, doth not inferr a necessity in the will; and so still be forced to answer your owne argument.

65. In the meane tyme, I cannot but note, how many damnable Heresyes you here ioyne togeather, though contrary one to an other, and euen to your selfe. For example, of Pelagianisme, that the will may performe whatsoeuer the vnderstanding certainly iudgeth ought to be done, which takes away the necessity of Grace, or motion of the Holy Ghost. I sayd, that the will may performe; but wheras you teach further, that it must of necessity do so, you fall from Pelagianisme to a contrary extreme, by taking away Freewill (which the very Socinians defend so farr, that, to make men free, they make themselues sacrilegious, in denying that God can see the future free Acts of our will) [...] you take it away in a worse manner than Caluinists doe, who [Page 83]conceaue it to be taken away by supernaturall efficacious Grace, or by infused justifying Faith: but your doctrine must take it away, by euery certaine knowledg, though it be but naturall, or by Historicall fallible Faith, and historicall Faith according to Caluinists, is common to all Christians. And yet in another respect, you fall into the very quintessence of Caluinisme, and puritanisme, that. Faith once had, can neuer be lost: which is against moderate Protestants, and yourselfe; with Socinians. For, if Faith necessarily giue vs perfect Charity, and the victory ouer the world and sinne, Faith it selfe which cannot be lost without sinne, is absolutely secured.

66. Neither can you answer, that your Objection goes not against all Faith, but only impugneth an infallible Faith. For you grant certainty of faith to diuerse, as we haue obserued aboue, concerning them who are aduanced to certainty, and spirit of obsignation, or Confirmation, which are as many according to you, who liue as they belieue; as also [...] [...]postles, and those who heard our Sauiour preaching, or [...] miracles; yea whosoeuer only belieues or knowes with certainty, that there is a God, and that he is to be obeyed, must of necessity, worke according to his knowledg, which if he doe, he cannot loose the belief of God, nor euer become an Atheist, which, I feare, is too much against experiēce. You must also agree with Calvinists in their Doctrine, that only Faith justifyes, seing as they, so you, teach, that it necessarily brings with it charity, and good works. And to this same purpose, I still vrge your owne assertio, concerning those to whom you granta Certainty in Faith, and I suppose you will not grant that such men are justifyed by faith only, and other Christians by some other meanes, V. g. justifyng inherent Grace, or with Faith, Hope, and Charity: and therfor you must deny, that perfect Charity must necessarily flow from an fallible Faith.

67. Sixtly you speake very imperfectly in saying▪ Charing is the effect of Faith, if therfor the cause Were terfect, the effect would be perfect. For, the Habit of Charity, being infused immediatly by the Holy Ghost, is not the effect of Faith, or of any Acts of our will, no nor of the Acts of Charity it selfe. But if you speake of the Acts of Charity, they proceede from the Habit of Charity; from the particular helpe and assistance of the Holy Ghost and from our will eleuated by such assistance, which is freely offered by God, and freely accepted by the will, but in no wise proceeds necessarily from Faith, whose office is only to direct and [Page 84]shew the object, without any necessitating influence. S. Paule sayth [1. Cor: 13.13.] The greater of these is Charity, and who euer heard that the effect can be more perfect than the cause? Or if you say, that Faith is not the totall, but only a partiall cause of Charity, which therfor may be more noble than Faith it selfe, then, by what logike can you infer, that Charity must be perfect because it is the effect of a partiall cause, lesse perfect than it selfe? Rather according to your discourse, joyned with the words of S. Paule, that, Faith is less perfect than Chatity, we must say thus: Charity is the effect of Faith, and therfor feing the cause is imperfect, the effect must be imperfect; which is directly opposite to your inference, and intent. Besides, from what Philosophy can you learne, that when some cause, or condition, concurrs to the production of an effect, not by it selfe, but necessarily requires the company and cooperation of other causes, that such a cause, or condition, can by it selfe alone produce such an effect? But let vs suppose Faith to be the cause of Charity, and by it selfe alone sufficient for mouing our will to Acts of Charity, doth it follow, that it must do so irresistibly, and in such manner as that it remaine not in the power of our will either to exercise no act at all, or to produce a more or lesse perfect one? Remember your owne distinction and words to Char: Maintayned, in your Pag: 172. N. 71. That, a man m [...]y fall into some errour, euen contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently, and not irr-sistibly, so that he may learne it if be will, not so that he must and shall vh [...]ther he will or no. N [...]w who can a sertaine me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature? Or how can you po [...]y [...] it with your d [...]tr [...]ne of free w [...]ll in beti [...]uing, if it be [...]ot of [...] nature? And you hauing endeauoured to proue this out of diuerse places of Scripture, conclude; God may teach, and the Church not learne; God may lead, and the Church be resrachry and not follow,

68. Now I retort this Argument, and aske, why a man may not fall into some errour contrary to the truth which he was taught, and which once he belieued, and committ some sinne which Faith dictates not to be committed, if Faith teach him only sufficiently and not irresistibly; and who can assertaine me, that the direction of Faith is not of this nature? and so faith may teach and lead, and man be refractory, and not follow, and faith remaine without perfect Charity.

69. Seuenthly, you say Pag: 329. N. 7.] that, the Apostles belieued with certainty, and [P. 37. N. 9.] you grant that they who liue as [Page 85]they belieue, will be advanced to as great a certainty, as those which heard the Gospell from Christ himselfe, which saw with their eyes &c: and yet I suppose you will not deny, but that the Apostles, and those other, might encrease in Charity, and that, Faith in their vnderstaning did not impeach the freedom of their will, without which there can be no obedience, which as your selfe teach [Pag. 329. N. 7.] can hardly haue place where there is not possibility of disboedience, as there is not when the vnstandin? does all, and the will nothing: Therfor certainty of belief, stands well with freedom to exercise Acts of Charity with great or little perfection, or to committ deliberate sinnes.

70. But let vs suppose, that Certainty in Faith, brings with it a necessity of Charity: what will follow, but that such necessitated acts shall not be capable of prayse, or reprehension, which can only belong to free Actions: and then how can Charity heere be perfect, if vpon just account, and due consideration, it be not so much as laudable? Or how can any be commended for not committing a deliberate sinne, which he cannot committ; I sind in holy Scripture prayse giuen, and eternall glory assured to him, who could transgress, and did not transgress; doe euill, and did it not. [Eccli: 31. V. 9.10.] but who will commend one, qui non potuit transgredi & non est transgressus, non potuit facere mala, & non fecit; Who could not transgress, and did not transgress, could not committ evill, and did not committ it? From whence followes, that your Assertion (if faith were infallible, Charity must needs be perfect) is so farr from being true, that it should not be so much as laudable, that is, the Habit of Charity, could not produce any Actions capable of prayse: or if such Actions be free, then it is in the power of the will to exercise perfect, or remisse ones, or to reject Gods Grace, and abstayne from all such Acts, and so Charity shall not necessarily be perfect. Thus your Principles, and sequels, plainly destroy themselues.

71. Eightly, you teach, That, if faith were infallible, it should be impossible for any true be [...]euer to committ any d [...]ikerate sinne, and that in such a man, Charity must be perfect, and as we make no degrees in faith, so there would be none in Charity, and so none could possibly make any progress in it, but all true belieuer's should be equally in Charity. In which words I find such a connection, as in true language should be called a manifold contradiction. First, in saying that such a man could not committ any deliberate sinne, you seeme to suppose that he may committ indeliberate [Page 86]sinnes, which being sinnes, must be voluntary and free, (though not always so perfectly voluntary, as those which are commited with full deliberation or reflection) and worthly of blame, and punishment, and he who committs, them in that respect, loues God with lesse perfection than an other, who is more vigilant, and committs such sinnes more seldome, and so all true belieuers should not be equall in Charity. 2. If infallible faith take away freewill, it depriues men of power or possibility to committ any sinne at all, though neuer so indeliberate: Or if it leaue them with freewill, they may committ deliberate sinnes. Therfor the difference, in this place, of deliberate and indeliberate sinnes, is destructiue of it selfe. 3. Wheras you say, that as we make no degrees in faith, so there would be none in Charity: I answer; you should haue sayd the direct contrary; namely, that seing you are not ignorant of our Doctrine, that there be degrees in Charity, it must follow that we also belieue that there are degrees in faith, the Habit wherof is encreased by euery Act of of Charity; as you also [Pag: 37. N. 9. teach, that faith is encreased by devout and humble prayer, and sincere obedience. But this poynt puts me vpon a demonstratiue Argument against you, in this manner. You teach, that if one liue as he belieues, the spirit of God will advance him to a certainty in faith. Now let vs propose two persons: th [...]one indued with infallible Faith, who according to your Objection, must therfore be so perfect in Charity, that he can make no progress therin, nor committ any deliberate sinne: th [...]other with your probable fallible faith, who yet by humble and deuout prayers, and sincere obedience, makes continuall progress in Faith and Charity, and therfor will at length arriue to a degree of Faith, and Charity, equall to him, whom we at first supposed to be indued with infallible Faith, and perfect Charity, which being not insinite, the other by dayly improuement of faith, and Charity, may and must at length arriue to the same degree of perfection; And then all your Objections against vs for our infallible Faith, do instantly fall heauy vpon your selfe, who will be demanded, whether such a man can committ any deliberate sinne, or make any progress in Charity? If he cannot do either of these, why do you infer [...] as absured in vs, the very same sequele which your self must grant? If he can do both these things, that is, committ deliberate sinnes, and make progress in Charity, why do you say that he cannot doe so? I do not see, how you can auoyd this Dilemma, and contradiction with your selfe.

[Page 87]

72. Ninthly, you say: Whosoeuer fynds in himselfe any true faith, must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity: and whosoeuer discouers in his Charity any imperfection, must not belieue that he hath any true faith. But these or like sequeles, follow from your owne, not from any doctrine of ours. For, seing on the one side you teach, that by Prayer, progress in Charity, and obedience, men will arriue to the spirit of obsignation and perfect faith; and on the other, that, faith is the cause and measure of Charity, it followes, that whosoeuer fynds in himselfe such a perfect faith, (which he must haue, because he is obliged to liue as he belieues) must presently perswade himselfe, that he is perfect in Charity: and whosoeuer discouers in his Charity any imperfection, must not belieue that he hath such a faith, as he should haue. Euery one therfor is obliged to haue a perfect faith, both because he is obliged to liue as he belieues, and to make progresse in Charity, which will be the cause of a perfect faith; as also because Faith, according to you, is the cause of Charity, and so because we are bound to keepe the commandements, and to haue Charity, which is the effect, we must haue faith, which is the cause: and so vpon a double account, we are obliged to a perfect faith, both as Charity, or liuing as we ought, is the cause of faith, and as faith is the cause of Charity, to which all being obliged, they are by consequence obliged to procure the cause therof, which you say is faith. Wherfor vpon the whole matter, your probable faith, remaines only to such, as keepe not the Commandements, nor liue as they belieue; which if they did, God would rayse them higher to a certainty. For, thus you say, [Pag: 37. N. 9.] God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith, if it be truing, and effectuall to true obedience; and; rhat for sincere obedience God may and will rayse men higher to a Certainty. Therfor a primo ad vltimum, the weakest Faith, if it be effectuall to obedience, will bring men to certainty: Therfore none de facto want such a certainty, except they whose faith is not liuing nor effectuall to obedience. And further; seing you confess yours not to be certaine, it must follow, that it is not effectuall to true obedience; otherwise it would be improued to a Certainty.

73. But this is not all, that occurrs to be sayd in this poynt. Remember your doctrine [Pag: 379. N. 70.] and elswhere, that repentance necessary to saluation, requires effectuall dereliction and mortification of all vi [...]es, and the effectuall practise of all Christian v [...]rtues, which whosoever performes, exercises very perfect obedience, and shall not fayle of [Page 88]being raysed higher to a Certainty of faith. Therfor your fallible faith will remaine only in sinners. For, if one either giue himselfe to sincere obedience, and so fall not into great sinne, or truly repent by your kind of repentance, he must passe to a certainty of Faith, and so all in state of saluation, both Saints, that is, who haue not sinned mortally, and repentant sinners, cannot want the spirit of Obsignation, as you call it, and certaine Faith. Why then do you deceiue the world, and delude poore soules, with a fallible faith, or perswasion, and not absolutely proclaime to the world, that infallible Faith is necessary, since euen according to your grounds, it is necessary for all sorts of people;

74. Now all your Objections, and my Answers, being vnpartially considered, let any man judge whether your Arguments deserue such epithetons as you giue them, of demonstratiue, conuincing, inuincible, cleare, and the like; and what reason you had to say [P. 326. N. 4.] These, you see, are strang, and portentuous consequences, and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleare and apparent, which shewes this doctrine of yours, which you would fame haue true, that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility, to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth, but euen to all Religion and Piety, sit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or Charity. And therfor I must intreat and adjure you, either to discouer vnto me (which I take God to witness I cannot perceaue) some fallacy in my reasons against it, or neuer herafter to open your mouth in defence of it.

75. I answer: S. Paule had good reason to say, Scientia inflat: [1. Cor: 8.1. Knowledg puffeth vp; it is a poysonous quality, making the person swell, his Arguments, and all that he does or sayes, swell; and emptyness appeare greatness; it is a multiplying glasse, that stirrs vp in mens fancyes, strang and huge apparitions, from nothing. But Sir, remeber that your Objectiōs make no more against Vs Catholikes, than Pictestāts, who profess Christiā Religion to be infallible, and, I belieue, will not belieue your bare word, that these consequences are cleare: Christian Historicall Faith is infallibly true: Therfor it must be lost by any least doubting, though resisted, (that is, by a no-doubt, as I haue shewed) it must be incompatible with any deliberate sinne: it must bring with it Charity so perfect, that we can make no progress therin. For my part, I do in no wise vnderstand such deductions, nor how any man of vnderstanding should take them for good, as I haue [Page 89]shewed more than sufficiently; though yet I must add, that though the consequences which you pretend to deduce from our doctrine, be strange and portentuous in themselues, yet to you they ought not to seeme so or at least ought not to be publikly avouched by you for such. For, besides that the very same consequences, which you deduce from our doctrine, follow from your owne assertions, (as I haue proued) answer, I beseech you these few Demands. 1. Whether it be more convenient, that true Diuine Faith should be inconsistent with an involuntary Doubt, (which you inferr against vs as a great absurdity) or, that it should be compatible with a voluntary, sinfull, damnable, not only Doubt, but positiue assertive Errour; as you teach (Pag. 368. N. 49.) and call the contrary doctrine a vaine and groundless fancy, as I observed aboue; or that it may stand with an assent, that probably it may be false; or, with a preparation of mynd to forsake it, if seeming better reasons offer themselves against it, thā you conceive your selfe to haue for it, which, for ought you know, may happen, as I shewed above. 2. Whether it be worse, that all should of necessity be perfect in charity, by an Infallible Faith, or that none can be perfect; as it ineuitably followes out of your Tenets put togeather; That, Faith is only probable and fallible, and yet that the measure of our victory over the world, and of our charity, must be taken from Faith, which you say is the cause of charity, and the effect cannot be more perfect than the cause. Besides, your brethren the Calvinists believe, that men are justifyed by a sirme and certaine Faith that they are just, and that charity and good works are inseparable from such a Faith: and then seing according to your owne words, if the cause be perfect, the effect must be perfect, and that the cause of charity is (in their opinion) perfect, that is a sirme and certaine Faith, it followes, that their charity must of necessity be perfect, and that no just man can make any progress therin. 3. Whether it be more absurd, to hold an impossibility of committing any deliberate sinne; or to belieue that all our best actions are deadly sinnes. Or whether it be worse to teach, that one cannot breake the commandements, which you, against all truth, impute to vs, Or, that he cannot keepe them, euen with the assistance of Gods grace, which is the common doctrine of Protestants. Thus then, it is not our doctrine, but the errours of you and your brethren, that must in many respects make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or charity. And what a Paradoxe is this? A weake and fallible Faith makes men diligent in making [Page 90]Progress in charity, and a strong infallible Faith is fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity, as yon are pleased strangly to speake, directly against the admonition of S. Peter, (1. Pet: 5.) cui resistite fortes in Fide, whom resist, strong in Faith: Not weake in Faith, as he should haue spoken according to your portentuous Divinity. Morover, since you object against vs, that, if Faith be infallible, men cannot increase in charity, and yet yourselfe, (Pag. 36. N, 9.) Teach, that the spirit of God being implored by devout and humble prayer and sincere obedience, may and will by degrees advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence, and make them know what they did but believe, (Which certainty, according to your Objection against vs, must be cause that they cannot increase in charity) what will follow, but that, men will be not only careless, but fearfull to pray, to be obediēt, and exercise acts of charity, least by degrees they be advanced to a certainty of knowledg, and losse of freewill, and a period in charity, and be as it were settled in termino, while they are in via, or without possibility to grow better by any endeavour of their owne, or exhortations or others; And thus their obedience and charity being cause of such a certainty in Faith, and this certainty hindring all progress in charity, we must inferr a primo ad vltimum, that charity is most prejudiciall and pernicious to charity itselfe. These are the fruites of your Doctrine, and consequences of your Objections against vs.

76. Object 5. To prove that Faith cannot be certaine, if it be obscure, you spend many words (Pag. 329. N. 7.) but bring no reason besides a meere resolute assirmation, that it is so. And (Pag 330 N 7.) you say, Looke what degree of assent is infused into the vnderstanding, at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object. And for you to require a strength of credit beyond the appearance of the objectes credibility, is all one as if you should require me to goe ten myles an houre vpon a horse that will goe but five; to discerne a man certainty through a mist or cloud that makes him not certainly discernable; to heare a sound more clearly than it is andible; to vnderstand a thing more fully than it is intelligib [...]e: and be that doth so, I may well expect that his next injunction will be, that I must see somthing that is invisible, heare somthing mandible, vnderstand something that is [...]holly vnintelligible. And; That I should believe the truth of any thing, the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith requirea of me, this, I say, far any man to be [Page 91]bound to, is vnjust, and vnreasonable, because to doe it is impossible. And N. 8. I deny that it is required of vs to be certaine in the highest degree, infallibly certaine of the truth of the things which we believe; for this were to know, and not believe, neither is it tessible vnless our evidence of it, be it naturall, or supernaturall, were of the highest degree. And Pag. 371: N. 51. The evidence of the thing assented to, be it more, or lesie, is the reason and cause of the assent in the vnderstanding. Heere you see what he affirmes, without so much as offering to giue any reason or proofe And therfor.

77. I Answer: as you object by meerly affirming, so I might answer, by simply denying. But I will alledge a proofe aboue all exception; which is, your owne doctrine delivered more thā once. (Pag: 36. 37. N. 9. The spirit of God may and will advance his servants higher, and giue them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence. And: P. 112 N. 154. Gods spirit, if he please, may worke more, a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of euidence. Behold a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of evidence. (And, Pag. 37. N. 9.) To those that believe, and liue according to their Faith, God gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how, they know not) what they did but belieue. If these men know, (though how, they know not,) why do you impugne divine Faith, which is the Gift of Gods Spirit, and all good Christians believe, and in a manner feele to be infallible, because you do not vnderstand or know the how, or manner therof? Why do you not say: I believe infallibly; and though I know not how, yet it is sufficient that I know my Faith is from God, who by his particular Grace, can doe more than I can comprehend? Why are you not as reasonable to the old infallible Faith, taught, and believed by all Christians, as you are to your new proselytes, who, you say, will be advanced to a certainty above evidence? And wheras you say, that this were to require you, to goe ten miles vpon a horse that will goe but sive; to heare a sound more clearly then it is audible; to vnderstand a thing more fully than it is intelligible, in stead of proving, you do but begg the question, and suppose that nothing is certainly intelligible or credible, vnless it be evident, which is the very poynt controverted, and we affirme, that our vnderstanding, may in this sense go ten miles, though in darke; may intellectually heare a found which is audible, and vnderstand a thing intelligible, though not evident. And in this manner your selfe must say, and answer for those who [Page 92]you believe may attaine a certainty beyond euidence; and yet you will not yield that they vnderstand a thing more fully, than it is intelligible. And then you must retract what you sayd, that, to believe a thing, the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me, is vnjust, because to do it is impossible. S. Paule defines Faith to be Argumentum non apparentium, an Argument of things which appeare not: Therfor thinges not evident, must be believed: and to say, that they cannot be believed with certainty, though they do not appeare with evidence, is injurious to Gods Power, as if he could not by his speciall supernaturall Grace and motion, which is required to every Act of Faith, supply the want of evidence, Neither can there be shewed, any such essentiall conjunction, betweene evidence, and certainty, that this may not consist without that. There may at first sight appeare some shew of repugnance, betweene evidence and obscurity; certainty, (which seemes to exclude all possibility of feare that the contrary be true) and probability (which of it selfe excludes not such feare) and yet your selfe say (pag: 25. N. 29.) whether knowledg and Opinion touching the same thinge, may stand together, is made a Question in the schooles: and it is very commonly held, that they may stand togeather, in the same vnderstanding: neither are there wanting very learned men who thinke they may be consistent in the same Act. If then evidence and obscurity, certainty and probability, may stand togeather, what ground can you bring to prove an incompatibility between Certainty, and Obscurity, which carry no shew of repugnance, in any kind of those Oppositions, which Logicians haue set downe? Perhaps you have an erroncous imagination, as if the obscurity of Faith ought to be compared with the evidence of science, or Demonstration, as a privation with the opposite forme, as darknees with light, or as ignorance or Errour with knowledg; and so conceive it impossible, that such obscurity can sland with certainty, which must needs bring with it some intellectuall light. Which imagination you seeme to discover (Pag: 325. N. 2.) where you say, That Science and knowledg properly taken are synonym [...]us tearmes, and that a knowledg of a thing absolutely vnknowne is a plaine implicācy I th [...]nke are things so plaine, that you will not require any proofe of thē. In which words you must suppose, that the objects of faith are absolutely vnknowne, as if Faith were a privation of all light or knowledg: and yet with little consequence to your owne words, (Pag: 25. N. 29. you say:) whether knowand [Page 93]Opinyon touching the same thing, may stand togeather, is made a Question in Schooles: which according to you, could be no question, if opinion had no knowledg or light at all, because the knowledg of a thing absolutely vnknowne, is, say you, a plaine implicancy. Which words, as I sayd of Faith, seeme to suppose, that Opinion is a privation, or negation of knowledg, or evidence. But in this, you are much mistaken. For the obscurity of Faith, ought not to be compared with the light of science, as a privation which the forme opposite to it: But as a thing less perfect, with an other more perfect, or as a small light with a greater. Every Act of our vnderstanding, which is the eye of our soule, must involve some light, or clearness, as every, even imperfect sight of our corporall eye, is endued with some evidence, which, in comparison of a more perfect sight, or act of seeing, may be tearmed obscure, though in it selfe, it hath both some clearness, and an absolute certainty, that it sees that object which it sees, though dimly, and as it were through a mist, or in some darkish place. As S. Peter (Ep: 2. C. 1.19.) compares Faith to a candel shining in a dark place. Which words do excellently express, both the shining or light, and also the obscurity of Faith. Since then Faith is endued with some light, or evidence, no reason can be given, why such a light may not be joyned with certainty by the most prudent command of the will, which keepes our vnderstanding stedfast to the Object, and the Grace of the Holy Ghost, which elevates, and enables it to an Act proportionable to the Divine Revelation, and Testimony. Nay rather, abstracting from that which we fynd by vsuall, and naturall course of thinges, or experience, (which ought not to be put in ballance with Gods Omnipotency, it is harder, to give a reason, why they may not stand togeather naturally, than to imagine with any colour of reason, that they are incompossible, by a supernaturall assistance, and grace of the holy Ghost. And therfor Divines with the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas only say, that our vnderstanding without evidence, is like to a stone out of its center, but not that it cannot possibly be made sure of any truth without it.

78. But, you say, [P. 330. N. 7.] Whatsoever effect is wrought meerly by meanes, must be are proportion to, and cannot exceed the vertue of the meanes by which it is whrought: as nothing by water can be made more cold than water, nor by fire more hot than fire, nor by honey more sweet than honey, nor by gall, more bitter than gall,

79. The Answer to this Objection is very easy, by granting all that [Page 94]you inferr, if you meane that the Assent which we giue meerly for the Arguments of Credibility, considered in themselues, is no stronger than those Arguments can make it. This we willingly grant, but absolutely deny, that Diuine Faith is measured by those Arguments, and not by Diuine Reuelation, and Gods supernaturall Grace. And so your example of sire, water, honey, and gall proue only, that Christian Faith cannot be stronger than Gods Testimony, and Grace, which are the causes of Faith; which no man denyes. This Answer is easy and cleare; but yet by way of supererogation, I will add these considerations, which will shew that your examples make against your selfe. First: A thing by water may be made more cold than water &c: if water, or fire be eleuated by Diuine Power, to worke above their owne naturall forces, and produce in an other subject, more intense cold or heate, than they haue in themselues. For, as by miracle fire may be hindered from producing any heate, or other naturall effect, so it may be enabled to produce more perfect effects, than it could haue done by its owne power. Thus all your instances may be applyed against your selfe; That as fire may be eleuated to effects aboue it selfe, so our vnderstanding may be raised aboue the assent, which it can receiue from the Arguments of Credibility, by a pious and prudent command of the will, and particular motion of the Holy Ghost. 2. Although the heate of fire, coldness of water &c: considered in themselues, cannot make any thing more cold, or hot, than themselues, yet if they be taken as propertyes of water or fire, ordayned to make way to introduce the substance of fire and water in to other subjects, they concurr as dispositions to the production of thinges more perfect than themselues, that is, the substantiall formes of water and sire, in such sort as those formes cannot but follow those dispositions: and in this sence, a thing by heate may be made more hot than the heate it selfe, in regard that such a heate, necessarily introduceth fire which is the fountaine, and eminently more hot, than any particular heate proceeding from it. Now in proportion to this your example. I say, that, as such Accidents as are dispositions to a substantiall forme, concurr to an effect more noble than themselves; so Arguments of Credibility, as they poynt at Diuine Revelation (as S. Iohn shewed a greater Authority than his owne, by bearing witness of our Saviour) may dispose vs to an Assent of Christian Faith, wherby they may truly be sayd to exceed themselves, as they are meerly considered in themselves, without further relation to a more [Page 95]noble Forme, or Assent, to which they prepare vs; because they informing our vnderstanding, that there is good reason, and obligation, to belieue some Truths as witnessed by God, the will is obliged, vnder payne of damnation, effectually to move the vnderstanding, to the belief of such Articles, with an Assent proportionable to that supreme Authority, which the vnderstanding not being able to doe by its owne forces, and God commanding nothing impossible, there cannot be wanting the necessary concurrence and speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost, for producing an Act of Divine, supernaturall, infallible Faith.

80. Your selfe say, [Pag: 331. N. 9.] There is abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to belieue the truth of Christianity: I say, so credible, that though they cannot make vs evidently see what we belieue, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence, the Articles of it deserue credit, and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God, and therfor, say I, with an Assent more certaine than can proceed from humane Authority, or meere Arguments of Credibility. 3. Divers great Philosophers hold, that Accidents are not only dispositions to the substantiall Forme, but reall causes therof, immediatly producing it, as they are instruments of the Principall substantiall Agents, and make vp as it were one totall Cause with them. According to this Philosophy, your instances make against your selfe, and do confirme the Doctrine of some grave Diuines, that if we consider the Arguments of Credibility, not as they are mere inducements, precedent, and disposing to Faith, only shewing the object therof, but as they integrate the Formall object, or Divine Revelation, we must say, that they are elevated and raised vp to be part of the object, and immediately causes of the Assent of Faith, not of their owne force or taken alone, but joyned with, and conveying to our vnderstanding the Divine Revelation, wherby they grow to be the voyce and testimony, or as it were reall letters of God speaking to men by them. For which cause, S. Paule [Heb: 2.4.] affirmes miracles to be a certaine speach of God, saying: God withall witnessing by signes and wonders: where Theodoretus sayth, that God by miracles giues a testimony to preaching Miracles therfor are in some manner the very voyce of God. Whence, S. Austine [Ep: 49. Quaest. 6.] absolutely sayeth: God speakes by wonderfull workes. And [Marc: vlt:] it is God cooperating, and by signes confirming what they spoke. And [Ioan 10.] Christ our Lord sayd concerning his owne workes; They give testimony of me. Therfor, [Page 96]say these Divines, Arguments of Credibility, may be raised above themselues; And so your examples, and instances make nothing against vs, but do confute your selfe. Which contradicting of your selfe, as in many other occasions, so heere also forces me to stay yet a little, in observing a couple of your contraryetyes, or contradictions.

81. The one is in these words, [Pag: 329. and 330.] If you speake of an acquired, rationall, discursive faith, these Reasons which make the object seeme credible, must be the cause of it. If you speake of a supernaturall infused faith, then you either suppose it infused by the former meanes, and then that which was sayd, must be sayd againe, &c: Do not these words distroy themselues? Or what sense can they beare? An acquired, rationall, discursive faith caused by Reasons which make the object credible, and a supernaturall infused faith, infused by the former meanes, that is, by the Reasons which make the object seeme credible? If an acquired, rationall, discursive faith be caused by the Reasons which make the Object credible, and a supernaturall infused faith be caused by the same meanes and Reasons, how do you distinguish a faith so acquired, from a faith in the same manner infused? Or rather, how can it be a supernaturall infused Faith, if it be caused by the same meanes, by which an acquired discursive faith is caused? In a word how is the same faith acquired, and supernaturally infused.

82. Your other contradiction, I fynd (Pag: 36. and 37. N. 9.) And (Pag: 112. N. 154.) in both which places, you grant to some a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence, and yet in the former places you say of such men, that the spirit of obsignation or confirmation makes them know what they did but believe. Now if they know that they did but believe, how is their certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence, seing you put such a knowledg as is more than Faith, which implyes obscurity, and consequently such a knowledg is indued with evidence; and yourselfe (Pag: 325. N. 2.) saie: He that doth barely and meerly believe, doth never know, and that science and knowledg are synonymous termes. Therfor you speak of an evident knowledg; and then I say how comes their certainty of adhesion to be beyond their certainty of evidence; Or how can you speake of a certainty of adhesion beyond the certainty of evidence. Who (Pag: 330. N. 7.) say, That power which infuseth into the vnderstanding assent, must also infuse Evidence into the object: and looke what degree of assent is infused into the vnderstanding at least the same degree of evidence, must be infused into the object; [Page 97]If at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object which is in the Assent, how can the Assent be beyond the evidence of the object?

83. To these your contradictions, I add your saying [Pag: 37. N. 9.] What God gives as a reward to believers, is one thing: and what he requires of all men, as their duty is an other: and what he will accept of, out of grace and favour, is yet an other. To those that believe, and live according to their faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of Obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how, they know not) what they did but believe. He requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the Motives and Reasons enforcing to it: he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith, if it be living and effectuall vnto true obedience. In which words, you distinguish three sorts of persons, (which yet according to your owne words, must fall to be the same) First of them who believe and live according to their faith; 2. of those who performe what is required of them as their duty; and 3. of them whose faith God will accept out of grace and favour. For, to believe, and live according to their faith; to have a faith effectuall to obedience, and working by love, is required of all as their duty; such a faith, I say, is required, and will be accepted by the law which God hath prescribed [Matt: 19. V. 17.] If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the Commandements, and no less will be accepted out of Grace and Favour; Otherwise it should be, and not be required: and so your triple distinction of persons destroyes it selfe, and ends in one only sort.

84. I would gladly go forward to your other Objections; but first you must give me leave to confute and turne against your self a saying, which hath too much of the insolent and injourious against true Christian Faith, in these words, (Pag. 329. N. 7.) Your Faith, if you please to have it so, let it be a free, necessitated, certaine, vncertaine, evident, obscure, prudent, and folish, naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall assent.

85. All this groundless insulting, I will retort against your self, evē out of your owne grounds, ād joyntly will shew that it belongs nothing at all to our Faith. First, your Faith is free, and necessitated. Free, if you will stand to your owne express words (Pag: 329. N. 7.) that there is obedience in it, which you say can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of dis [...]b [...]dience▪ as there is not where the vnderstanding dres all, and the will nothing. And yet that it is Necessitated, is a cleare truth; since [Page 98]you professe to believe with no more certainty, than is evidently deduced from evident Premises, and the vnderstanding is no less necessitated to give assent to a probable conclusion, drawē evidētly from knowen probable Premises, than it is forced to an assent of a certaine Conclusion deduced from demonstratiue Premises. (Pag: 331. N. 8.) having sett downe some Principles, which you judg to be evident and certaine, you conclude thus; From all these Premises, this Conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certaine that we are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion. And in the same (Pag. 331. N. 9.) There is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity: I say, so credible, that though they cannot make vs evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome and prudence the Articles of it deserue credit, and ought so be accepted as things revealed by God. therfor there is convincing evidence for the truth of Christian Articles, as farr as you believe them. And (Pag: 36. N. 9.) you affirme that God requires of all, that their Faith should be proportionable to the motiues and Reasons enforcing to it. If the Reasons enforce to the Conclusion, how is it not necessitated; Therfor your Faith is both free according to your owne words, and necessitated according to truth in your grounds; which is also convinced by your saying, that certainty cannot be without evidence: And therfor the Faith of your choise elevated people, which you say is certaine, must be evident, and consequently not free. But our Faith raysing vs above the evident Arguments of Credibility, remaines free, and is in no sense necessitated.

86. II. For your epithetons, of being certaine and vncertaine: we profess and believe nothing more certainly, than that our Faith is certaine, and not capable either of falshood, or vncertainty. But your Booke is Chiefly imployed to prove your Faith not to be certaine, and we are well content it be so. Yet if you remember what you say of your choysest persons and best Believers, that they have a certainty beyond evidence, and yet expressly teach, that certainty cannot be greater than the evidence of the Object, (as I shewed above) it followes clearly, that you give them a certainty which your self hold impossible fot any to have, and so you give them certainty and not certainty, that is a meere contradiction, or nothing.

87. III. For the denominations of Evident; Obscure; They agree not to our Faith, which we believe to be Obscure, not evident, as I have explicated elswhere. But for your Faith, according to your grounds [Page 99]it must be both evident and obscure, Evident, because you believe with no greater assent than you receyve by evident Arguments; and accordingly you say (Pag: 329. N. 7.) Nothing is more repugnant, than that a man should be required to give most certaine credit vnto that which cannot be made appeare most certainly credible: And if it appeare to him to be so, then it is not obscure that it is so. According to which, we must say, that nothing is more vnreasonable, than that a man should be required to give probable credit, vnto that which cannot be made appeare probably credible; and if it appeare to him to be so, then it is not obscure that it is so. Therfore in your grounds, you must believe nothing to be true, but according to the evidence which you have therof; And therfor (Pag. 330. N. 7.) you say in express termes: That I should believe the truth of any thing, the truth wherof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me, this, I say, for any man to be bound to, is vnjust and vnreasonable, because to do it is impossible. Therfor your Faith is evident in respect of the truth which you believe, according to the measure of your belief therof. If you did believe with certainty, a truth for which you haue only probable arguments, such a truth I grant were not evident in proportion to your assent; but since you believe the truth of Christian Religion, only with a probable assent, and that you have evidence of those Reasons, which cause your assent to such a truth, it is cleare that your Faith is evident to you as farr as your belief goes. And yet you must hold it to be obscure; otherwise it could not be capable of obedience; as you pretend it to be; because you say there can be no obedience where the vnderstanding doe all, and the will nothing.

88 Fourthly: You say, our Faith is prudent and foolish. That our Faith is prudent, and yours imprudent, Charity Maintayned hath proved (Chap. 6.) and yet since you will say, that yours is prudent, it will remayne imprudent indeed, and prudent in your words. And indeed none but an enemy to Christianity, can affirme our Faith and Religion to be imprudent, if he consider well, what a deadly wound he gives to Christian Religion, by saying so. For, take from vs the Marks of a true Religion which are conspicuous in our Church only, you depriv [...] Christianity of Motives or Arguments of Credibility, sufficient to move or oblige men to embrace it; where, I pray, except in our Church, can be found Antiquity, perpetuall Existence, and Visibility, Vniversality of Tyme, and Place, Succession of Pastours, Vnity, and effectuall [Page 100]meanes to conserve it, Sanctity, Miracles, Efficacy in the conversion of Gentils, (which the Ancient Fathers vrge as a strong argument to prove the truth of Christian Religion, against the Iewes) Amplitude, and Glory of Christs Kingdome, fortold by the Prophets: The very name Catholike, with other Notes of the true Church, which evidently agree to Our Church, and are manifestly wanting to Protestants, vnless they begg or vsurpe them from vs, as the carefull Reader must confesse, if he do but severally reflect on them. While therfor you blaspheme, the Faith of our Church to be foolish, you do in fact lay the same imputation on Christian Religion. Seing then you cannot without prejudice to Christian Religion, affirme our Faith to be imprudent, and foolish, you must in good consequence be content that your owne beare that denomination. Besides, (Pag. 331. N. 10.) you say. Charity maintayned was mistaken in making prudence not only a commendation of a believer, and a justification of his Faith, but also essentiall to it, and part of the definition of it, and did as if one being to say what a man is, should define him a reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy. For as all Astronomers are men, but all men are not Astr [...]nomers, and therfor Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men, where nothing should have place but what agrees to all men: So though all that are truly wise, (that is, wise for eternity) will believe aright, yet many may beleeve aright which are not wise. By which words you give vs to vnderstand, that it would not be very much prejudicall to your Faith to be imprudēt; as it is nothing against the difinition of a man, that he is not an Astronomer. And who would be of that Religion, and Faith, which confessedly may be imprudent and foolish, wheras true Christian Faith must needs be prudent. And you were too forward [to say no worse] in saying so freely, that Charit: Maintayned was mistaken therin. For, if Prudence be required to every true act of morall vertue, shall we say, that true Faith may be imprudent? But you speake according to your skill in Sociniā and Pelagian Heresy, which denyes that every act of true Faith is essentially supernaturall, and requires the supernaturall motion of the Holy Ghost, for the production therof. For how can an act supernaturall in essence, be imprudent, since this is alwayes a defect only of man, and can never be a speciall effect of God, as all things supernaturall in essence are? Or how can the Holy Ghost particularly move, and inspire vs, to an inprudence, and lightnes [...] of h [...]rt, the Holy Scripture saying, [Eccles. 19.4.] He who soone believes, is light of hurt? We [Page 102]may, I grant, think, that to proceed from the Holy Ghost, and to be a true act of Faith, which is not such; but that a belief (all things considered) imprudent, should be indeed a true act of Faith, produced by the Habit of Faith, and particular impulsion of the Holy Ghost, you have not prooved, notwithstanding your confident avouching that questionless your Adversary was mistaken; wheras yourself was much mistaken in your example of having skill in Astronomy, which is a quality wholy impertinent and vnnecessary to a man, as prudence is not to the acts of our Faith: Though yet indeed you will find, that Char: Maintayned [Part. 1. Chap: 6. N. 8.) Where he gives the Definition of Faith, doth not so much as mention Prudence.

89. But what do you answer to the argument of Char: Maintained, (Chap: .6 N. 32.) That the Faith of Protestants being imprudent and rash, cannot proceed from Divine motion and grace. Nothing, but that by this reason all they that believe our Religion, and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it, must be condemned to have no supernaturall Faith. Thus you, (Pag 381. N. 74.) which is nothing to our purpose. For we speak not of ability, to explicate or declare to others the reason of our belief, which belongs to gratias gratis datas, but of gratia gratum faciente, or prudence in order to the accepting Faith for ourselves, which hath a great latitude, and that which to one may be prudent, would not be so to another, indued with more knowledg naturall, or supernaturall, God judging of every one according to his particular disposition, and readiness to embrace the object of Faith in the measure of vnderstanding communicated to him. But if indeed, all thing considered, we suppose him to proceed imprudently, his assent shall not be a true Act of Faith, for the reasons I a [...]edgd, though such an assent, wherby the ice is as it were broken in order to such an object, may Facilitate towards a true act of Faith, when circumstances being altered, a prudent judgment may take vp the place of the former imprudent perswasion, and so God concurr with his Grace to a true assent of Faith. Neither doth it import, that he who proceeds imprudently, cannot discover in himself any difference between a prudent, and imprudent assent; because in these hidden intellectuall acts, we must proceed by Reason, not by experience; as when a Pastor or Prelate proposes to his subject two objects as matters of Faith, wherof one is indeed revealed, the other not; the subject with equall prudence assents to both, without experiencing any difference in those assents, and yet that which [Page 102]respects the object not truly revealed, cannot be an act of Faith, but the other may be such. And by this is answerd what you have (Pag: 331. N. 10.) of this same poynt.

90. But now, that the Faith, even of your most select believers is imprudent, appeares by your owne Principle, that, certainty in assent cannot be without proportionable evidence in the Object. and yet you say, they have certainty beyond evidence. Therfor they have a Faith in an impossible manner, and so are imprudent in an eminent degree.

91. Your common probable Faith to be imprudent, I have proved hertofore, because it being only probable, yet you pretēd to preferr it be fore any reason to the contrary, though seeming never so certain and convincinge, which certaine is against all reason. Therfor your Faith is imprudent; and seing you hold it to be prudent the conclusion must be, that it is prudent, imprudent.

92. Before I leave this poynt, I must aske you two little questions or Doubts. First; what you meane in these words: Though all that are truly wise,) that is, wise for eternity) will believe aright, yet many may believe aright which are not wise. If they be truly wise who are wise for eternity, and whosoever believe aright, are wise for eternity, (for as much as concernes their belief) we must conclude, that all who believe aright, are truly wise; How say you then that many who believe aright, are not wise. Secondly, I reflect a little on your words (Pag: 381. N. 74.) I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certaine and as prudent as the Faith of Papists; and therfore if these be certain groundes of supernaturality, our Faith may have it as well as yours. But I beseech you, where did Cha: Maintayned say, that certainty and prudence are grounds of supernaturality? He sayd only, that, if Faith be imprudent and rash, it cannot proceed from Divine Motion and grace. Is it all one to say, if an Action be prudent, it must be supernaturall [which if it be taken in generall, is false, since an action may be prudent, and not supernaturall] and; it cannot be supernaturall if it be not prudent? What Logick teaches an vniversall Affirmative Proposition to be simply converted, and from this, All supernaturall Acts are prudent, to inferr; Therfor all prudent Acts are supernaturall: just as we have heard you saying. (Pag: 331. N. 10.) All Astronomers are men, but all men are not Astronomers. But it is more than tyme that I goe forward.

93. Fiftly: you calumniate our Faith, as a naturall and supernaturall vnnaturall Assent. I answer, Our Faith is supernaturall, not naturall [Page 103]or vnnaturall (though I wish you had explicated what you meane by vnnaturall) because we acknowledg it to be Donum Dei, the Gift of God. But your faith is indeed naturall, being but a probable Conclusion evidently deduced from evident probable Premises, as I have declared hertofore; and yet in words you pretend that it is supernaturall, [Pag. 409. §] And though; where you seeke to vindicate yourself from being guilty of taking away supernaturall Faith; and (Pag: 325. N. 2.) where you will seeme to admitt the necessity of a supernaturall belief; though in truth you do not, but with Socinians deny that our Sauiour hath merited any thing for mankind, and so we receive no Grace by Christ; which was that which the Holy Fathers, and Generall Councelles did detest and condemne in wicked Pelagians Wherby it appeares, that your Faith is indeed naturall and yet being pretended to be supernaturall, comes to be naturall, and supernaturall. And further, I pray you remember, what I observed above, concerning an imaginary Faith of yours. (Pag: 329, and 330. N. 7.) acquired and infused, which is in effect naturall, and supernaturall. I must therfor conclude, that not our, but your Faith is a free, necessitated; certain, vncertaine; evident, obscure; prudent and folish; naturall, and supernaturall assent.

94. Object: 6. [Pag: 37. N. 9.] As nothing availes with God but faith which worketh by loue: so any faith, if it be but as a graine of must araseed, if it worke by love, shall certain [...]y availe with him, and be accepted of him. Therfor a faith absolutely certaine is not necessary to salvation.

95. Answer. First: To worke by love, is to keepe Gods Commandements, of which one is, that we believe as we ought. And for you to suppose, that we believe as we ought, by a faith only probable, is a meer begging of the Question which you should prove. For, although we should suppose that God had commanded no works at all, (as we distinguish works from Faith) yet there would remayne a most strict command, vnder payne of damnation, to believe whatsoever is sufficiently proposed as a truth revealed by God, with an Assent proportionable to the Supreme Authority, and above all other Assents, that is, with an infallible and immoveable Assent. And indeed of this Precept of Faith, we may truly say; This is the first Commandement; the performance wherof is the first step to all merit, Obedience, Salvation; And as in the eating of the forbidden Apple, though the matter in it self might seeme small, yet the transgression was a grievous sinne, [Page 104]because that command was imposed by God to testify his Supreme Dominion over man; so this Precept of Faith, exacting the Obedience of our vnderstanding, which is the first Power of our soule, doth of it selfe oblige in a most severe manner, even abstracting from all further works proceeding from the will by direction of the vnderstanding by Faith. For, God is Lord of our vnderstanding, and exacts obedience of it, no less than of our will.

96. Secondly, what you say of faith, if it be but as a grain of mustardseed; is both impertinent, and against yourself. For, as I noted already, those Texts of Holy Scripture clearly speake of Faith of Miracles▪ as of removing a mountaine into the sea; and not of Christian Faith necessary to salvation. Neither by a faith like to a graine of mustardseed, is vnderstood a weake, probable, and fallible faith, like yours, but rather a very great and effectuall belief, able to remove mountaynes, and trees, as appeares [Matt: 17.20. Luc: 17.6.] And S. Paule [1. Cor: 13.] shewes, that this faith of Miracles is very perfect, saying, If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountaines &c: And our Saviour declares that it is firme and certaine, (Matth: 21. V. 21.) If you shall have faith, and stagger not, not only that of the figtree shall you doe, but and if you shall say to this mountaine, Take vp and throw thy self into the sea, it shall be done. And (Matt: 13. V. 31.32.) The Kingdome of Heaven is like to a mustardseed, which a man tooke and sowed in his field. Which is the least surely of all seeds: but when it is growen, it is greater then all hearbs, and is made a tree, so that the foules of the aire come, and dwell in the branches therof. Where, learned interpreters say, that, A mustard seed, especially in Syria, growes to be a tree, so that the birds of the ayre do dwell in the branches therof. This shewes, that as faith is compared to a graine of mustardseed, because it is little to sight, so also it is compared to it for Vigour, Vertue, Acrimony and Strength, and in no wise for Weakness, or any similitude with your fallible belief. Which yet appeares more cleare, by the demand of the Apostles, (Matth: 17. V. 8.) Why could we not cast him out? And our Saviours answer N. 19. by reason of your incredulity; and then brings that similitude of a mustardseed, as contraposed to their faith which was but little: and so the Arabicus hath, propter parvitatem sidei vestrae, by reason of the littleness of your faith. But it cannot be doubted that the Apostles had some faith, as you pretend to have, [Page 105]otherwise they would not have attempted to cast out the Divel; Therfor the Faith which our Saviour compareth to a mustardseed, and opposes to theirs, must be great and strong in it selfe, though small in appearance, or litle in comparison of some higher degree of Faith. All which confutes your fallible faith, and shews not only that you bring this example of a graine of mustardseed impertinently, but also that it makes clearly against yourself, even though it were vnderstood of Faith necessary to salvation; in as much as it signifyes a great strength of Faith, as farr different from your Faith, as Certainty is distinguished from meer Probability. Besides I pray you consider, that Faith of Mirakles, is not that Faith which workes by love, and so according to your owne words, cannot avayle with God, and can avayle with Men only to shew how weake, impertinent, and contradictorious to yourself your Arguments are, wherby you would proue, that a weake Faith is sufficient for salvation, when a strong Faith of the same kind (that is, of Miracles) is insufficient. This Answer serves for your other instance of Him that cryed, Lord I believe, help my incredulity. [Mar. 9.24.] Where it is manifest, that He spoke of Faith of Miracles, namely, of having his son dispossessed of the Divell.

97. Now if your probable Faith be not sufficient to worke by Loue, and fulfill other commandements; which you cannot deny, who measure Charity by Faith, as the effect is measured by the cause, and as you say, (Pag. 326. Nꝰ 4.) Seing, as S. Iohn assures vs, our Faith is the victory which overcomes the world, if the Faith of all true believers were perfect, then their victory over the world and over sinne, must of necessity be perfect: Much more we must say, according to your ground; seing Faith is the victory which overcomes the world, if your Faith be not sufficient for salvation, your victory over the world and sinne cannot be sufficient for that end. This according to your principles.

98. But in true Divinity, I say; seing God hath so ordained, that Faith should be the roote and beginning of all Obedience, and Merit, if it self be not a Faith sufficient for salvation, how shall it be the beginning of Obedience or keeping all the other Commandements? God proceeds with order, and gives not Charity, where he finds not Faith. I proved in the Introduction, that the Commandements are not kept without Gods particular efficacious Grace, which will not constantly be given to him who wants true Christian Faith. Nay, if justifying [Page 106]Grace be necessary for keeping the Commandements for long tyme (as I proved there) much more true Faith must be required to doe it. Morover, besides our obligation to keepe the morall law, or of Nature, there are precepts binding vs to the exercise of supernaturall Acts of infused vertues; for example, Hope, and Charity: and how shall our will exercise supernaturall Acts, without a proportionable supernaturall direction in our vnderstanding? And if the direction be supernaturall it cannot be erroneous, but infallibly true, and essentially different from your fallible assent, as I have bene forced often to repeate. But why do I endeavour to prove this poynt? I cannot doubt but if you did believe that Christian Faith necessary to salvation, must be in it selfe infallible, by the particular precept of faith, you would not say, a Faith only probable could be sufficient to worke by Love, and keepe the other Commandements. For, if it be supposed; not, be a true Faith, how can it worke by Love, or live, it selfe being more than dead, that is, an Assent which never lived the life, or nature, or essence of divine Faith. Surely, if a Faith believed to be infallible, doth not restrayne the wills and Passions of men, what liberty would they take, if their thoughts could tell them, that Christian Religion may prove not true, as in your doctrine it may?

99. Object: 7. (Pag. 37. N. 9.) Some experience makes me feare, that the Faith of considering and discoursing men is like to be crackt with too much strayning: and that being possessed with this false principle, that it is in vaine to belteue the Gospell of Christ, with such a kind or degree of assent, as they yeld to other matters of Tradition: And fynding that their Faith of it, is to them vndiscernable from the belief they giue to the truth of other storyes, are in danger either not to belieue at all, thinking not at all as good as to no purpose, or else, though indeed they do belieue it, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityes, as fearing they haue not that without which it is impossible to please God and obtaine etern all happyness.

100 Answer: Blessed be our Lord, who hath given vs his Holy Grace, not to follow our owne fancyes, nor be tossed with every wind of Doctrine, but to rely on the Rocke of the Catholike Church, where I never knew any such men as you talke of, nor do thinke any such can be found amongst Christians no; nor amongst any who profess any Religion, (which all men conceyve to signify a true and certaine way of worshiping God) And who would make choyse of a Religion which he did not certainly belieue to be true? vnless he be [Page 107]first tempted and tainted with Socinianisme, wherby being by his meere probable belief placed betweē the certainty of Catholike Faith, and the No-religion of Atheists, is in evident danger, or rather in a voluntary necessity to fall into Atheisme, vnless he rayse himselfe to our Catholique Certainty, as he may doe by the assistance of Gods Holy Grace, which is neuer wanting to vs, if we be not wanting to it. Do not yourself teach, that if one liue as he believes (and every one ought to liue as he belieues) he shall be raysed by the spirit of God to a certainty? If then every one may, and ought to make his beliefe sure by a certainty, what place remaynes for agonyes, and perplexityes? Contrarily, by resting in a probable Faith, he hath manifest, and necessary cause of perplexity, and most just feare, least he want that which Catholiks, Protestants, and all who profess any Religion, hold most certainly necessary to salvation; and that it is a grievous sin, even to deny such a necessity, especially the contrary pernicious errour being maintained by a few, who dare not openly declare of what Sect they are. Men, in the question concerning Eternity, of Happiness, or Misery, are obliged to seek and embrace the safer way, of which, by meere probability, they cannot be assured, but must be still seeking further and further; and never finding Certainty in their naked probabilityes, are deservedly, by their owne fault, cast into most reasonable agonyes, and perplexityes. Not then our belief of the certainty of Christian Faith, but your contrary Heresy, puts men in danger not to belieue at all, thinking not at all as good as to no purpose. For since, as it were by the instinct of nature, men conceiue Religion to be a certainly true, and right worship of God, you, who would perswade them, that no such certainty is possible, cast them with good reason vpon a necessity of believing nothing at all; wherin as every body will detest your impiety, so I cannot but wonder at your inconsequence to yourself in the other part of these your words; (or else though indeed they do belieue it, yet to thinke they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityds,) seing. Pag. 357. N. 38. you resolutely say (to Charity Maintayned) of your selfe: I certainly know, (and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know) that I do belieue the Gospell of Christ, as verily, as that it is now day, that I see the light, that I am now writing: and I belieue it vpon this Motiue, because I conceyue it sufficiently, abundantly superabundant [...]y proved to be Div [...]ne Revelation. And after a few lines you say in generall; If no man can err co [...]cerning what he believes, then you [Page 108]mu [...] give me leaue to assure myself that I do belieue. Do not all these words, ād more to be read in the same place, declare, that, in your opinyon, whosoeuer belieues with certainty, is certaine that he belieues with certainty, yea and (which is more) he is certaine vpon what Motiue he belieues? How then do you say; They are in danger, though indeed they belieue, yet to thinke they do not, and to cast themselues into wretched, &c: By the way; it is to be observed, that heer you profess to belieue the Divine Revelation not for it self (as the Formall Object of Faith should be belieued) but for precedent Inducements, which therfor are the Formall Object of our Faith, and so it is no Theologicall vertue, nor a Divine Assent, as I said hertofore.

101. But above all, who can indure your saying, that considering and discoursing men fynd their faith of the Gospell of Christ to be to them vndiscernable from the belief they give to the truth of other storyes, and yet you suppose, and labour to prove, that such a faith is sufficient to salvation? I appeale to the conscience of every Christian, whether he fynds not in his soule, an assent to what he reads in Holy Scripture, farr different, and of another kind, and higher nature, and greater strength, than the credit he gives to other storyes. If your considering and discoursing men, have not such a feeling of Scripture, and the Gospell of Christ, they are no Christians; nor ought we to forbeare, the declaring how necessary infallible Faith is, for any panicall feare of this Pharisaicall scandall. Rather, we are obliged to declare the truth, least we become accessary to their perdition, which none can avoyd who deny the certainty of Christian Faith and Religion, and rest in the false confidence of fallible probable faith, of the same kind with the belief which they give to the truth of other storyer. I know you rely much vpon that Axiom, that the Conclusion followes the weaker Premise, but I did not imagine (as I touched hertofore) you would so farr betray yourselfe, as to hold, that, If one have probable Motives to believe that some Man did testify a truth, and have equall Motives that God reveales, or witnesserh the same thing, his assent to that truth, as it is witnessed by God, is not greater than his belief therof, as it is witnessed by man, if the Reasons for which I believe it is witnessed by God, and by Man, be of equall strength; and yet you must say so, if with your considering men, you believe the Scripture and Gospell of Christ with the same kind of belief which they give to the truth of other storyes. Wherin I confess you would [Page 109]doe, as all Heretiques are wont, pass from ill, to worse. For, [Pag: 141. N. 27.] you say: 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 Copyes: such I meane for the kind, though it be farr greater for the degree of it. And [Pag: 62. N. 24.] speaking also of the incorruption of Scripture, you say: I know no other meanes to be assured herof, than I have that any other Book is incorrupted. For, though I have a greater degree of rationall and humane Assurance of that than this, in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible, That the Scripture hath bene preserved from any materiall alteration; yet my assurance of both is of the same kind and condition, both Morall assurances, and neither Physicall or Mathematicall. But now you are very carefull, that the faith of considering men, be not crackt by too much straining, but be left to believe the Gospell of Christ with such a kind of assent as they yeald to other matters of tradition, and is vndiscernable from the belief they give to the truth of other storyes. Vnhappy men, who relying on their considering, and discoursing, forget, that Christian Faith is a Gift infused by the Holy Ghost, and not to be measured by meere humane Motives, or Rules of logick. I will not loose tyme in telling you, that a thing may be crack't by too much strayning, not only by excess, (as you vnjustly accuse vs) but also by way of Defect, such as your weake faith is in order to the true saving Faith of Christians, which being reduced to probability, looseth its very Essence and Kind.

102. Object: 8. Against these words of Charity Maintayned Chap: 6. N. 2.] (Allmighty God having ordained man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes, it was requisite, that his vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End, and meanes by a supernaturall knowledg. And because if such a knowledge were no more than probable, it could not be able sufficiently to overbeare our will, and encounter with humane probabilityes, being backed with the strength of flesh and bloud; it was further necessary, that this supernaturall knowledg should be most certaine and infallible; and that Faith should believe nothing more certainly, then that it selfe is a most certain Belief; and so be able to beare downe all gay probabilityes of humane Opinyon:) You argue thus, [Pag: 327. N. 5.] Who sees not that many millions in the world forgoe many tymes their present ease and pleasure, vndergoe great and toyisome labours, encounter [Page 110]great difficultyes, adventure vpon great dangers, and all this, not vpon any certaine expectation, but vpon a probable hope of some future gaine and commodity, and that not infinite and eternall, but finite and temporall? Who sees not, that many men abstaine from many things they exceedingly desire, not vpon any certaine assurance, but a probable feare of danger that may come after? What man ever was there so madly in love with a present penny, but that he would willingly spend it vpon a little hope that by doing so be might gaine a hundred thousand pound! and I would faine know what gay probabilityes you could devise to disswade him from this Rosolution? And if you can devise none, what reason then or sence is there, but that a probable hope of infinite and eternall happyness provided for all those that obey Christ Iesus, and much more a firme faith, though not so certain, in some fort, as sense or science, may be able to sway our will to obedience, and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Bloud can suggest to avert vs from it? Men may therfor talke their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty, but did they generally belieue that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternall felicity, but as firmely and vndoubtedly as that there is such a Citty as Constaninople, nay but as much as Caesars Commentaryes, or the History of Salust, I belieue the life of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are. Thus therfor out of your owne words I argue against you: He that requires to true faith, an absolute and infallible certainty, for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overbeare our will &c: imports, that if a less degree of faith were able to doe this, then a less degree of faith may be true and divine and saving faith: But experience shews, and Reason confirmes, that a firme faith, though not so certaine as sense or science, may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections: And therfor it followes from your owne reason, that faith which is not a most certaine and infallible knowledg, may be true, and divine and saving faith.

103. Answer. First; when Charity Maintayned wrote against D. Potter, who, with other Protestants, and Catholiques maintaynes the infallibility of Christian Faith, he never dreamed of any necessity to proue such an infallibility; and therfor he touched that point incidently, and not of purpose, as a thing presupposed, not to be proved. And therfor what you object against vs, is to be answered by those whom you call Brethren.

104. Secondly; I might speedily and easily answer in one word; That, your Objection doth not so much as touch the Argument of [Page 111] Char: Maintayned, which was, that vnless Faith were infallible, it would not be able to beare downe all probabilityes of humane Opinyon, offering themselves against it, that is, it could not be constant and permanent; and therfor must either be infallible, or end in none at all. Now your Objection tends only to proue, that a probable faith may be sufficient to sway our will to obedience, in respect of other Precepts concerning Workes or Manners: all which though we did grant, yet such a faith could not be sufficient to salvation, which cannot be obtayned without performance of the Precepts, both of living well, and believing aright.

105. Thirdly; that a probable belief is not such a faith as we are commanded to haue, I haue proved already; and it is cleare enough of it self; if it be remembred, that we are obliged to belieue the Articles of Christian Faith, by an Assent immoveable, notwithstanding whatsoever temptations, impulsions, or reasons to the contrary, which cannot possibly agree to a probable assent. For, nothing but Certainty, can produce an immobility in the vnderstanding, and a prudent settled resolution never to alter for what reason soever: and to say the contrary, is to turne meere probability into absolute certainty. What is more vulgarly knowne than that Probability is essentially the roote of feare least the contrary may be true, and involves an aptitude to be changed, if better reason present it selfe. We may well compare Probability in the vnderstanding, with Passions in the Appetite, which are a source of prepetuall motion. Actiue and Passiue, to moue, and to be moved. Or it is like the humours in our body, which destroy it, and themselves. For, Probability by the feare it hath adjoyned, is still in actu primo, in a disposition, and readness to destroy it selfe. And we may say: Qui sibi nequam est cui bonus erit? He that is wicked to himselfe, to what other man will he be good? If Probability cannot conserue it selfe, being left to it selfe; how will it encounter with accidentall temptations, arising from the Divell, World, Flesh, Passions, feares, Hope, Loue, Aversion, Obstinacy, Animosity, Pusillanimity, Education, and the like? If you were to giue a reason, of your so many changes in Religion, you must referr it to the nature of Probability, which in reason must yield to better reason; and so Preface [N. 5.] you profess that your constancy in Religion consisted in following that way to Heaven which for the present seemed most probable. And Pag: 303.] you say of yourself, that, of a moderate Protestant you turned [Page 102]Papist, and the day that you did so, you were convicted in conscience that your yesterdayes opinion was an errour: That afterward vpon better consideration, you became a doubting Papist, and of a doubting Papist a confirmed Protestant. (you might with truth have acknowledged more alterations in Religion, than heer you specify: as, that you passed the second tyme from Protestancy to vs; and how then were you a confirmed Protestant?) And in the same [N. 103. Pag: 304.] That you do not yield your weakness altogeather without apology, seeing your deductions were rationall. Behold the ground of your alterations Rationall and probable deductions! which ground will remayne without end, till one be settled by certainty. A fearfull state, wherin one may, yea ought, at the houre of death to chang his Religion, if seeming better reasons, do then present themselves against, than he hath, for, it! wherby he may come to dy of no Religion at all. Socinians are wont to talk much of Reason, of considering and discoursing men. But alas, what else is Reason, or consideration, or Discourse, destitute of submission to God by an infallible Assent, except a perpetuall and incessant offer, or a temptation, to alter their faith, and pull downe their former Religion, before they haue tyme to build, or resolue of a new one. Besides, Christian Faith being obscure, and evidence the naturall center of our vnderstanding (without which, it is like a stone violently held from falling) no wonder if the strength of Certainty be necessary, to beare vs vp, aboue the inclination we haue to be placed in the center and light of Evidence; wherby it falls out, that humane reasons against Faith, being connaturall, and as it were levell with our vnderstanding, are easily and eagerly accepted; especially since the Mysteryes of Christian Faith seeme contrary to Reason, because indeed they are aboue it.

106. Morover, if we reflect on the Essicient Cause of your probable faith, which I haue proved to be only strength of nature, how weake and changeable must it be? If Holy Iob could say of Man, nunquam in eodem statu permanet, he neuer remaynes in the same state: Iob 14. V. 2.] much more may we say the same of the weakest belief in the soule of man, which is meere probability, produced by the only forces of him who never remaines in the same state, Lamentable experience hath taught vs, how many of great witts, yea of zeale, and piety, who stood as Cedars of Libanus, and shined like beacons to enlighten others, haue fallen into damnable, and somtymes, even [Page 113]foolish Heresyes, though once they believed the contrary Truths, and Articles of our Faith, with absolute certainty: Such is the imbecillity of nature; And then what can be expected of a belief, which expresly tells it self, that it is not certaine; and which believes no poynt of faith with certainty, except that Faith it self is not certaine? Holy Scripture assures vs, that, he who loves danger, shall perish therin. [Eccli: 3. V. 27.] It is in every mans power by Divine assistance, to arrive to a certaine true belief, as I shewed even out of Chillingworth himself; and this he is obliged to doe by the immediate Precept of Faith, and by the obligation of Charity to ones self, which bindes vs to choose the safer part in a matter of so great moment; and therfor let no man please himself in a probable Faith, and put himself, not only in danger, but in certainty of perishing by such a weake, probable, and changeable Assent.

107. And now I hope it appeares, that the Reason which Chari: Maintayned gaue for the infallibility of Christian Faith, remaines very good, and solide, though delivered by him incidently, not imagining that any would call in question the certainty of Christian Faith against D. Potter, who expressly avouches it, and against all Protestants. As well might it haue beene expected of Char: Maintayned, to proue the Mistery of the most Blessed Trinity, of the incarnation of the second Divine Person, his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, the eternall reward of Saints in Heaven, and punishment of sinners in Hell, or any other Article of Christian belief, common to Catholiques and Protestants, as this truth, that Christian Faith is certainly true. The truth is, that Chill: doth so farr dissent from Protestants, that I cannot be thought to write against him, or to confute any defense he makes for Potter, but to handle a new subject, and argument, against new Heresies which Potter, and other Protestants will profess to detest: and it were no wonder, arguments should chance not to hitt that mark, at which they never aymed, nor confute those, against whom they were never intended. Yet in fact this argument which heer you impugne, doth rightly proue the necessity of an infallible certaine Faith, as I haue shewed; as also that your Objection and endeavour to proue, that a fallible Faith is sufficient for the exercise of good workes, is nothing to the purpose, since Char: Maintayned spoke of sufficiency to obserue the precepts of Faith, and if you belieue S. Iohn Chrysostome cited aboue, that according to S. Paule it is a harder matter to belieue the high mysteries of our Faith, than to exercise good workes, you will easily inferr, that although you could [Page 114]proue a probable Faith to be sufficient in order to Obedience, or exercise of good workes, yet it would not therfor remaine proved to be sufficient for believing, as we ought. And S. Chrysostome saying, that it is so hard a thing to belieue, supposes Christian Faith to be more than probable.

108. Fourthly, I say, That although the words of Char: Maintayned, be taken in the sense, which you would put vpon them, yet your Arguments are of no force to confute them, or to prove that a fallible Faith is able to overcome our will, ād encounter with humane probabilityes, backed with the strength of flesh and bloud. And; First I must intreat you, not to cosen your Reader as a Minister foold his Auditours, who after he had spoken much of Gods Commandements, in the close of his discourse, desired not to be mistaken, as if he belieued that those Commandements, of which he had spoken, could be kept; for, it was very certaine they could not: which if he had told them in the beginning, he might haue spared his owne paynes, and the exercise of their patience in hearing his prating, and praysing an impossible thing. Our Saviour sayd; if thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commādemēts: (Matth: 19.17.) These men tell vs; if thou wilt enter into life, belieue firmily as a matter of Faith, that thou canst not keepe the commandements. But to our purpose: least Mr Chilling, loose his labour, and deceaue his Hearers, I must beseech him to deale plainly, and before he goes about to moue their wills, he would in forme their vnderstandings by letting them know; that he is to speake of infinite and eternall happyness, provided for all those that obey Christ Iesus: and of vnspeakeable, eternall torments to be inflicted on all such as break his commandemēts; but withall he must assure them, that although both Papists and Protestants teach, that all must belieue with absolute certainty, there is a Heauen, a Hell, Eternall rewards, and punishments; a Sauiour, a Resurection, working of miracles, and the like, yet that with men considering, discoursing, and vsing rationall deductions, according to the never failing rules of Logick (which are his words in severall parts of his Booke) such as He, and his fellowes are; the matter passeth farr otherwise. For they belieue, that the teaching a necessity of such a certaine Faith, is a Doctrine most presumptuous and vncharitable. (Pag. 328. N. 6.) and a greate errour, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence (Pag. 325. N. 3) And that indeed the Articles which all Christians belieue. may (for ought they know Certainly to the contrary) in the end [Page 115]proue false, and no better than dreames. Thus I must intreate him to prepare his Auditours, and then let vs heare how he will goe about to perswade, yea oblige them vnder payne of eternall damnation, to the observance of things most difficult, and repugnant to humane principles, naturall inclinations, flesh and bloud, self-loue, and in a word, which are To the Gentils, foolishness; to the Iewes a scandall [1. Cor: 1.23.] and besides, are not present, and within sight, as things of this life are, but remote, and of an other world. Let vs thē heare him, preaching rather, than prouing in the words which I cited in the Objection, who sees not, that many millions &c:

109. To which your loose kind of disputing, diverse would giue different answers. Perhaps some, hearing from others your so many changes of Religion, and from your self, that your present belief is but probable; they would take tyme for tryall, how long you would persever in your sect, of a late Date for tyme, and strange for the nouelty, as being contrary both to Protestans, with whom you liued so long tyme, and against Catholiques, to whom you joynd your selfe, not by any force, (for who, or what, except evidence of truth, could force you to a Religion, lying vnder the burthen of a long, and cruell persecution?) but vpon due consideration of Reasons on all sides, and not taking things at a second hand, or vpon credit, but by examination made immediatly by your selfe, or by conference with others, who gaue you all freedom, and encouragement to propose your difficultyes. And for this their delay in resolvinge, they might perhaps make vse of a saying of your owne, Pag: (330. N. 7. He who requires, that I should see things farther than they are visible, requires I should see something invisible, and apply it to this sense: That you, who flitted from a Faith, which you believed then to be certaine, to a belief confessedly not certaine, and perswade others to do the same, may in tyme passe from a non-certainty, to a non-entity, or non-existence of all Faith, and so by degrees bring your proselytes to plaine infidelity.

110. Others will answer; That indeed if men were once infaliibly certaine, of the great promises, and threats you mention, of Heaven, Hell, Resurrection from death &c. They could excogitate no satisfying reason, to avoide Obedience, and keeping the commandements: Yet while we suppose them to be deliberating about the election of their Faith, and actually enjoying, or in a way, or possibility, and freedom to enjoy things of profit, and pleasure in this world, which are present [Page 116]and certaine, and proportionable to their naturall inclinations, and powers of Body ād soule, ād thē heare you telling thē, that no Religion is certaine, and talking of things to come; a farr of; and in another world which to humane reason, not assisted by certainty of Faith, looke like the spatia imaginaria before the world was created; you ought not to wonder, if (notwithstanding all the fayre words in your Objection) men would be apt to pleade, the possession of their Freedom, and liberty, which they will not easily bring vnder so strict obligation, and seeming heauy yoke, meerly vpon a belief, concerning which your selfe profess to have only this certainty, that it is not certaine. Christians firmely belieue by Faith, know evidently by reason, see dayly by experience, that dye they must, they heare all men say, and themselves belieue, Death to be Omnium terribilium terribilissimum, the most dreadfull of all dreadfull things, and yet we see, they more apprehend the danger of wetting their cloathes, by a gentle shower threatned instantly to fall, than death it selfe. And why? because the one is apprehended as almost present, the other is looked on as farr of for space of tyme, as the vast body of the sun seemes to be a small thing, by the great distance of place. Besides, divine and supernaturall Objects, hold so great disproportion with humane Reason, and contrariety with our naturall inclinations, that they appeare either hard, or impossible, and no more apprehensible by possession, than comprehensible by reason. I beseech you, tell me sincerely, what you thinke would haue been the Success of S. Paules preaching, to the Athenians against their false Gods, and for the true Messias, and Resurrection of the dead▪ if he had told them clearly, that they could haue no certainty of those, or any other Mysteryes of Christianity?

111. Vpon these grounds it appeares, that your Objections are of no force; and in particular that which you did propose as vnanswerable, What man say you, was there ever so madly in loue with a present penny, but that he would willingly spend it vpon any litle hope that by doyng so, he might gaine an hundred thousand pround? This, I say, proves nothing at all, because as you nakedly deliver it, it proves too much, and yourself, and all Protestants, and all Christians must answer it, as being manifestly repugnant to the experience of all men, who surely find greater difficulty (naturally speaking) to keepe the commandements, to forgive, and do good to their deadly enemyes, to suffer persecution, to beare their Cross, to deny themselves &c. then they could [Page 117]even possibly find in spending a single penny, in the case you propose, devested of any accidentall difficulty, or aggravating circumstance, only considering the disproportion betweē a penny, and so many thousand pounds, which is so vast and evident to sense and reason, that the will remaynes determined, and in a manner necessitated to giue so litle, for so much; and a man greedy of gaine, would in some sort find as great difficulty in such a case, not to giue a penny for so many pounds, as to giue so many pounds for a penny, which, in respect of those thousands, lookes like nothing compared to something. But the difference betweene earthly, and heavenly things, though it be in it selfe incomparably greater, than any disproportion can be conceyved betweene worldly objects compared amongst themselves, yet to vs it appeares not with evidence to be so, and therfore our vnderstanding and will, need the support, and certainty of a high, and Divine ranke, to supply the evidence of reason, or sense, ād resist all kind of temptations. For which cause, Faith is called the substance of things hoped for, and an Argument of things not seene: which therfor in order to vs, who by nature are strangers to mysteryes so sublime, must receyue being, existence, and subsistence, from a firme and certaine belief And now Sir, is it indeed as easy to keepe the commandements (which many of those whom you call Brethren, hold impossble to be kept, and Catholikes belieue it cannot be done, without Gods speciall Grace) as it is to spend a penny for gayning so many pounds because our Saviour hath so revealed, that to giue a cup of could water [which is not worth a penny for his sake, shall not want a reward i [...]sinitely greater, not only than millions of pounds, but of millions of worlds, and yet we see, men are not so liberall to the poore, as they must needs be, if your objection were of force, and that there were the same proportion, betweene earthly and heavenly things, as there is between earthly things, compared with one another. If keeping the Commandements be as easy as to spend a penny for gaining thousands of pounds, how comes it, that so few keepe, and so many breake them, which scarcely any Christian would, yea in some sense, could do, if your case did hold no less in heavēly things thēearthly? How could the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost, be necessary for keeping the commandements (as in the introduction we shewed, if it be as easy to keepe them, as to spend a penny, for gayning thousands of pounds? How comes that pious woman in the Gospell to be so highly commended by God incarnate, for offering a mite, if it be so very easy to forgoe things [Page 118]present, vpon hope of a reward after this life?.

112, But let vs alter your case a litle, and vest it with some particular circumstances; For example, that you had but one, or very few pence, and apprehended them to be necessary for present expences, [as worldly men conceyue all they haue, to be too litle for their occasions] that your life, or health depended on it, as Esau apprehended of the mease of potage, for which he sold his inheritance; that it must not be given once only, but every day and hower, as it happens in our endeavour to keepe the Commandements: For, The life of man vpon earth is a warfare, [Iob, 7.1.] let vs, I say, confider your case, with these or the like, circumstances, and then answer whether it would appeare so easy as you made it? Or can you proue by it so stated, that any faith, or any hope will serue to keepe the commandements, which are hard to flesh and bloud; which must continually be kept; and therfore require an incessant Vigilancy and solicitude; which oblige vs to loose fortunes, health, and life rather then committ any one sin? You cannot but see the weakness of your Argument, and the necessity yourselfe, and all Christians haue to answer it.

113. But there remaynes yet an Argument of higher consideration, against you who discourse like yourselfe, that is, a Socinian and Pelagian, as if the Commandements could be kept by the strength, ordirection of reason alone; or, as if the will could of it selfe performe, or avoyde whatsoever the vnderstanding dictates to be performed or avoyded, without particular Grace, conferred for the sacred Merits of our Blessed Saviour; which is a Luciferian pride evacuating the fruite of his life and Death: Wheras all Orthodox Christians, who belieue the speciall Grace of the Holy Ghost, to be necessary for true Obedience, are therby assured, that the will hath not of it selfe force to follow, or fly whatsoever the vnderstanding proposes to be embraced, or avoyded; and consequently it is no good Argument: The vnderstanding directs vs to do this, Therfor our will may do it without the particular Grace of God; which if it be necessary to the will for working, it must also be necessary in the vnderstanding for Believing with a supernaturall Divine Assent, without which, God doth not giue Grace to the will, for keeping the Commandements; which holds particularly in your Principle, that Faith is the cause of Charity, and then if the effect be aboue the force of nature, much more the cause must be so. Morover, if Faith be but probable, and consequently only [Page 119]naturall (which sequele I haue proved aboue) it cannot be a proportionable meanes to supernaturall Eternall Happynesse; and so you must hold, that even the Beatificall Vision is but naturall: which if it be; how will you moue men with your specious, but empty, words, to keepe hard wayes, [Psam: 16. V. 4.] for an End meerly naturall and proportioned to a probable and changeable faith, which may proue false, and the Beatude which it propose, a Fiction, and Nothing.

114. Wheras you say: who sees not, that many millyons in the world forgoe many tymes their present ease and pleasure, vndergoe great and toylesome labours &c: vpon a probable hope of some future gaine and commodity? I answer, as aboue, that such gaines are of the same kind with the labours and paynes: I meane, they are all naturall thinges, and neither aboue the forces of our vnderstanding to apprehended, nor of our will to desire and embrace, but connaturall, and in continuall vse amongst men, who haue not much difficulty to doe what they see done by others, and done by instinct, and command of nature. For, if we sift into the roote of such toyles, labours, and adventures as you speake of, we shall find it to be that innate and inbred desire, which every creature hath to conserue it selfe in Being, actuated by such meanes and industryes, as it is best able to lay hold on. If to forgoe ease and pleasure; and vndergoe great and toylesome labours, and adventure vpon great dangers, be apprehended necessary for the sayd end, it is no wonder, if they be embraced as less evills; which is no more than we see in irrationall creatures. And, to affirme, that it is as easy to keepe the Commandements, and obey the Gospell of Christ our Lord, as to performe Actions proceeding from the common instinct of Nature, is most injurious to the Grace, and Merits of our Blessed Saviour. And yet, even in this, your Objection, vpon due reflection, makes for vs against yourself: because the common instinct of Nature to preserue it selfe, is a thing Certaine and invariable, proceeding from God the Author of nature, and is the ground of that most reasonable and certaine Axiome, that it is lawfull to resist force with force. In which Respect, he is not guilty of murther who did no more, thā was necessary for his owne defēse: according to which consideration, your Argument proves, that▪ Faith necessary for all Christians, and which is the Roote of all Piety, Iustice, and Salvation, must be constant, certaine, and invariable, as is the common Instinct of nature, or Roote of all endeavours of creatures to preserue their being.

[Page 120]

115. I hope your Objection is fully answered by the former considerations. Now I must aske with what ingenuity can you say of your Adversary: He that requires to true Faith an absolute certainty for this only Reason, because any less degree could not be able to overcome our will, &c. Since he sayes no such thing, as, that that was the only Reason, which might be given to proue the sayd Truth; for he gaue that only incidently, not excluding others, and you see I haue given many more, and amongst the rest, that there is an obligation to belieue with an infallible supernaturall Assent, abstracting from any relation to good works, or victory ouer our will and affections: And therfore that only, is only your owne fiction.

116. I need not answer your examples, of believing, there is such a Citty as Constantinople, of giving credit to Caesars Commentaries, or Salusts History; which, beside the impiety, are impertinent; since I haue proued, that true Divine Faith being of a higher ranke, is infallible, supernaturall, and not producible but by Gods Speciall Grace. which Epithetons do not agree to the sayd Examples; to omitt other Reasons alleadged hertofore. In the meane tyme, what a miserable thing do you make the Faith of Christians, in being less strong and effectuall, thā the belief of prophane storyes. Wheras if the necessity of an infallible Faith be once believed, men will seeke it, and by degrees of Obedience shall by sure to fynd it, even according to your owne Assertions.

117. Lastly I will add; That, although it were supposed, (but in no wise granted) that some particular person, in some extraordinary circumstances, might performe by a probable faith, all that, of which you haue preached; yet since that would be but a rare, and extraordinary Case, and that the generality of mankind, would perish for want of an infallible, stedfast Faith; it were injurious to Gods infinite Providence, to imagine, that he gives not to the generality of men, Grace sufficient for such a Belief. And this being once supposed, I say further, that I must de facto take away the supposition which I made, and affirme, that sufficient Grace being denyed to none, and every one being obliged to choose the safer part, in matters of this nature, the Conclusion must be [...], that every one is obliged vnder payne of damnation, to belieue the Articles of Christian Religion, with an infallible certaine Faith.

118. Which having been proved, by Scripture; Fathers; the consent [Page 121]of all who belieue any Religion to be true; the express confession of D. Potter; the doctrine of other Protestants; the absurdityes, and pernicious consequences of the contrary Heresy; the necessity of loosinge all Faith and Religion, if Faith be not infallible; the nature of Divine Christian Faith; the Obedience it implyes; the necessity of Gods speciall Grace to produce it; the captivating of our vnderstanding vnto it; the manifest insufficiency of his Arguments against it; the turning his owne Objections and Reasons against himself; his frequent, and in a manner continuall contradictions; his multiplyed changes of Religion, caused by this his Doctrine; the infallibility of Faith, I say, having bene proved by these and other convincing Reasons; the next Demand will be, what meanes, Rule, or judge, our Blessed Saviour hath left vs, on which this infallibility of Faith must be grounded. And because Protestants pretend to agree in no point, more, than that Scripture alone is the sole Rule of Faith, as containing evidently all thinges necessary to be believed, the next Chapter shall be imployed, in confutation of that assertion; that so, by degrees, we may come to what indeed is that Authority, vpon which Christian Faith must rely in order to vs.

[Page 122]

CHAP. II. ALL THINGS NECESSARY to be believed, ARE NOT IN PARTICVLAR, Evidently contayned in Scripture alone.

1. IN no one Doctrine, Protestants would seeme more vnanimously to agree, than in this: That, all things necessary to salvation, are contayned evidently in Scripture. And yet it is certaine, that they proue no poynt more slenderly, nor declare more confusedly, than this, which they hold as the only foundation of the whole structure of their Faith and Religion. For proofe of this my Assertion, we need only put them to their proofes, and desire them to state the Question aright: which being done, I dare confidently avouch, that no judicious Reader, will not instantly discover the impossibility, of proving all things necessary, to be contayned evidently in Scripture taken alone. This will appeare by explicating two capitall words, as I may terme them, of my Title, and their Tenet, Necessary, and Evident.

2. For the performing wherof, we are to take as a thing granted by all, who pretend to the name of Christian, that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, purchased by the effusion of his sacred bloud [Act: 20.28.] a Church on earth, indued with all things necessary for the whole Community, or mysticall Body; For every State or Degree; For every single Person or Member therof. And therfor to maintayne, that, Scripture alone contaynes all poynts necessary to be believed, must imply, that in, or from Scripture alone, we may evidently learne, what is necessary to be believed of all; according to the triple mentioned consideration, or distinction of Persons: which Distinction we [Page 123]will here only touch cursarily, and precisely as farr as is necessary for our present purpose.

3. The Church, as it signifyes one Community or mysticall Body, necessarily requires some kind of Governours or Pastours; Meanes, and Manner to provide for a Succession of them; Power to enact lawes, and to punish offenders by spirituall Censures; some vndoubtedly lawfull Liturgy, or publike worship of God; Sacraments, and (to omitt other thinges) in particular, some certaine infallible Meanes, to know this very Poynt; whether Scripture alone contayne evidently all thinges necessary to Salvation; without certayne knowledg wherof, there can be no certainty in the Faith of Protestants.

4. But now for different Degrees or Officers in the Church, more or lesse knowledg is necessary, according to their severall obligations, ād Dutyes, as for Bishops, Pastours, Priests; &c: who, for example, are obliged to teach others, Ordaine Priests, conficere, and administer Sacraments &c:

5. Lastly, for every particular Person, or member of the Church, some things are absolutely necessary, in the judgment both of Catholikes and Protestants; as v. g. Faith, True and Divine for essence, and sufficient for Extension for all points absolutely necessary to be expressly believed; and Repentance after deadly sin committed; and according to Catholiks, Baptisme in Re for children, and in Re, or Voto for Adulti; as also the Sacrament of Pennance, after the committing of Actuall sinne, if it be deadly; and finally the keeping, and consequently knowing of the Commandements.

6. For explication of the word evident; I note, that, to be contayned evidently in Scripture, may be vnderstood in three manner of wayes. First, that some Poynt be contayned in particular, and so evidently, that no man, who vnderstands the language, can doubt what it signifyes according to the vsuall signification of the word, and that in such a Text it is taken in such a common signification, and not in some figurative, or mysticall, or morall sense, as divers tymes it happens. For if it be capable of such a sense, I must haue some certainty, that it is not taken so, before I can ground vpon it an infallible Assent of Faith; and therfor I must haue more than only probable (that is, some certaine and infallible) meanes to know whether it be taken in the common signification, or, if it haue more vsuall or common significations than one, in which of them it is taken. Which depending [Page 124]on the Free will of God, can be knowne only by Revelation, that is, according to Protestants, by some other evident Text of Scripture, and so without end, vnless they can find some Text, necessarily determined to one only sense.

7. Secondly: evident may signify, that some poynt be indeed contayned in Scripture in it selfe, or in particular, but not so, as to be vnderstood clearly, and certainly by Vertue of the words taken alone, without the help of some interpreter, to whom, if antecedently we giue credit, that will become evident to vs by his interpretation, which before was obscure: as the words of the Prophet Isay became evident to the Eunuch by the Declaration of S. Philip, whom he tooke for a true interpreter. Act. 8. V. 35.

8. Thirdly; A thing may be evident in Holy Scripture, not in particular, or in it selfe; but in some generall Meanes, or Authority, expressly and clearly delivered, and recommended to vs by Scripture; which being once believed, and accepted with a firme Assent, whatsoever such a Meanes, or Authority, doth evidently propose, may be sayd to be evidently contayned in Scripture, not in it selfe, but in that generall Meanes, expressly recommended by Scripture. In this manner S. Augustine speaking of Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques, sayth De vnitate Eccle: Cap: 22. This 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 seeme to gainsay not him so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witnes 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. And Lib 1. cont. Crescon: Cap: 32. & 33. We follow indeed, in this matter, even the most certaine authority of Canonicall Scriptures. But how? Consider his words: Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of Canonicall Scriptures, yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by vs, while we do that, which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend, that so, because the Holy Scripture cannot deceiue vs, whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it, which without any ambiguity [Page 125]the Holy Scripture doth demonstrate to vs.

9. In one of these two latter senses, Catholike Authors may truly affirme, all things necessary to be evidently contaynd in Scripture. But Protestants, who reject the infallibility of the Church, must vnderstand it in the first sense only, according to which, they remayne obliged to a very hard taske of proving, First; in generall, out of evident Scripture, that all things necessary to be believed, are evident in Scripture; 2. of proving every particular Point of Faith out of Scripture immediatly, or by certaine and cleare deductions from it, and not by topicall Arguments of their owne fancy, which they will needs be calling or rather miscalling, Reason; 3. of proving every Point out of evident Scripture, and so evident, that it be certaine the words de facto are not taken in some sense of which they are capable, different from their vsuall, common, obvious, and, as I may say, most litterall signification, (as Protestants interpret the words▪ This is my Body.) For, since the words concerning which the Question arises, are still the same, their meaning must be taken from some other evident Text, as I sayd aboue, and so without end, vnlesse they can alledge some words, which certainly cannot be taken in any sense but one, though of themselves they be capable of more; and though even divers chief learned Protestants teach, that one Text of Scripture may haue diverse litterall senses. Nay, here is not an end of their labours. For, since the word Evident, may be fitly taken in three senses, of which that only which I put in the first place, is accepted by Protestants, they must proue by some Evident Text, that all things necessary are evidently contayned in Scripture in that first sense, and by an evidence of the Text alone, without dependance, or relation to any other thing, (for example, the Church, or Tradition) which particulars, surely the Scripture never expresses. I beseech the Reader to consider this, and mark to what an impossible taske Protestants are engaged. Yet this is not all. It will still remayne doubtfull whether that Text which did say, that all things are evidently contayned in Scripture, be vnderstood vniversally of all things necessary to be believed, or only of things necessary to be believed, and written: which if you wil needs haue to be all one, or of the same extent, you begg the Question, in supposing, that all things necessary to be believed, are necessarily to be written in the Holy Scripture.

10. These reflections being premised about the Meaning of the [Page 126]words Necessary and Evident, I belieue, any man who, as I sayd, shall thinke well before he speake, and then speak as he thinks, will hold it a very impossible thing to proue evidently out of Scripture all things necessary, for the Church, as one Mysticall Body; For every Degree; and for every particular Member therof, according to the first Meaning of Evidence, and other prescriptions which I haue declared. Let vs therfor looke backe a litle vpon those three different sorts of Persons.

11. First: for Government and Governours of the Church, if we abstract from the Authority, Practise, Tradition, and interpretation of Gods Church, I wonder who will goe about to proue with certainty out of evident Scripture, what Episcopus must signify in Scripture; a Bishop, Superintendent, or Overseer, or any who hath a charge or superiority, according to the fashion of Protestants, who loue to take words according to Grammaticall derivation, not according to the Ecclesiasticall Ancient vse of them. Even Protestants grant that the words Presbyter and Episcopus are in Scripture taken for the same: and Dr: Jer: Taylor in his Defence of Episcopacy, [§. 23. Pag: 128.] saith expressly: The first thing done in Christendome, vpon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy, is the distinguishing of Names which before were common. If they will translate Presbyter to signify an Elder, what Certainty can they receyve from that word, whether it ought to be taken for elder in Age, or greater in Dignity? And it is no better than ridiculous, that Protestants should first deny vnwritten Traditions, and Authority of the Church for interpreting Scriptures, and deciding Controversyes in Faith; and then take great paynes to proue out of evident Scripture alone, that Bishops are de Jure Divino: and the same I say of any other particular Forme of Ecclesiasticall Government, and of the Quality, and Extent of Authority in any such Forme; whether they can inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures, and of what kind: concerning which, and other such Poynts necessary to be knowne in the Church, Protestants in vayne and without end, will be sighting for an impossibility, till they acknowledge some other Rule or judge of Controversyes, than Scripture alone.

12. Besides, how will they learne out of Scripture alone, the Forme of Ordination of Priestes, and other Orders; the Matter and Forme of other Sacraments, which some in the Church are to administer by Office, and others to receyue, (of which I shall speake more particularly [Page 127]hereafter) with diverse other such Poynts necessary for the Church in generall?

13. Secondly: For diverse Degrees or States in the Church; no man can chuse but see how hard it is to learne evidently out of Scripture alone, what in particular belongs to every one both for Belief and Practise.

14. Thirdly: For every particular Person: How can a Protestant proue evidently out of Scripture the Nature of Faith, since one Sect of them denyes Christian Faith to be infallibly true, against the rest of their fellowes; and an other affirmes, that justifying Faith is that wherby one firmly believes that he is just, which kind of Faith others deny: or the necessary Extent of their Faith, seing Chilling: holds that there cannot be given a Catalogue of Points necessary to be believed explicitly by all, and therfor every one, must either remayne vncertaine, whether he believe all that is absolutely necessary, or else be obliged vnder damnation, to know explicitly all cleare passages of Scripture (which are innumerable) least otherwise he put himself in danger, of wanting what is indispensably necessary to salvation; which is a burthen, no lesse vnreasonable than intolerable, even to men not vnlearned, and much more to vulgar Persons.

15. Neither is there less dissiculty concerning Pennance or true Repentance, than Faith; since Protestants do not agree in what Repentance consist, and Chilling: hath a conceypt different from the rest, that true Repentance requires the effectuall mortification of the Habits of all vices, which being a worke of difficulty and tyme, cannot be performed in an instant, as he writes [Pag. 392. N. 8.] and therfor even that most perfect kind of sorrow, which Divines call Contrition, and is conceyved against sin for the loue of God, will not serue at the howre of ones death, because, saith he, Repentance is a work of difficulty and tyme.

16. Morover, it is impossible for Protestants to proue evidently out of Scripture, that the Sacraments of Baptisme, and Pennance are not necessary for salvation. For where fynd they any such Text? If they say we must hold them not necessary, because we find no such necessity evidently exprest in Scripture, they do but begg the Question, and suppose that all things necessary are contayned in Scripture; besides, that we haue Scripture for both Nisi quis renatu [...] fuerit &c: vntess one shall be borne againe, &c: [Ioan: 3.5.] And, whose sinnes you retayne, they are retayned: [Ioan. 20.23.] and it is impossible for any [Page 128]man to shew evidently out of Scripture, that those Texts are not de facto vnderstood as we vnderstand them, since it is most evident, that the words are capable of such a sense; and consequently we cannot be certaine but that such is their meaning, vnless they can bring some evident Text to the contrary; especially since that even divers chief learned Protestants teach the necessity of Baptisme for children of the Faithfull, as I shew herafter. And certainly if Scripture were evident against this Doctrine of Catholiques, so many learned Protestants could not but haue seene it.

17. The same I say of the Sacrament of Pennance, which divers learned Protestants hold to be so necessary, as some say that; It is a wicked thing to take away private Absolution: And that, They who contemne it, do not vnderstand what is Remission of sinnes, or the power of the keyes: And, that it is an Errour to affirme, that Confession made before God, doth suffice: And that, Private Confession being taken away, Christ gave the keyes in vaine (vide Triple Cord, Chap. 24. Pag. 613.) And, vitae Lutheri Autore Gasparo Vienbergio Lippiensi, [Cap. 30.] it is sayd: Osiander primus ex ministris Norinbergae Confessionem privatam vrgebat velut necessariam. Osiander was the first Minister at Norinberg, who required private Confession as a thing necessary.

18. Now I argue in this manner. Some poyntes in the Opinion, both of Catholiques, and Protestants are necessary to salvation for every particular Person: for example, Faith; and Repentance after deadly sin; And yet we see that, Protestants differ both from Catholikes, and disagree amongst themselves, about the nature of Faith, and Repentance, and disagree so, as that both sydes cannot have true Faith, and Repentance. For, if true Faith must be infallible; Chilling: and his Associates, cannot be saved, both because they believe and teach so capitall an Errour, and because they practise it, being satisfyed with a probable fallible Faith. The like I say of that justifiyng Faith which Calvinists hold necessary for justification, and salvation, against Catholikes and all other Protestants, even Socinians who believe it to be a meer pernicious ād presumptuous fancy. As also the same may be sayd of Baptisme, and the sacrament of Pennance, which according to all Catholikes and diuers Protestants, are necessary to salvation, against many other Protestants. Therfor Protestants must confess that all things necessary to salvation, are not evident in Scripture, vnless they will pronounce an inevitable sentence of damnation against those, whom they [Page 129]call Brethren, as Teaching an Errour in matters necessary to salvation, and practising in conformity to their errour, either by omitting themselves, or being cause by their Doctrine, that others Neglect, or ommit things absolutely necessary to salvation: which judgment, I belieue, they will not be hasty to frame against their Brethren, but rather will pretend to conceyve of these particular poynts of which we speake, as Chilling: (Pag: 41. N. 13.) speakes in generall of persons contrary in belief, which may be concerning poynts wherin Scripture may with sogreat probability be alledged on both sides (which is a sure note of a point not necessary) that men of honest and vpright harts, true lovers of God and truth, such as desire, above all things, to know Gods will and to doe it, may without any fault at all, some goe one way, and some another: which kind of opinion if they thinke fitt to frame of their brethren, as being men of honest and vpright harts, true lovers of God and truth &c: they must give me leave to infer, that scripture is not evident in all poynts, even where there is question of Articles absolutely necessary to salvation.

19. Which reason taken from their mutuall disagreements in necessary matters, doth prove that they are not evident in scripture, according to Chilling: saying (Pag, 61. N. 24.) The thing is not evident of it selfe; which is evident, because many do not believe it.

20. Nay, further I must inferr, that, seing in points absolutely necessary to salvation, Charitas propria, the vertue of Charity as it respects our selves, obligeth every one to chuse the safer part, and that Protestants cannot fynd any evident scripture that the Sacraments of Baptisme, and pennance are not necessary for salvation, (not only all Catholikes, but divers chief Protestants holding them to be necessary) it followes, that prorestants are obliged to believe them to be necessary, and accordingly to frame their practise. Neither can they be excused by Chilling worths sayinge that it is a sure note of a point not necessary, that scripture may with great probability be alledged on both sides; because this excuse implies a begging of the Question, as if there were no meanes, to be assured of what is necessary to salvation, except scripture alone; yea rather he ought, from the difficulty which he apprehends in scripture for these matters of so great moment, necessarily to infer, that the written word taken alone, contaynes not evidently all necessary points.

21. Thus even in this first entrance it appeares, how not only vntrue, but vnreasonable also, this common Tenet of Protestants is.

[Page 130]

22. Which will yet be more manifest, if we consider, that, whatsoever is necessary for the Curch immediatly, as it is one community, or body, the same must be mediatè necessary for every particular member: as in a naturall body, whatsoever is necessary for preserving the whole, is consequētly necessary for every part, which would be destroyed by the destruction of the whole, as also the destruction of all the parts collectives is the distruction of the whole. And so if the scripture be nor evidēt in poynts necessary to salvation for every part immediatè, it would follow mediatè, that it is not evidēt for all poynts necessary for the whole, evē though it wāted nothing immediatly necessary forthe whole, as governours &c: and there is in this, a necessary connectiō between these considerations of the whole ād every part. It is true, every mā is not obliged to be Bishop, or a Clergy man; to absolue from sins, to consecrate the Eucharist; jnflict consurs; to Gouerne; make Lawes; Administer Sacraments; set downe a Liturgy, or publike worship of God, and the like; yet it is necessary for every one to be a member of the true Church, in which all these advantages must be found; it being the first principle a mongst Christians, that remission of sins, and salvation, cannot be hoped for, out of thetrue church, nor many grievous sins avoyded if one be a member of a body governed by vnlawfull superiours, guyded by vnjust Lawes, destitute of power to punish offenders, fed with false Sacramemts, tyed to a superstitious or sacrilegious Liturgi &c: And therfore as it is impossible to prove out of evident scripture, all the poynts which concerne immediatly the whole body of the Church, so we must even for that same reason infer, that it is not possible to prove out of evident Scripture, whatsoever is necessary for every particular person.

23. I have stayed longer in this entrance, than I intented; yet I hope, not vnprofitably; since I have already proved, as it were by a generall view, the improbability and impossibility, that all things necessary should be contayned evidently in scripture taken alone. Which by Gods holy assistance I hope to evince more in particular by the reasons following.

24. First: seeing protestants will haue nothing believed as matter of Faith, which is not evident in scripture; this very principle of theirs, That all things necessary are evidently contayned in Scripture, must be evidently proved out of scriptures, as the foundation of all their Faith: it must, I say, be proved by some Text, evidently affirming, not only that all poynts of Faith are contained in scripture, but that they are contayned [Page 131]evidently. Othetwise, if it be but obscure, we cannot haue that certainty which is necessary to Faith. For, this being a poynt not evident to naturall Reason, but depending on Gods free Determination, we must only know it by Revelation, or the Testimony, and word of God, that is [according to protestants] only by scripture. Now they are not able to produce any such evident Text. Which will appeare by answering, and evidently confuting their objections out of scripture. And therfor they cannot with certainty believe the sayd principle. Your self say Pag 61. N. 23.] If our Saviour had intended that all Controversyes in Religion should be by some visible judg finally determined, who can doubt but in playne termes he would have expressed himself about this matter? And may not we turne the same argument against you, and say; If our Saviour had intended, that all poynts of Faith and religion should be evident in scripture, without relation to any visible judg, church, or vnwrtiten Tradition, who can doubt but in plaine termes he would have expressed himself in this matter? And my retortion is stronger than your Argument can be; because true Catholique Doctrine belieues not only scripture, or the written word of God, but tradition also, or the word of God not written, which all grant to haue bene before scripture, and from which you confess we receiue scripture it self. And so although nothing were sayd in scripture, of a visibse judg to determine controversyes in Religion: yet vniuersall tradition; sense of all Christians; and practise of Gods church, in determining and defining matters of Faith, were sufficient to assure vs therof. But Protestants must either alledg evident scripture, or nothing at all. This I say, not as if we wanted evident scripture, for the necessity of a visible judg of controversyes, but only to shew, that we haue not that necessity of alledging scripture, for this, and every other particular poynt, which Protestants haue.

25. Secondly: I proue our assertion thus: we are to suppose, that Allmighty God, having ordayned Man to a supernaturall End, cannot faile to provide, on his part, meanes sufficient for attaining therof. Since then Faith is necessary for ariving to that End, if it cannot be learned except by scripture alone, no doubt but he would have obliged the Apostles to write, as he obliged them to preach, and Christians to heare the Gospell. For if he left it to their freedom, it is cleare that he did not esteeme writing to be necessary; which yet must be most necessary if we can attaine Faith, and salvation only by scripture. But Protestants, even for this cause, that they are to belieue nothing which [Page 132]is not expressed in scripture, cannot affirme that our Saviour gaue any such command to his Apostles, seing it is evident no such thing is expressed in scripture. Therfor they cannot avouch any such command. But, for preaching, we read, (Marc: 16. V. 15.) Going into the whole world, preach yee the Gospell to all creatures. And in obedience to this command, it is recorded (V. 20.) But they going forth, preached every where. And our Saviour living on earth, sent his Apostles abroad with this injunction, (Matth: 10.7.) Euntes praedicate, Goe preach. The Apostle saith: (Rom: 10.17.) Faith is by hearing. And (V. 18.) have they not heard? And certes into all the earth hath the sound of them gone forth: and vnto the ends of the whole earth the words of them: where we heare, of hearing and speaking, but not of writing or reading: of a sound conveyed to the eares of the whole world, not of any booke or writing, set before their eyes. Thus we see, that only two of the Apostles haue also made themselves Evangelists by writing the Gospell, though all were Evangelists by preaching it. Chill: and his fellowes thinke, they can demonstrate out of S. Luke more clearly than out of any other Evangelist, that his Gospell contaynes all poynts necessary to salvation, and yet He is so farr from producing any command he had to write, [which had bene the most cleare, effectuall, and necessary cause that could haue bene alledged] that contrarily he shewes that it was done by free election, saying, (Luc: 1.1. & 3.) because many haue gone about, &c. It seemed good also to me to write, &c. Neither doth any one of all the Canonicall writers alledg a command for writing. S. Paule saith (1. Cor: 9.16) If I evangelize, it is no glory to me: for necessity lyeth vpon me: for woe is to me if I evangelize not. But he sayes not, woe to me if I write not; and accordingly we see some of the canonicall writers differred writing a long tyme after our B. Sauiours Ascension, and did not write but on severall incident occasions, as Bellarmine de verbo Dei [L. 4. C. 4.] demonstrates out of Eusebius. If then it was not judged necessary, that scripture should be written, but that the Church had other meanes to beget and conserue true Faith and religion, as S. Paule [1. Cor: 15.1.] expressly saith: I doe you to vnderstand the Gospell which I preached vnto you, which also you received, in the which also you stand. And (V. 11.) So we preach, and so you haue believed. What can be more vnreasonable, than to belieue it to be necessary, that all things necessary be evidently contayned in scripture alone, without [Page 133]dependance on tradition, or the church? Or who can believe that the Saints Paule, Iames, Iude, Iohn, in their Epistles written vpon severall occasions, or to private persons, intended to write a Catechisme, or specify all necessary points of Faith? Hence it is that Eusebius, (Histor: Eccles: L. 3. C. 24.) affirmes, that S. Iohn was sayd to haue preached the Gospell even almost to the end of his life without notice of any scripture; and in generall, that the Apostles were not sollicitous to write much. And the same is observed by S. Chrysostome (Hom: 1. in Act. Apost.) If then Protestants cannot proue by evident scripture, that all Canonicall writers receyved a command to write, how will they proue that they were bound to publish their writings, wherof (as I sayd) some were directed to private persons, or that, others were, or are bound to publish them; or to reade them being published? And if they can shew no command for these things, how can they maintayne, that there is no meanes to know matters of Faith, except by scripture?

26. Thirdly: you teach; That all necessary poynts are evident in scripture, though there be many points evident which are not necessary: that we cannot precisely determine what points in particular be necessary: that such a determination or distinction is needless. For all necessary points being evident in scripture, whosoever believes all evident points, is sure to know all necessary points, and more. This is your chiefest ground in this matter. But it is evidently refuted by willing you to reflect, that by this meanes, all must be obliged to know all the cleare or evident texts of scripture: otherwise he cannot be sure that he knowes all necessary points, since you giue him the assurance of knowing all necessary points, only by this meanes of knowing all points that are evident. Therfore if he be not sure, that he knowes all evident points, he cannot be sure that he knowes all such as are necessary. Yea every one will be obliged▪ to know every text, or period of scripture; and to examine, whether it be evident or obscure, least, that if vpon examination it appeare to be evident, he might perhaps haue fayled in some necessary poynt, if the text had proved to be evident, and yet vnknown to him for want of such examination. Neither can it be answered, that if a text be evident, it will appeare to be such. For, a thing vpon due examination and study, may appeare evident, or obscure, which at first sight did not seeme to be such. And for this same reason, every one must learne to reade the bible, or at least procure that every text therof be read to him, that so he may be sure to know all [Page 134]evident, and consequently all necessary texts of scripture; it being cleare that he cannot haue sufficient assurance, that he knowes every particular text, only by hearing sermons, or ordinary casvall discourses, or the like. And this care every one shall be obliged to vse, even for those books of scripture, which are receyved by some Protestants, and rejected by others; least if indeed they be Canonicall, and he remayne ignorant of any one poynt evidently contayned in them, he put himself in danger, of wanting the knowledg of some thing necessary to be believed, You teach (Pag: 23. N. 27.) that, to make a catalogue of fundamentall points had been to no purpose, there being, as matters now stand, as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture, which are not fundamentall, as th [...]se that are. But it is necessary for every one, learned, or vnlearned, to know explicitly all fundamentall truths: Therfor it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths, though not fundamentall. Now who sees not, that these are ridiculous, vnreasonable, and intolerable precepts, and burthens, imposed vpon mens consciences without any ground, except an obstinate resolution to defend your opinion, that all things necessary are evident in scripture? And yet I do not perceiue how Protestants can avoyd these sequeles, if they will stand to those principles. For whosoeuer is obliged to attaine an End, is obliged to vse that meanes which is necessary for that End. Your self (Pag: 194. N. 4.) hold it for an absurdity, that it should be a damnable sin, in any learned man (and I may say much more in any vnlearned person) actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture, or to belieue the contradiction of it, though be know it not to be there con [...]ed. Now I say, according to this your Doctrine, every one must know every truth in scripture: and not only not contradict it, but he must explicitly know it, least otherwise he may chance to omitt the belief of some poynt necessary to be expressiy believed: Which is a greater absurdity than only to say, every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contayned in scripture, though he know it not to be there contayned. And as for our present purpose, you clearly suppose, that every man, though he be learned, is not obliged to know every truth contayned in Scripture: and therfor your Doctrine which necessarily infers this obligation, must be absurd, and contradictory to yourself.

27. Fourthly: in Holy scripture two things are to be considered. The words, and sense, or meaning of them. The words are cleare in scripture, [Page 135]as in other bookes, to such as vnderstand the language. But for the sense; it may be affirmed with much truth,, that, abstracting from extrinsecall helpe, or autority, euen in matters of greatest moment, proper to Christian religion, it is hard to fynd any one poynt so cleare of it self, as to convince, that it must needs be vnderstood in this, or thar determinate sense. For, though the words may seeme clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our naturall reason: yet the hardness, and height, of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our vnderstanding from yeilding a firme assent to points which truly are aboue, and in shew seeme to be against reason. For this I will alledg your selfe, who (Pag: 215. N. 46.) speake thus: They which doe captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconsiable Contradictions, may as well believe reall contraditions. Since then no man can belieue reall contradictions appearing such, it followes according to your owne assertion, that none can belieue those poynts which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions; and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification, may seeme in his way of vnderstanding, to imply contradiction. Which yet appeares more clearly out of other words of yours (Pag: 216.217. N. 46.) where having sett downe divers contradictions (as you vntruly apprehend) in our catholique doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist, you conclude, that if Char: Maintayned cannot compose their repugnance, and that after an intelligible manner, then we must giue him leaue to belieue that either we do not belieue Transubstantiation, or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of contradictions. Which words declare, how willing a mans vnderstanding, or reason is to be at peace with it self, and to belieue nothing, wherin it cannot Compose all repugnance; and that after an intelligible manner. Seing then, all Christians, must belieue the words of scripture to be true, and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner, they are easily drawne, to entertayne some interpretation, agreeable to their vnderstanding, though contrary to the signifitation, which the words of themselves do clearly import, and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost.

28. From this fountaine arise so many, and so different, and contrary heresies concerning the chiefest articles of Christian Faith; the difficulty of the objects, and disproportion to our naturall reason, first diverting, [Page 136]and then averting our vnderstanding, from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner, and the loss of the first evidence, and vsuall signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuite of the true sense of them. For this cause, the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to belieue as we ought; insomuch as Fulk (against Rhem: Testam: in 2 Petr: 3. Pag: 821.) saith; As concerning the Argument and matter of the Scripture, we confess that for the most and chiefest matters, it is not only hard, but impossible to be vnderstood of the naturall man. Besides which difficulty, arising from the Objects, or Mysteryes in themselves, there is another proceeding from the subject, or Believer, when one hath already taken a Point for true, and for that cause will be willing to seeke, and glad to fynd, some sense of Scripture agreeable to his foreconceyved opinion, though not without violence to the letter, or words.

29. And yet to these dissicultyes, flowing from the Object, and Sabject, we may add another, ex Adjunctis; when one place of Scripture seeming cleare enough of it self, growes to be hard, by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text, as we haue heard out of Chilling: [Pag: 41. N. 13.] that Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides, that men of vpright harts may some goe one way, and some another.

30. What words more cleare, than those of our B Saviour [Matth: 26. V. 26.] This is my Body? Insomuch as Luther in his Booke Defensio verborum Coenae, saies against the Sacramentaryes, who deny the Reall presence: This Heresy doth not impugne doubtfull opinyons and doubtfull Testimonyes of Scripture, but plaine and express sentences of Scripture, yet many Protestants deny this Mystery of the Reall presence, vpon pretence that other Texts of Scripture are contrary to it, and in particular that, in S. Iohn's Gospell [Cap: 6. V. 63.] It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Which is a strange kind of interpreting words most cleare, by a Text very obscure. But God in his holy Providence, permits these men to fall vpon such impertinences for their owne confutation; as happens in this occasion. For as they deny the Reall presence of our Saviours Body in the Eucharist, so they deny, or elude, the reall Presence, or Descent of his soule into Hell, interpreting those words of the Acts 2.27. Thou wilt not leave my soule in Hell, Non relenques cadaver meum in sepulchro; Thou wilt not leaue my dead Body in the sepulcher. So Beza vpon that place. And Vorstius [Page 137]in Antibellarm: [Pag: 42.] Nihil vetat, per Animam synecdochicè intelligere ipsum corpus, & quidem jam mortuum. We may well by a synecdoche vnderstand by the soule the body even the dead body. Serranus contra Hayum, sayth, that per animam (Act: 2. V. 27.) non intelligitur anima, (marke, soule, not the soule) sed mortuus homo, siue cadaver, but a dead man, or a dead body. And (which is strange) he assirmes, that this interpretation is cleare. For the present I will not examine this strange interpretation of an Article of our Creed, Descendit ad inferos, He descended vnto Hell: (Of which, Potter [Pag: 240.] sayth: The words are so plame, they beare their meaning before them) nor will I obserue, even by this example, how far Scripture is from being evident, to these men who faine such glosses, vpon words so cleare, and yet say that their interpretation is cleare. But I will only say; if the soule, which is a spirit, may signify flesh, and flesh be taken for the soule or spirit, those words, Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh prositeth nothing, may be inverted and taken thus against themselves, caro est quae vivificat, spiritus non prodest quicquam: It is the flesh which quickeneth, the spirit profiteth nothing. For if the soule may signify the body, why may not the body signify the soule, by the same new kind or Figure? In the meane tyme, these men should consider, that their owne Divines assirme, S. Iohn in that sixth Chapter not to speak of the Sacrament: and it is a strange kind of proofe, to argue out of Scripture for that, of which that Scripture is confessed (even by him who so argues) not to speak. But because many examples, or instances may be alledged to proue the difficulty of Scripture, even in the most Principall, and Fundamentall Articles of our Faith, we will touch some in the next Reason; for to speak of all, would be endless.

31. Fiftly. The same is demonstrated by these particulars. What can be more cleare to proue the Consubstantiality of the son of God with his Eternall Father, than, Ego & Pater vnum sumus Ioan: 10. V. 13.] I and the Father are one? And yet the old, and new Arians with Chilling: and other Socinians deny it, pretending (falsly) that it is against Reason, and contrary to other. Text of Scripture. What can be more expressly delivered, if we respect the bare word, than that there is one God, Creatour of Heaven and Earth? And yet for the signification of the words (to omit old Heretiques, as the Simoniani, Menandriani, Basilidiani, Valentinistae, Marcionistae, Manichaei, [Page 138]and the whole rabble of the Gnostici, who taught that there is not one God Omnipotent, Creatour of Heaven and Earth) haue we not in our dayes Socinians, who indeed destroy the true God, by making him a Subject of Accidents, and depriving him of his Immensity, Omniscience of futura ^(a) Contingentia, or the future Actions which are to proceed from Freewill? although nothing be more cleare in Scripture, than that, God is every where, filling Heaven and Earth, and that, one distinction of the true God from false ones, is, that he can infallibly foretell things to come, and that he inspired Prophets, to prophecy with absolute certainty, things remote, for Tyme and Place: which being denyed, the books of the Prophets must be rent from the Bible as deluding men, and worse than Apocriphall. Tertullian Lib: 2. cont: Marcion: Cap: 5. ait, Deum, quot facit Prophetas, tot habere testes suae praescientiae. God hath as many witnesses of his Prescience, as are the Prophets whom he makes. Doth not Calvin depriue God of Mercy and Justice, in teaching that he predestinates men, to eternall damnation, and punishes them for sins to which they were necessitated by the same God? What can be more cleare in our Creed, and scripture, than that Christ was conceyved of the Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Mary, suffered, dyed, rose agayne, and ascended into Heaven, if we looke vpon the words? And yet for the sense, (which is the life and soule of scripture) there are most different, and contrary doctrines, concerning these Poynts. I let pass those Heretiques, who taught that Christ suffered not really, but only in appearance or shew. (And why might not they as well say, that the words, he was crucifyed and dyed, are not to be taken litterally, as our Sacramentaryes teach the words, This is my body, are to be vnderstood figuratively?) But these I let pass, and only reflect, that for the thing signifyed by those words, according to our moderne Sectaryes, there is neither certainty, who he is that was borne, suffered, dyed, rose agayne &c: nor of the End for which he was borne, suffered, and dyed; nor of the Effect and Fruite of his life and Death. For, Socinians deny that he who was borne, suffered &c: was true God and Man: or that the End for which he suffered, was to redeeme vs, by satisfying, and paying the ransome of our sins, but only by way of instructing, or giving vs exāple. And Calvinists teache, that, the Effect or Fruite of our Saviours Actions, and sufferings, is not any true remission, or washing away our sins, but only a [Page 139]not imputing them, their guilt and deformity still remaining, as Calvin [in 2. Corinth: 5. V. 21.] declares Quomodo justi coram Deo sumus? Qualiter scilicet Christus fuit peccator. How are we just befor God? in such manner as Christ was a sinner. O injury to men, as if none were otherwise just than Christ was a sinner (of whom it is sayd: It was seemly that we should haue such a high Priest, holy, innocent, impolluted, separated from sinners, (Heb: 7. V. 26.) O blasphemy against Christ our Lord, as if he had bene truly a sinner as just men are truly just; of whom we reade evident texts that they are renewed in the spirit of their mynd, and haue put on the new man which according to God is created in justice, and holiness of the truth [Ephes: 4.23.24.] (not of a falshood or disguise of truth) that they are regenerated and Renewed of the Holy Ghost; (Tit: 3.3.) that their sins are taken away [1. Paral: 21.8.] that cleare water is powred vpon them, and they clensed from all their contaminations. [Ezech, 36.25.] that they shalbe sprinkled with hyssope, clensed, washed and made whyter than snow, [Psalm. 50, 9.] that their sins shalbe sought, and shall not be found. [Psalm. 9.5.] that their sins are purged. (Prov. 19.27.) that they are all fayre, and there is not a spot in them. (Cant. 4.7.) If thy sins shalbe as scarlet, they shalbe made whyte as snow: and if they be red as vermelion, they shalbe whyte as wooll. (Isay. 1.18.) they haue washed their robes, and haue made them whyte in the bloud of the lamb. (Apoc. 7.14.) With sundry other evident texts, which I cited in the Introduction, Sect. 9. And yet our Sectaryes will haue just men and Saints to be still in sinne, and so Calvinian saints are eternally stayned with that, which is the most detestable thing in the very Divells, namely deadly sinne. The Apostle sayth, (Rom. 5.18.) As by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the Obedience of one many shalbe made just. Will Calvin say, that we were made sinners only by imputation, and not by true sin inexistent in our soule? And how then can he deny, but that men are just by true inherent Justice? And if it be so, how dare he blaspheme, that Christ was a sinner, as just men are just; which is to say, that he was a sinner by inherent sinne, or injustice, as other sinners are? But this is the fruite of relying on scripture alone, that is indeed, of following their owne fancy. What can be more evident and in more express words delivered in scripture, than, that without the speciall Grace of God, merited by our Saviours Life and Death, we cannot doe any [Page 140]worke, or speak any words, or think any thought avayling towards eternall salvation; and yet Pelagians taught the contrary; and Socinians hold, that we merit all for our selves, and Christ nothing for vs: as contrarily, Protestants commonly say, that Christ merited all for vs, and we nothing for our selves. So contrary Heresyes arise, when once men despise the Authority of Gods Church! What Poynt more cleare in scripture, and more purposely and carefully proved by S. Paule, than that Article of our Creed, the Resurrection from Death, and yet the Socinians teach that in Heaven we shall haue, I know not what celestiall body, essentially different from that which was buryed in the graue. ^(a) Besides, do not those Lutherans, who defend the Vbiquity of our Sauiours Humanity, vnderstand evident words, or do they want skill in lang uages? And yet, it is manifest, that they destroy all the Mysteryes, of the Nativity, Ascension &c: of our Saviour Christ. For who can come, or goe, or ascend, or descend from one place to another, who is presupposed to be in all places no less then God is according to his Deity, who therfor cannot be mooved from one place to another?

32. Sixtly. These things considered: the Reader may justly wonder at Chilling. who expressly specifyes the sayd Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ for instances, that the Scripture is evident concerning them? His words [Pag: 101. N. 127] are: If any one should deny, that, God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, good, just, true, mercifull, a rewarder of them that seeke him, a punisher of those that obstinately offend him; that, Iesus Christ is the senne of God, and Saviour of the world, that it is he by Obedience to whom, men must looke to be saved: If any man should deny either his Birth, or Pa [...]sion, or Resurrection, or Ascension, or sitting at the right hand of God; his having all power given him in Heaven and Earth; That it is he whom God hath appointed to be judg of the quick and the dead: that all men shall rise againe at the last day: That they which believe and repent, shall be saved; That they which do not belieue or repent, shalbe damned; If a man should hold that either the keeping of the mosaicall Law is necessary to Salvation: or that good works are not necessary to Salvation: In a word, if any man should obstinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture, who does not see, that every one who believes the Scripture, hath a sufficient meanes to discover, and condemne and avoyd that Heresy, without any need of an infallible guide? Thus he. [Page 141]But by his leaue, who does not see both by Reason and Experience, the contrary of that of which he sayth, who does not see? And how hard is it to distinguish and judg what is, or is not plainly delivered in Scripture, if we respect the sense, and not the words only; And if we consider not one text alone, but co [...] are it with other passages which seeme to signify a different, or even contrary thing; especially if he add the great disserence, and contrariety of opinions, amongst his Brethren the Protestants, concerning such poynts, some of them judging, that to be plaine and evident in scripture, which others belieue not only to be obscure, but the contrary to be true, and all this out of evident scripture, as they apprehend; as appeares by these very examples, which he picks out for Truths plainly delivered in scripture, as we haue alredy demonstrated. For Gods Omniptency; the scripture saith plainly Matth: 3.9. God is able of these stones to raise vp children to Abraham. And, Matth: 20.53. Thinkest thou, that I cannot aske my Father, and he will giue me presently more then twelue legions of Angels? (Luc: 1.36.) there shall not be impossible with God any word. And yet Calvin in severall occasions impugnes the distinction, of Catholique Divines, of Potentia Dei ordinaria, & absoluta, of Gods ordinary Power, and his absolute power, and rejects that which they call Potentia absoluta. We haue shewed already, that Gods Omniscience is denyed by the Socinians, whom Chilling: highly esteemes for learning, and piety also, as appeares in what he sayes in his Answer to the Direction to N.N. N. 29.) and yet they did wel vnderstand the learned languages, and the words of scripture, for the Grammaticall signification.

33. With what modesty can Hee say, that it is evident in scripture, that, Iesus Christ is the son of God, Saviour of the world, and sitteth at the right hād of God, and hath all power givē him in heavē ād earth Hee, I say, who with Arians, and other old and moderne condemned Heretiques, denyes Christ to be the sonne of God, and consubstantiall to his Father; as also his Merit and satisfaction for mankind, wherby he is the Saviour of the world? The like I say of his resurrection, and that all men shall arise againe at the last day, seing Socinians teach, as I sayd aboue, that we shall have bodyes in Heaven, in nature, substāce, and essence, different from our bodyes on earth. Against whom, these words of S. Iohn Chrisostome (Hom: 65. in Ioannem post medium) are very effectuall, as they were against some others who sayd, Corpora non resurgent, our bodyes shall not rise againe. Nonne audiunt [Page 142]Paulum &c: Do they not heare S. Paule saying; For this corruptible must do on incorruption. (1. Cor: 15.53.) Neither can he meane the soule, seing it is not corrupted: and Resurrection must belong to that which is dead, which was the body only. And Serm: de Ascensione Domini, To: 3. Let vs consider, who he is [...] whom it was sayd, sit on my right hand: what nature that is, to whom God sayd, be partaker of my seate. It is that nature which heard, thou art earth, and shald returne to [...]arth. And; Learne who ascended, and what nature was elevated. For I willingly stay in this subject, that by consideration of mankind we may with all admiration learne the divine clemency, which hath bestowed so great honour and glory on our nature, which this day is exalted above all things. This day Angels behold our nature shining with immortall glory in the divine Throne. And S. Austine, serm: 3. de Ascensione, saith to the same purpose; an earthly body is seated aboue the highest Heaven: bones ere while shut vp in a narrow grave, are placed in the company of Angels; a mortall nature is placed in the bosome of immortality. And in the same place he sayth; If our saviour did not rise againe in our body, he gave nothing to our condition by rising againe. Whosoever sayes this, doth not vnderstand the reason of the flesh which he assumed, but confounds the order, and evacuates the profit therof. I acnowledge to be myne that which fell, that that may be myne which rose. I acknowledg that to be myne, which lay in the grave, that that may be myne which ascended into Heauen. From this Secinian Heresy it also followes, that indeed they deny his true Ascension since they give him, and vs, not his and our nature, but another essentially different. But indeed is the Resurrection of the dead so cleare in scripture, for the sense, without any help of Gods Church? How then doth Dr. Potter (Pag. 122.) say in behalf of Hookers and M. Mortons opinion; A learned man was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church, though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our Bodyes. Was he a learned man? Then surely he vnderstood the Grammaticall signification of the words, and yet he erred in the sense; as also many others did, who denyed Resurrection, as Basilidiani, Saturniani, Carpocratiani, Valentiniani, Severiani, Hieracitae, and others; which shewes the necessity of a living judg, beside the letter, or bare word of scripture. Which appeares also, by the other example which you alledg as cleare: That, They which belieue and repent, shalbe saved: That, they which do not belieue or [Page 143]repent, shalbe damned. For how is this cleare for the sense of the words, if it be not cleare what that Faith and Repentance is without which none can be saved? And yet you teach a Faith and a repentance, wholy different from that which hitherto both Catholikes, and Protestāts haue believed and taught; as also Calvinists tell vs of a Faith, justifying after a new fashion; different both from Catholikes and from Socinians: and yet what is more necessary to salvation than true Faith, and repentance?

34. Neither are you more fortunate in your example, that, it is clearly against Scripture, that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is necessary to salvation. Yea this instance makes against your self, and proves the necessity of a living judg. For the first determination concerning that poynt, was made in the Councell of the Apostles (Act. 15. V. 28.) and the Scripture only relates, what their definition was; and so this proves only, that the voyce of the Church, or Councels, may be clear, both for the words and sense; Or that it may be declared by the Church of succeding ages, if it grow in tyme to be obscure, which happens in this very Councell. For, though no doubt but Christians of that tyme, vnderstood fully the meaning of the Councell, by the declaration of the Apostles, yet the contents therof, were afterward to be declared, to all posterity, by the Church how they were to be vnderstood, and practised. The Councell sayd, (Act. 15. V. 28. 29.) It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to vs, to lay no further burden vpon you than these necessary things; that you abstayne from the things immolated to Idols, and bloud, and that which is strangled. Doth not this rather seeme contrary, than clearly in favour of your affirmation, that it is cleare in Scripture that the Mosaicall Law is not necessary? For, one part, and practise, and Law obliging the Iewes, was, to abstaine from bloud, and that which is strangled (though I grant it was also commanded before, but not to last always, as the practise of Christs Church declareth) and yet in the councell it is sayd to be necessary. And for the other point; that you abstaine from the things immolated to Idols, S. Paule teaches, that, abstracting from an erroneous conscience, it is not necessary to abstayne from them, and yet in that Councell it is injoyned as a thing necessary. How then is this poynt so cleare, if we looke on scripture alone, without reference to any declaration, or practise of Gods church?

35. Besides, for Circumcision; (which as the Apostle sayth, brings [Page 144]with it an obligation to obserue the whole Mosaicall Law, which observation is, you say clearly not necessary) although if we take some words, or text of Scripture alone, without any further reflection or consideration, it may seeme cleare, that it is not only not necessary, but hurtfull, S. Paule saying (Gal. 5.2.) If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: yet if we also call to mynd, the fact of the same Apostle (Act 16. V. 3) saying, taking him, he circumcided him, (Timothy) that other text, If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing, which seemed cleare and vniversall, will seeme difficult, and to be vnderstood with some explication or restraint. For who will imagine, that S. Paule would be author of that, wherby Timothy should be deprived of all the good, he could expect from the Sauiour of the world? And the difficulty wilbe increased, if we add that S. Paule caused Timothy to be circumcised, propter Iudaeos &c. For the Iewes who were in those places; for they knew all of them, that his father was a Gentile; wherby one would apprehend, that S. Paule judged it necessary (at least per accidens, because all knew that his father was a gentil) that Timothy should be circumcised; and yet contrarily, (Gal. 2. N. 3.) it is sayd; but neither Titus, wheras he was a Gentil, was compelled to be circumcised. It is therfor very cleare that this Poynt which you alledg as clearly expressed in Scripture, ought rather to be numbred amongst difficult, and obscure places, and (directly against your inference that there is no need of an infallible guide) shewes the necessity of such a guide; because this determination, about the Mosaicall Law, was a Definition of a Counsell, ād must be declared by the practise of Gods church, as being concerning some things, not to be alwayes observed, but intended to be ordered by the sayd Church; without whose authority, how should we know when, and in what manner, the keeping of the Mosaicall Law became both vnnecessary, and damnable; mortua and mortifera, dead and deadly: since we see some part therof observed by the Apostles after our Sauiours ascension, and sending the Holy Ghost?

36. But at least, though you haue erred in the first part of your example, concerning the evidence of Scripture, that the keeping of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary to salvation; yet you haue vndoubtedly proved your purpose in the other part, That good works are necessary to salvation.

37. To this I answer: It is strang you should hold this point of the [Page 145]necessity of good works to salvation, to be so evident in Scripture, that every one who believes the Scripture hath sufficient meanes to discover, and condemne the contrary heresie; seing you know the common Tenet of Protestants, that it is impossible to keep the commandements, and the doctrine of many of them, that all our actions are sinnes. Can the breach of the commandements, be a good worke? Or can sinfull works be necessary to salvation? That is, can it be necessary to doe that which is necessary for vs not to doe, as every one is obliged not to sinne? How then can you say, the Scripture is cleare in this poynt, since so many of your chiefest brethren must mayntayne the contrary, and divers of them do in express termes deny good works to be necessary, yea and call it a Papisticall errour, yea worse than is the Papists Doctrine; as is exactly sett downe in Brierly (Tract. 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis. 4.) And see in the same Author, (Tract. 3. Sect. 7. N. 7.) The necessity of good works contradicted for new Papistry, as pernicious as the old, by Illyricus in Praefat. ad Rom. and many others, And all this they pretend to doe vpon the warrant of evident scripture?

37. And heer I am to obserue, that (Pag, 157. N. 50.) you having alledged some poynts as clearly contayned in scripture (and in particular, concerning Faith, Repentance, and Resurrection of the body, which we haue demonstrated not to be clear without assistance from Gods Church, and to be controverted even amongst Protestants) add these remarkable words: These we conceyue both true, because the Scripture sayes so, and Truths Fundamentall, because they are necessary parts of the Gospell, wherof our Sauiour sayes, Qui non crediderit damnabitur. Therfor say I, scripture alone is not cleare, even in Fundamentall points, which directly overthrowes the whole Foundation of Protestants religion. And because heer you name expressly the Resurrection of the Body, and not only that all men shall rise againe at the last day, as you spoake (Pag. 101. N. 127.) I would gladly know how it is a Resurrection of the Body which never rises againe, but another celestiall body is created to succeed it? And what reckoning do you make of the (39. Articles) of the English Church? since (Art 4.) it is sayd: Christ did truly rise rgaine from death, and tooke againe his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of mans nature, wher with he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth vntill he returne to judg all men at the last day.

38. You see then, that he hath produced Fundamentall poynts as [Page 146]cleare in scripture, which are proved not to be so. Of poynts not Foundamentall, he chuseth in the same place one example, so pregnant and certaine in his conceypt, that he hopes we will grant it to be such: namely, that Abraham begat Isaac. But this text is not so cleare, as he supposes. For how will he be sure (if we take those words alone) that Abraham was Isaacs Father, and not grandfather, or yet higher? We reade in S. Matthew, (1.8.) Ioram begat Ozias: three Kings being left out. For Ioram immediatly begat Ochozias Ochozias begat Ioas, Ioas begat Amazias Amazias begat Azarias or Ozias (for he had two names) as is manifest (1. Paral. 3.11. and 12. and 2. Paral. 22.9. & seqq.) he therfor left out three to wit, Ochosias, Ioas, and Amazias. as also (Matth. 1.12.) frequently in the Latin copy one generation is left out: for with S. Epiphanius and others, it is thus to be supplyed and read: Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren: and Jeconias begat Jechonias in the transmigration of Babilon. For now we haue only; Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. On the contrary; where (Genes. 11. V. 12.) it is sayd; Arphaxad begat Sale, as the Hebrew and Caldaean text haue, both in this place, and also (1. Paral. 1.18. & 24.) the Septuaginta both heer, and there put Cainan between. For they saye; Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Sale. S. Luke rollowes the Septuagint, (Chap. 36.) saying: Who was of Sale, who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad. Besides all this, what will he vnderstand by genuit, he begat, or, fuit Filius, he was the Son, which may haue divers significations, as Luc. (3.38.) Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God? Where we see, Filius a son must be taken in a different sense, as it is referred to Henos, Seth, and Adam, and as it is referred to God, vvhose naturall son Adam vvas not. But I may seeme to haue sayd too much, of such a matter as this, vnless it did shevv clearly, the difficulty of scripture, even in texts, vvhich scarcely seeme capable of difficulty.

39. Sixtly: vvhatsoever effect Protestants yield to Sacraments, at least it is necessary they be maintayned and not quite abolished, and taken from the true Church, of vvhich, Protestants teach the right administration of Sacraments, to be an Essentiall Note. Yea, seing there vvant not learned Protestants vvho hold Baptisme to be necessary to salvation, if the scripture be not cleare in vvhat concernes this Sacrament, it is not cleare in a necessary poynt as I sayd. Novv the [Page 147]very vvord Sacrament (taken in this sense) according to Protestants is not found in scripture; yea Socinians teach, that it is an abuse of the vvord Sacrament to apply it to holy rites. ^(a) And in the definition therof, Protestants cannot agree amongst themselves, nor vvith vs Catholikes. Socinians goe further, and deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament, and teach that all are not obliged to receaue it, but that some may be enrolled amongst the number of Christians without it; That the church may either leaue it of, or at least can compell none to receyue it; and in a vvord, that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent. ^(b) The Eucharist also they hold not to be a Sacramēt: ^(c) that it may be administred by lay persons, ^(d) and receyved by such as are not baptized. ^(e) Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptisme.

40. As for the Matter and Forme, of those tvvo Sacraments vvhich they admit; Divers of them expressly teach, that vvater is not absolutely necessary in Baptisme, but that some other liquid thing may serue: and yet the scripture sayth (Joan: 3. V. 5.) Vnless a man be borne againe of vvater and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdome of God, And (Ephes: 5.25.26.) Christ loved the church, and delivered himself for it, that he might sanctify it cleansing it by the laver in the vvord of life. And for the Forme; there vvant not that teach, those vvords, In the name of the Father &c. not to be necessary. About the Forme of the Eucharist, they agree not; some requiring no vvords at all; other requiring vvords, but in a farr different manner, and meaning, one from another; as may be seene in Bellarm. (Lib. 4. de Sacrament. Eucharistiae, Cap. 12.) And for the Matter; some Protestants, (as Beza, Tilenus, Bucanus, Hommius), teach that neither bread nor vvine is necessary for the Eucharist; though it be evident in scripture, that our Sauiour consecrated in bread and vvine. As also Beza (Lib: Quest: & Respons: Vol, 3. Theol: Pag: 364.) saith; that it is naevus in Ecclesijs &c. A blemish in those Churches, which vse vnleavened bread rather than leavened, and savours of Iuda [...]sme; and yet he affirmes, that Christ. first blessed vnleavened bread, and instituted this supper at that tyme when it was not lawfull for the Iewes to vse any but vnleavened bread And Sadeel (ad Artic: 56. abjurat: Pag: 511.) saith; Christ indeed vsed▪ vnleavened bread. Did Christ that vvhich savours of Judaisme? Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper. By what authority then do they [Page 148]alter these things, if we must stand to scriprure alone without the churches tradition and authority? What evident Text can they bring, for these, and the like alterations, as, not first washing feete &c.? And Volkel: (Lib: 4. C. 22.) affirmes, that if one cannot drinke wine, he may vse water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper, as he speakes. Montague the pretended Bishop first of Chichester, then of Norwich in the articles of visitation Ann: 1631. Tit. Articles concerning Divine service and administration of the Sacraments, (N. 9.) sayth thus: Is the wine as it should be, representing bloud, not sacke, whyte wine, water, or some other liquor? but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader, I think sitt to transcribe the words of Brereley, who (Tract: 2. Cap. 2. Sect. 10. subdivis. 7.) doth to this purpose cite punctually the opinions of divers learned Protestants, in these words: Concerning the forme of words requisite to a Sacrament; Luther ^(a) affirmes Baptisme to be good with whatsoever words it be ministred, so the same be not in the name of man, but of God. Yea he sayth. I doubt not but if one receyue (Baptisme) in the name of God, although the wicked Minister giue it not in the name of God, he is truly baptised in the name of God. Also Brentius ^(b) and Zwinglius ^(c) affirme, that no prescript forme of words is necessary in Baptisme: to omitt that Bullinger: ^(d) doth discourse at large against the necessity of any forme of words to be pronounced; And that Bucer (in Matth. C. 26,) teacheth, recitall of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not to be necessary; one of their owne martyrs Iohn Lassells in his letter Apologeticall recorded for the supposed worth therof by M. Fox (in his Acts and mon [...] Pag: 678.679.) affirmes ehat S. Paul durst not take vpon him to say; Hoc est Corpus meum; This is my body, but omitted those words, affirming yet further, that, The Lord Iesus sayd it once for all. Whervpon he maketh the necessity to consist, not in any words pronounced, but in the breaking and giving of bread. Wherevnto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus ^(e) , and the like answerable practise of the reformed Church in Scotland. ¹⁴ As appeares in the booke of the vsage of the kirk of Scotland, printed at Rochell. 1596. (Pag. 189.190.191.192.193.

41. The same I may say of the Forme, Matter, and Manner to be vsed in the Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and others Degrees in the [Page 149]church. All which poynts being of great importance in Gods church which cannot consist without true Governours and Sacraments, and yet not being determinable by scripture alone, as is manifest, both by the thing it self, and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them, we must infer, that all things necessary are not evidently contayned in scripture.

42. Which is so manifest a truth, that Dr. Field one of the greatest Clerks amongst English Protestants, (L. 4. C. 20.) summeth togeather divers traditions not contayned in scripture, saying; we admit first the Bookes of Canonicall Scriptue as delivered by tradition (what more fundamē tall article than this, to Protestants who profess to haue no Faith but by scripture, which this man acknowledges to be receyved and believed by traditions?) Secondly: the chief heads of Christian Doctrine, and distinct explication of many things, somwhat obscurely contayned in Scripture. (Mark, that a poynt contayned obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church, as I sayd in the beginning of this chapter: and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine.) Fourthly: the continued practise of such things as are not expressed in scripture. Fiftly: such observations as are not particularly commanded in scripture. Amongst which and the former, he numbreth the Fast of Lent, the Baptisme of infants; (of which he sayes; it is not expressly delivered in scripture, that the Apostles did baptize Infants, nor any express precept there found that they should do so) and observation of our Lords day, and afterward he confesseth, that many other things there are, which the Apostles doubtiess delivered by Tradition. Covell in his Answer to Iohn Burges ( Pag: 139.) affirmes the moderate vse of the Crosse to be an Apostolicall Constitution, and in his Examination against the Plea of the innocent, ( Cap. 9 Pag. 104.) referreth the termes of Archishops vnto Apostolicall Ordination. And VVhitgift in his Defence &c: affirmeth and proveth the Apostles Tradition of Easter. And Oecolampadiu [...] affirms the Baptisme of infants not to be taught in scripture, [ in li [...]: Epi [...]tolarum Zu [...]ngl [...]i & Occolampa [...]] [ Pag: 101. and 363.] and so likewise doth Zuinglius (To: 1. Lib de Bapt. Fol. 96.) These men therefore must either confess the authority of Gods church and her infallible Traditions, or yield to the pernicious Doctrine of Anabaptists. Dr. Taylor in is Defence of. Episcopacy, is so full to our purpose for the necessity of Traditions, that I thought sit to transcribe his words as they ly (§. 19.) which are these, [Pag: 100.] Although we had not proved the immediate Divine [Page 150]institution of Episcopall power over Presbyters, and the whole flock; yet Episcopacy is not lesse then an Apostolicall ordinance, and delivered to vs by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is. For, for that in the new Testament we haue no precept, and nothing but the example of the Primitiue Disciples meeting in their Synaxes vpon that day, and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues, but yet (however that at Geneva, they were once in meditation to haue changed it into a Thursday meeting to haue showne their Christian liberty) we should thinke strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festivall lesse then an Aposticall ordinance, and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed.

Baptisme of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance, and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cryed, and yet the Church hath founded this rite vpon the tradition of the Apostles; and wise men do easily obserue that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants vpon vs, as we doe of baptizing infants vpon them, if we speak of immediate Divine institution, or of practise Apostolicall recorded in scripture, and therfore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists, was forced to fly to Apostolicall traditiue ordination, and therfor the institution of Bishops, must be served first, as having fairer plea, and clearer evidence in scripture, then the baptizing of infants, and yet they that deny this, are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church, confidently condemned for Hereticks.

Of the same consideration are diverse other things in Christianity, as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist; for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church, Clergy and Laity, when Christ sayd [Hoc facite, Doe this] then why may not every Christian man there represented, doe that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to doe? If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church, why then doe all communicate? Or what place, or intimation of Christes saying is there in all the foure Gospells, limiting [Hoc facite, id est, benedicite] to the Clergy, and extending [Hoc facite, id est, accipite & manducate] to the Laity? This also rests vpon the practise Apostolicall and traditive interpretation of H: Church, and yet cannot be denyed that so it ought to be, by any man that would not haue his Christendome suspected.

[Page 151]

To these I adde the Communion of Women, the distinction of bookes Apocryphall, from Canonicall, that such books were written by such Evangelists, and Apostles, the whole tradition of scripture it selfe, the Apostles Creed, the feast of Easter (which amongst all men that cry vp the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution, must needs prevaile as Caput institutionis, it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated.) These and diverse others of greater consequence (which I dare not specify for feare of being misunderstood) rely but vpon equall faith with this of Episcopacy (though I should waue all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance) and therfore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity, which the Church hath entertained vpon the confidence of that which we call the Faith of a Christian, whose Master is truth it selfe. Thus farr the Doctour: in whom, beside other divers points for our purpose, it is remarkable, that he affirmes the deniall of the baptizing of infants to be an Heresy, and yet that the contrary truth is not contained in scripture; which therfore cannot be sayd to containe all necessary points of Faith.

43. Seaventhly: it is a prodigious kind of thing, that Protestants would make men belieue, that all necessary poynts are evident in scripture, and yet for vnderstanding scripture prescribe certaine necessary Rules or Meanes which it is evident few can possibly obserue, and no lesse evident by the confession of our adversaryes, that being observed, they are not sufficient; and consequently even by those Meanes assigned for vnderstanding scripture, we know that scripture is not evident, in all necessary things; which is a poynt well to be noted. Sanchius de sacra scriptura ( Col: 409.) saith: The Holy scripture, in those things which are necessary to be knowne for salvation, is so cleare, that it may easily he vnderstood of all those who are indued with Gods spirit, and who reade it attentively and dayly, and vnderstand the words and phrases therof. Easily? Doth not this contradict all the former words, which require knowledg hard to be gotten, and paynes not easy to be taken? The scripture (sayth this Protestant) is cleare in all necessary poynts, to all that are indued with the spirit of God. But if they be indued with the spirit of God, they are presupposed to haue true Faith for points necessary to be knowen; and then I aske fromwhence had they that Faith, without which, scripture is not cleare? Not from scripture, because it is prerequired to the vnderstanding of scripture. Therfore from some other meanes, which certainly [Page 152]can be no other, but the Church and tradition. Besides this, that is, beside the spirit of God, yea ād true Faith, they must reade scripture daily and attentively, and must penetrate the words and phrases, which is so farr from being easy to be done, that he assignes no fewer thā nineteene Rules for doeing it, wherof one is, that we interpret scripture juxta analogiam Fidei, and by the Scriptures themselves, by diligent conferring of places like to one an other. Is this easy? And yet we must not forget, that he speaks of poynts necessary to de believed. Scharphius assignes twenty Rules (in cursu Theologico de scrip: controvers: 8. Pag: 44.) which vnless they be kept, we cannot but erre. But perhaps all these Rules are easy. Iudg of the rest by these To know originall languages; also to discusse the words, phrases, and Hebraismes: to conferr the places which are like, and vnlike to one another; to aske advise, and to helpe once self with interpreters &c. Is this to make the scripture easy, and evident? Or is it not to make it evidently true, that it is evident, few can possibly obserue those Rules, without which, these men confess, that scripture cannot be vnderstood?

44. And now to proue that I also spoake truth, in saying, it is evident that these Ruls though they were observed, are not sufficient to make scripture cleare and evident, it were abundantly sufficient to reflect on the great, and irreconciliable disagreements amongst Protestants themselves; which argues, that, either scripture is not evident, or that they are extreamly blind, or malitious, or dissemble and spea [...] against the belief of their owne hart. Doth not Chill. say, (Preface N. 30.) that there is no more certaine signe that a poynt is not evident, than that honest, and vnderstanding, and indifferent men, and such as giue themselues liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter, differ about it. But yet I will proue it out of a Protestant, who in generall brings vnaswerable arguments against the pretented evidence of scripture, and proves in particular, that the Meanes of Rules assigned by Protestants, to vnderstand the scripture, are not sufficient to convince or make evident the the sense therof. I meane Dr. Jeremy Taylor in a Discourse of the liberty of Prophecying, printed An: 1647. He sect: 3. endeavours to proue in generall, the difficulty and vncertainty of arguments from scripture, First by consideration of scripture it self in regard of different copies, translations &c. By the many senses of scripture when the Grammaticall sense i [...] found out: for, there is in very many scriptures a deuble sense, a litterall, and a spirituall: and both these senses are subdivided. For, the litterall sense is either naturall or [Page 153]Figuratiue: and the spirituall is somtymes Allegoricall, somtymes Anagogicall; nay, somtymes there are divers litterall senses in the same sentence. This, I say, first he proves in generall; and then [Sect: 4.] directly to my purpose, he proves that the meanes which are wont to be assigned for interpreting scripture are but vncertaine. Thus he discourses: First, somtyme the sense is drawne forth by the context and connexion of parts. It is well when it can be so. But when there is two or three antecedents, and subjects spoken of; what man, or what Rule shall as [...]ertaine me, that I make my reference true, by drawing the relation to such an antecedent, to which I haue a mynd to apply it, another hath not &c: Secondly: An other great pretense is the conference of places; which he sayes is of so indefinite capacity, that, if there be ambiguity of words, variety of sense, alteration of circumstances, or difference of style amongst Divine Writers, then there is nothing which may be more abused by wilfull people, or may more easily deceive the vnwary, or that may amuse the most intelligent Observer. This he proves by some examples, and sayes, that it is a fallacy a posse ad esse affirmativè: from a possibility of being, to an affirmatiue heing: that is, because a word is somtymes vsed in such a sense, therfor it must alwayes be taken in that sense; and concludes, that, this is the great way of answering all the Arguments, that can be brought against any thing, that any man hath a mynd to defend: and any man that reades any controversyes of any side, shall fynd as many instances of this vanity, almost as he fynds Arguments from Scripture. This fault was of old noted by S. Austin [ De Doctrina Christiana. Lib. 3.] for then they had got this trick; and he is angry at it. Ne (que) enim putare debemus, esse praescriptum, vt, quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit, hoc etiam semper significare credamus. Thus the Doctor.

45. And I say in one word: This conferring of divers places can produce no certainty, vnless you can first giue a certaine and evident Rule, why, and when, this word is to be explicated by that, rather than that by this; the first by the second, rather than the second by the first. But who will dreame, that any such certaine Rule can be given?

46. Thirdly: Tailor procedes; Oftentymes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason. This he impugnes at large: and saith, it is with reason, as with mens tastes. When a man doth speake reason, it is but reason he should be heard; but though he may have the good fortune, or the great abilityes to doe it, yet he hath not a certainty, no regular infallible assistance, no inspiration of Arguments and deductions: and [Page 154]if he had, yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason, vnless other mens vnderstandings were of the same ayre, the same constitution and ability, they cannot be prescribed vnto, by an other mans reason; especially because such reasonings as vsually are in explication of particular places of Scripture, depend vpon minute circumstances and particularityes, in which it is so easy to be deceyved, and so hard to speake reason regularly and alwayes, that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceyved. I may say, that, Faith being aboue Reason. Reason must submit to Faith, and not Faith be subject to Reason. For, as S. Bernard excellently saies [Ep: 190.] What is more against Reason, than that one should striue to go beyond Reason by force of Reason?

47. Fourthly: Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogy of Faith. This he sayth is but a chimera, a thing in nubibus, which varyes like the right hand and left hand of a pillar. For, if by the analogy of Faith be vnderstood the Rule of Faith, that is, the Creed, were it not a fine devise to go to expound all the Scripture by the Creed, there being in it so many thousand places which haue no more relation to any Article in Creed than they haue to Tityre tu patulae? But if you extend the analogy of Faith further than that which is proper to the rule or Symbol of Faith, then every man expounds Scripture according to the analogy of Faith: but what? His own Faith: which Faith if it be questioned, I am no more bound to expound according to the analogy of another mans Faith, then he is to expound according to the analogy of myne. And this is it that is complained on of all sides [...]at overvalue their owne opinions. Scripture seemes so clearly to speake what they beheue, that they wonder all the world does not see as cleare as they do &c: In this he speaks what we find by daily experience; and the Reason is, because evident or obscure, probable or improbable, being but extrinsecall Denominations (in respect of the Objects which are in themselves either so, or not so, Est, or Non) taken from the Acts of our vnderstanding, which haue great dependance on severall complexions, affections, education, and other prejudices, no wonder if one man judg that to be true and evident, which another conceyves to be obscure or false.

48. Fiftly. Consulting the Originals, is thought a great matter to interpretation [...]f Scriptures. But this is to small purpose. For indeed it will expound the Heb [...]w and the Greek, and rectify Translations. But I know no man that sayes that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easy and certaine to be vnderstood, and that they are hard in Latine and English. [Page 155]The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed, the least in the Language. If the Originall Languages were our mother tongue, Scripture is not much the easyer to vs; and a naturall Greek or a Iew can with no more reason, nor authority, obtrude his interpretations vpon other mens consciences, than a man of another Nation.

49. And [Num: 6.] he sayth in generall: That, all these wayes of interpreting Scripture, which of themselves are good helps, are made either by designe, or by our infirmityes, wayes of intricating and involving Scriptures in greater difficulty, because men do not learne their doctrines from Scripture, but come to the vnderstanding of Scripture with preconceptions and ideas of doctrines of their own; and then no wonder that Scriptures looke like Pictures, wherein every man in the roome believes they looke on him only, and that whersoever he stands, or how often soever he changes his station. So that now, what was intended for a remedy, becomes the promoter of our disease, and our meate becomes the matter of sickness: And the mischiefe is, the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it; for there is no rule, no limit, no certaine Principle by which all men may be guided to a certaine and so infallible an interpretation, that he can with any equity prescribe to others to belieue his interpretations in places of controversy or ambiguity. Osiander in his confutation of the Booke which Melancton wrote against him, observes, that there are twenty severall opinions concerning justification, all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan Confession. There are sixteen severall opinions concerning originall sin; and as many definitions of the Sacraments as there are sects of men that disagree about them. This makes good what I sayd aboue, that the Protestants cannot agree in the very definition of Sacraments.

50. Lastly, (Num: 8.) he concludes thus. Since, those ordinary meanes of expounding scripture, as seurching the Originalls, conference of places, parity of Reason, and analogy of Faith, are all dubious, vncertaine, and veryfallibe: He that is the wisest, and by consequence the likelyest to expound truest in all probability of reason, will be very farr from cōfidence; because every one of these ādmany more are like so many degrees of improbability ād vncertainty all depressing our certainty of fynding out truth in such mysteries ād amidst so many difficultyes.

51. I haue thought good to set down this discourse, as being vnanswerable, and making directly for vs against the tenet of Protestants, that, the Scripture is evident in all things necessary to be believed; I say, even in things necessary. For although he giue to his Third Section this Title (Of the difficulty and vncertainty of Arguments from Scripture, in Questions not simply necessary, not litterally determined) yet it is minifest [Page 156]thathis reasons either proue vniversally of all articles, or proue nothing at all: especially if we consider, that the most necessary mysteryes of Christian Faith, are also most sublime: and therfor no wonder, if having in the title to his Third Section, mentioned the difficulty and vncertainty of argumēts from scripture in questiōns not simply necessary, in the proofes and prosecution of his reasons, he is silent of any such distinction, and shewes not in all, or any one of his reasons of the difficulty and vncertainty of the sense of scripture, any difference between necessary and vnnecessary points, nor is any man able to doe it, vpon any solid ground, as will appeare to any one who will severally consider his reasons. And when in the same Title he mentions Questions not literally determined, I cannot imagine what he would say; since according to his reasons, no Question can literally be determined in such manner, as still there will not remaine difficulty and vncertainty, vnless he were content to acknowledg the authority of the Church for determining some particular meaning of Scripture, as the literall sēse therof. Besides, vnless he can giue vs a catalogue of questions simply necessary (which Chilling: sayes, is impossible to be done, and those Protestants who haue gone about to doe it, could never agree amongst themselues, nor is it possible they should &c:) how shall we know that they are literally determined, or that Scripture in them is evident?

52. He sayd, the difficulty arises from diversity of editions, translations, senses, literall or spirituall, naturall or figuratiue; the insufficiency of conferring places; of parity of reason; analogy of faith; consulting the originalls. And who can deny, but that these reasons hold, as well in necessary, as vnnecessary poynts? Where will he fynd any text of scripture (evident, and not subject to any one of those difficultyes, which he hath vrged to proue the difficulty of scripture) affirming that those meanes and helpes, are insufficient for vnnecessary poynts, sufficient for necessary? If he answer: that if they be not cleare, they cannot be necessary: I reply; This is not to proue out of Scripture, but by reason: and he hath told vs, that it is with reason as with mens tastes: and in our present question, his reason wilbe petitio principij, a supposing, that all necessary points are evidently contayned in Scripture. For if this be not supposed, it wilbe soone answerd, that we may be obliged to belieue articles of Faith, by meanes of the Church or tradition, though they be not in particular, evidently contained in scripture. Doth not the prime Prorestant Sanchius by me cited aboue, affirme, [Page 157]that the sayd meanes, or nineteene Rules prescribed by him, are required for finding out the sense of Scripture in those things which are necessary for salvation? Therfor if these meanes be doubtfull and vncertaine, we cannot from Scripture alone receyue sufficient certainty, to belieue with an act of Faith, even things necessary to salvation. And indeed, all the meanes which Protestants prescribe, being humane actions and endeavours, wherin every man is subject to errour; this only remaines certaine, that they can yield vs no certainty. A deduction so cleare, that Whitaker (de Eccles. Controv. 2. Q. 4. P. 221.) sayes plainly. Such as the meanes are, such of necessity must be the interpretation: but the meanes of interpreting dark places are vncertaine, doubtfull, and ambiguous, therfor it cannot be, but that the interpretation also must be vncertaine; then it may be false &c.

53. Eightly: Protestants require for interpretation of Scripture, the spirit of God, as we haue seene aboue, and [2. Pet. 1. V. 20.21.] it is sayd; No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation, but the holy men of God spake, inspired with the Holy Ghost. And therfor God hath given to his Church the Gift of interpretation; and I suppose Protestants will not say, that the spirit of God, the Grace of God, and the Gift of interpretation given by God, is necessary only for things not necessary, and that we can attaine to the knowledge of poynts necessary by our own naturall forces: which yet we might doe, if reading alone could suffice vs for vnderstanding the true meaning of all necessary Mysteryes of Faith. And it is strange that Dr. Morton should say, (Apolog. part. 2. Lib. 1. Cap. 19.) That which is questioned, is, whether all such thinges as are necessary to salvation, are so very plaine, that the most vnlearned believers, by the reading therof, may be instructed to piety: and heretiques, though not learned, may clearly enough be confuted by them: ād he holds the affirmatiue part. And so Protestāts must either confess themselves to be Pelagians, if they hold Gods speciall grace and spirit not to be necessary for vnderstanding scripture aright; or if they acknowledg the necessity of such particular Grace, they must yeald, that scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowne. Which argument may be yet inforced in this manner.

54. The gift of interpretation is not given to every private person, as we gather from the words of S. Paul (1. Cor: 12.) To one is giuē by the spirit, the word of wisedome; to another the word of knowledg; to another, interpretation of languages, to another; prophecy [Page 158]&c: which declare that the spirit of interpreting is not given to all, in so much as Kemnitius (Exam: Part: 1. Fol: 63.) teacheth that the Gift of Interpretation is not common to all, no more then is the gift of healing and miracles, ād therfor we can only be certaine that it is in the Church, not in any private person. Therfor the Scripture is not so evident, that we can be sure of the meaning therof, by the interpretation of any, but of the Church.

55. Which finally Protestants must either acknowledg, or els pinfold themselves in an inextricable circle and labyrinth; in this manner: Scripture is evident only to those who are indued with the spirit of God and seing S. Iohn (Ioan: 1 Cap: 4. V. 1.) warnes vs. beleeue not every Spirit, but proue the spirits if they be of God, it followes that Protestants must haue some meanes to try this spirit, before they can beleeue it; which meanes with them must be only Scripture: and therfor they must know the meaning of the Scripture, before they can make vse of that spirit, by which they are to know the meaning of the Scripture. Therfor the same spirit is necessary to know the meaning of Scripture, and Scripture necessary to try the truth of this spirit; and so this spirit shalbe necessary for attayning the meaning of Scripture, which meaning of Scripture must be attayned before we can vse this spirit. Therfore this spirit is necessary, and not necessary for vnderstanding Scripture, which we must vnderstand before we can try this spirit; and Scripture necessary, and not necesssary for trying this spirit, which we must know to be from God before we vnderstand Scripture. And in a word, the spirit must depend on the vnderstanding of Scripture, and the vnderstanding of Scripture must depend on the spirit; and the finall conclusion will be, that the same thing must depend on it selfe, the spirit on spirit, Scripture on Scripture: and so both of them must exist both before, and after, themselves. Neither is there any meanes to avoyd this Circle, except by having recourse to Gods visible Church, whose spirit needs no triall of men; since God himselfe hath given a publike Approbation of Her spirit, by obliging all to obey Her voyce, and to receyue even Scripture it self, from Her Authority and Testimony.

56. Ninthly: I now vrge more in particular, that which heretofore I touched in generall: that they can alledg no evident Text of Scripture, declaring any command that we must haue recourse to [Page 159]Scripture alone, for knowing the Objects or Articles of Faith: and yet if the End which is Faith, be necessary, the only Meanes (that is Scripture) to attayne that End, must also be necessary: nor can they produce any evident Text, proving that from Scripture alone, we can learne all points necessary to be believed.

57. The clearest and most effectuall way to proue the truth of this my Assertion, wilbe to examine such Texts as Protestants are wont to alledg, and to shew how little they make to their purpose. They produce these words (Deut: 4. V. 2.) You shall not add to the word that I speake to you, neither shall you take away from it: keepe the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you. Search the Scriptures. (Ioan: 5.39.) these things are written, that yee may beleeue. (Ioan: 20.31.) And that of the Beraeans: dayly searching the scriptures. (Act: 17. V. 11.) we haue the Propheticall word more sure (2. Pet. 1.19.) All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good worke. (2. Timoth: 3.16.)

58. Now these Texts, are so farr from proving evidently what is intended, that it is evident, that neither these, nor any other can be alledged, to proue, that men are obliged to haue recourse to scripture alone. The reason is; because whatsoeuer can be alledged out of the old testament, cannot be so vnderstood, as to exclude the living Guides granted to that Church, as Moyses, the Prophets, and writers of Canocall scripture: nor out of the new testament to exclude the Apostles, and preachers of the Gospell. Therfor no scripture can be so vnderstood, as to oblige vs to consult scripture alone. Nay out of this ground I further infer, that, seing at that tyme Christians wanted not living infallible Guides, they had no obligation at all to consult scripture, (and much less scripture alone) and if they had no such obligation, no Canonical scripture can with truth affirme, that they were so obliged, and consequently it is an injury to scripture to interpret it in that sense. This my deduction is confirmed by a doctrine of Chilling. (Pag: 116. N. 159.) that, God requires of vs vnder payne of danatiō only to belieue the verityes therin (in scripture) contayned, and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin they are cōtayn [...]d. By which assertion, he doth not only disoblige mē, from having recourse to scripture but also frō believing it to be the word of God when the contents therof cā be learned by other meanes, as they might, while those visible guides were living. Therfor no text cā be brought to [Page 160]proue, that men were, or are, obliged to haue recourse to Scripture for matters of Faith, though they are bound to belieue them to be the infallible word of God, as in due tyme I will proue against his pernicious doctrine to the contrary delivered in this same page and number.

59. But beside this, there is another fundamentall ground of Protestāts, which being well pondered, will make it a hard task for them to alledge any text of scripture to the purpose in hand. They teach, that only after the Canon of scripture was perfited, it became a sufficient Rule of Faith; and consequently, before that tyme, we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therin. Therfor, do I infer, no scripture could affirme, that scripture contaynes all necessary poynts, except that book, yea text, which was written last, and did make vp the whole Canon; and all precedent parts of scripture could only speake in the future tense, and as it were by way of prophecy, that other books of scripture were to be written; and that then the scripture would be sufficiēt for all necessary points. For which propheticall kind of meaning, Protestants do not alledg scripture; as for example, that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New; or, that one part of the new contaynes a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow; which to affirme, were groundless and ridiculous. And who can say, that the scripture which was written last, affirmes the sufficiency of scripture alone? If Protestants haue any such assurance, let them shew vs, in that last booke, or text, the words which evidently contayne such a meaning and asseveration. For, on that last text alone they must rely, for the reasons alledged, that, without that text the Canon was not complete. Add yet further, that, it being not certaine what part of Canonicall scripture was the last, they cannot with certainty alledg any one text of the whole Bible, to proue their purpose. And much will be added to their difficulty, if we consider, that Protestants do not agree, whether some of those scriptures, which were the last, or among the last, be Canonicall, or no; for example, the Apocalips, the second, and third Epistle of S. John, which, by some Protestants are expressly put out of the Canon. And then how can they so much as offer vs any proofe from the old Testament, since it is impossible to be done out of the new, as hath bene proved.

60. Tenthly. Although what I haue sayd, were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants, to alledg any text of scripture for their purpose; yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader, in a matter of such moment [Page 161]mēt, I will, as I sayd aboue, examine the texts, vsually alledged, ādshew, that they are neither evidēt, nor probable, nor pertinent. Wherby I shall not only confute all their proofes, but joyntly bring a convincing argument, for vs, against them; whose Doctrine must needs fall, if they be demonstrated, to faile in their allegation of scripture for this maine poynt. And it is to be observed, that Chilling: seemes in effect to acknowledg, that it is hard to alledg any effectuall text for his purpose, while he is very sparing in producing scripture, but makes perpetually vse of Topicall arguments and discourses; as for example, if scripture were not evident in all things necessary, we could not be obliged to belieue them, ād the like, being indeed conscious, that the places of scripture commonly alledged by Protestants, are of small force.

61. To the words objected out of (Deut: 4.2.) You shall not add to the word, which I speak to you: I answer; they cannot signify, that all things which the Iewes were obliged to belieue, or practise, were contayned evidently in scripture alone, as if the writing of Moyses did exclude the ordinary living Rule, permanent amongst the Iewes, to witt the Definition of the Priest, of which it is sayd (Deut: 17.8.) If thou perceyue that the judgmēt with thee be hard and doubtfull, &c: or as if it excluded Moyses himself, or the rest of this veryfourth chapter, out of which the objection is taken; or other chapters, which he wrote afterward even in that book of Deuteronomy, which hath in all 34. Chapters; or the last Chapter, which could not be written by Moyses, but Esdras, or Iosue, disciple ād successour to Moyses, as appeares by the same (Chapter, V. 5.6.) where the death and buriall of Moyses is described and it is sayd; (Deuter: 34.6,) no man hath knowne his sepulcre vntill, this present day: or the commāds which the Prophets somtyme gaue, as, (1. Reg. 15.) or some solemnityes or Feast instituted for thāksgiving for some benefit: or, as if after those words of Moyses, ād after his death no scripture could be written by Iosue and other Canonicall writers, amongst the Iewes in the Old, or Christians in the New Law, for feare of transgressing, You shall not add to the word which I speak vnto you. Therfor ethose words, You shall not add to the word &c: must haue some other meaning, then these mē would violently giue them against the express words themselves, which are not, You shall not add to the writing which I write to you, but, to the word which I speak to you; which, if we respect the letter, signifyes rather vnwritten tradition, than any thing written in scripture. And that the Jewes had vnwritten traditions, see [Page 162] Brierly (Tract: 1. sect. 4. subdivis: 6.) citing both ancient Fathers, and Protestant writers: and so this text makes for tradition; against the objectours rhemselves. Besides; You shall not add to the word, may signify contrary to it, by declining to the right, or left hand, as is sayd [Cap: 5. V. 32.] especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor (as it followes V. 3.) or of some other new Deity or Idoll. For, Moyses in all this Chapter, and frequently in deuter: intends to exclude new Gods, and Rites. Thus the Hebrew al, that is, ad, is taken for contra, (Psalm: 2.2.) and numbers (14.2.) so (Gal. 1.8.) S. Paul denounces an anathema to those who evangelize aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit; praeter, beside; that is contra, against: for he treates of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme. This appeares in the words of the same verse, you shall not add to the word which I speak to you; neither shall you take away from it: keepe the commandements of your God, which I command you. Which latter words signify; that to add, or take away from Gods word, is to breake, or doe somthing against his commādemēts, ād not to doe somthing which is not commāded, so it be not forbidden, and otherwise may tend to Gods glory: Otherwise the Iewes added many things to the Law of God, as, engravings, the ornaments of the temple: Dayes of lottes, (Esth. 9.31.) the Feast of fire given; the Feast of the Dedication &c. All which considered, who doth not see what a strange Argument this is: Moyses sayth to the Iewes, thou shall not add to the word which I speake. Therfor nothing must be believed or practised by Iewes; or Christians, which is not exprest in writing, or scripture; yea in the scripture of the old Law: and what is this but to condemne the Law of Christ?

63. Toar those words, search the Scriptures, spoken by our Sauiour to the Jewes (Joan. 5.39.) I answer: first; if they will haue their purpose, they must add, solas, earch the Scriptures alone, (as Luther, in the Text, where it is sayd (Rom. 3.28.) We account a man to be justified by Faith without the works of the Law, in favour of justification by Faith alone, translats, justified by Faith alone) otherwise they are not to purpose. For the question is only whether scripture alone contayne all things necessary to salvation. 2. Indeed they cannot add, solas, nor can any vnderstand Search the Scriptures, in that sense of taking Scriptures alone, since our B, Saviour in that Chapter of S. Iohn, to proue that he was the Messias, alledges the testimony of S. John Baptist: and a greater testimony then John, the very works [Page 163]which I doe (miracles) and also the voyce of his Father. (Matth. 3.17.) Therfor our Sauiour beside Scriptures, alledgeth other very powerfull meanes; the voyce of John; the voyce of works; the voyce of his eternall Father. 3. This Text speaks only of one Article of Faith, to witt, that Christ was the Messias, and it is no good consequence; the scriptures are cleare in one poynt of Faith: rherfor they are cleare in all. 4. Even for this one Poynt he doth not absolutely command them to search the scriptures, as necessary of themselves, but only ex hypothesi. For, vpon supposition that they did not beleeue for the other threefold testimonyes, and that they believed scripture to be the word of God, then it only remayned, that they should search the scriptures, and so our Sauiour sayth, search the scriptures, and expressly adds, (Joan. 5.39.) For you thinke in them to haue life everlasting; shewing that he speakes, as it were ad hominem: seing you, ô Jewes, will not belieue the testimony of John, of Miracles, and of my Eternall Father, at least search the scriptures, in which you thinke to haue life everlasting, and the same are they that giue testimony of me. As we Carholikes may say to Heretikes, who reject the Authority of Gods Church, and Tradition, and admitt only scripture; since you will not belieue the voyce of the Church, and yet belieue scriptures, search the scriptures, which giue testimony of the Church. And yet it were strang, if Protestants should, from such our daily speech infer, that we belieue no other Rule, or Judg besides scriptnre alone: and I hope Protestants will not deny but that the testimony of S. John, our Sauiours Miracles, and the voice of his Eternall Father, were sufficient to oblige men to belieue that our Sauiour was the Messias, though they had not searcht the scriptures; as we see Infidels to be converted to the Faith of Christ by Miracles, and other Arguments of Credibility, without helpe of scripture, which they beleeue not to be the word of God, except by force of those Arguments: and I suppose they will grant that our Saviours Miracles, and those other Arguments which he vsed, were more forcible than any can be brought by any Apostolicall man, for the conversion of Gentils. So that vpòn the matter, this Text, search the scriptures, pondered, as it should be, shews not only that scripture alone is not necessary, but absolutely proves, it is not so, but may be supplyed by othermeanes, as S. Irenaeus witnesseth of people that were converted to the Faith of Christ without knowledg of scripture 5. Protestants cannot proue that scrutamini, search, is [Page 164]the imperatiue mood. S. Cyrill: Lib. 3. in Joan: Cap: 4. holds, that it is of the indicatiue; and some learned Catholike Divines are of the same mynd; yea Beza saith; I agree with Cyrill who clearly wa [...]nes vs that this is to be vnderstood rather by a verbe of the indicative: and so our Saviour reprehends the Jewes who did search the scriptures and yet did not belieue in him of whom those scriptures spoke. According to this Opinion, or explication of this text, our Saviour in this place, neither commands, nor forbids, approves, nor disallowes the reading of scripture, but only signifyes, what they did, and supposing they did so, blames them for not doing it with such a hart and disposition of soule, as to find in them the true Messias. At least, seing this exposition cannot be evidently disproved, it is evident, that this text doth not evidently convince, that the scripture alone contaynes evidently all things necessary to salvation: yea, rather, since those men did read scripture, and yet not belieue in Christ, it is a signe, that scripture alone is not so very cleare, as to necessitate a mans vnderstanding to the true meaning therof, without some dispositions on our behalf, of which dispositions, no man being absolutely and evidently certaine, he cannot be certainly assured, that he hath attayned the right sense by scripture alone, without some other helpe, as was the preaching, and Miracles of our Saviour and the Testimony of s. John, and of his Eternall Father; and as to vs, is the Authority, and voyce of Gods Church. But if we will follow the other opinion, that our Saviour commanded those men to reade the scriptures, it cannot be vnderstood as an absolute command (seing they had other meanes more than sufficient, and more effectuall than scripture, to beget in their soules a belief that Christ was the Messias: to witt, Miracles, voyce of his Father &c:) but only, as I sayd, vpon supposition, that they by their owne fault, not making vse of those other meanes, were obliged to make vse of this of scripture; yet so, as they might free themselves from that hypotheticall and voluntary necessity, by applying themselves to those other meanes, for neglect of which, our Saviour reprehends them [V. 38.] His (the Fathers) word you haue not remayning in you, because whom he hath sent, him you beleeue not: (and yet they believed the scripture) and this reprehension he prosecutes to the end of that Chapter. The obligation then of searching scripture was voluntary, and the command only to Jewes, and Jewes so incredulous, that they would neither belieue s. John, nor our Saviour Christ, nor the Eternall [Page 165]Father. And if Protestants will imitate those Jewes, and reject all Authority of a living Guide, and rely only on scripture, they for finding the true Church, shalbe obliged to search scriptures, by a voluntary culpable necessity, which they ought not to impose vpon others, but contrarily, they ought by all possible meanes, to free themselves from it, by submitting to Gods Church, and her Preachers, as so many Nations haue done before they knew scripture, and in that case were obliged to attend to other Motives and Meanes; and so thete is a far more vniversall and necessary command to Heare the Church, than to search the scriptures. 6. Our Saviour spoke only of the Old Testament. And shall we out of his words infer, that in the old Testament alone, all Articles of Chrstian Faith are particularly and evidently contayned? This Objection then proves too much, and therfor indeed proves nothing. 7. Scrutamini, search, signifyes diligence, care, endeavour, labour, which rather declare the difficulty and obscurity, than the facility and evidence of Scripture. For, what great paynes and industry can be required, to fynd out that which is evident? And therfor S. Chrysostome sayth, that our Saviour remitted the Jewes not to a simple and bare reading of the scripture, but to a very diligent search therof: For, he did not say; Reade the scriptures, but search. And Euthymius sayth; He bids them digg more deeply into them, that they may fynd out those thinges which are deeply layd vp therin like a treasure. How then is it evident, that Scrutamini signifyes evidently, that all things necessary are cleare in scripture alone? And yet we must remember, that our B. Saviour, spoke those words, in order to the greatest and most essentiall Article of Chritian Faith, to witt, that Jesus Christ is the true Messias: about which Poynt, the Eunuch [Act: 8.34.] had need that Philip should interpret Esay vnto him: I beseech thee, of whom doth the Prophet speak this? Of himself or of some other? To which purpose, S. Hierome to S. Paulinus sayth of this Eunuch: So great a lover of the Law and of divine knowledg was he, that even in the chariot he read holy scriptures. And yet when he had the book in his hands, and conceyved our Lords words in his thoughts, repeated them with his tongue, sounded them with his lipps, he was ignorant of him whom he worshipped vnknowen, though yet it were hee of whom the booke did speake. And [Luk, 24.27.] the disciples stood in need that Christ should interpret vnto them in all scriptures which were concerning him. What [Page 166]greater Mystery than this concerning Christ himself, and how was it evident in Scripture, when even the Disciples, who were brought vp in the Schoole of Christ, vnder such a Maister; whose Divine words they heard, and saw his admirable works and Miracles, did not vnderstand it? How many wayes is this Objection against Protestants, and nothing at all against vs?

63. Neither will they gaine any more by those words (Joan. 20.31.) which Chilling. also objects (Pag. 211. N. 42.) These are written, that you may beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Son of God: and that beleeving, you may haue life in his name. For, First; what makes this to the purpose of proving that we are obliged to rely on scripture alone, for all matters of Faith? In these words there is no command even to reade S. Iohns Gospell; but they only declare the end, and occasion, which moved him to write it, namely, to confute the Ebionite Heritiks, and proue that Iesus is the son of God; which makes good what I sayd hertofore, that the Evangelists did not purposely intend to deliver all things necessary to salvation, or make a Catechisme, but wrote according to severall different occasions, as now we see, that if the Ebionites had not taught that wicked Heresy, S. Iohn had not written his Gospell. And therfor; 2. This Text speaks of one Point only, not of all Articles of Faith. 3. S. Iohn speaks only of his owne Gospell, and Chilling. holds it only for probable, that every one of the Gospells contaynes all necessary Points; and therfor no certainty can be taken from these words, that Scripture contaynes all things necessary. 4. Even for this one Poynt of Faith S. Iohn sayes not, that his Gospell is evident, excluding the Authority of Gods Church, and her Pastours; yea he carefully relates our Saviours words to S. Peter (Ioan. 21.17.) Feed my sheep: and we see, for want of submitting to such Authority, Chilling. and other Socinians deny that, for which s. Iohn wrote his Gospell, that Iesus is the true sonne of God. 5. In the Text; These things are written that you may belieue &c. s. Iohn speaks not of the doctrine taught, but of the Miracles wrought by our Saviour Christ: and therfor we must, if this Objection were of any force, say, that all things necessary to salvation, are evidently contayned in that part, or those words, and lines of his Gospell, which precisely recount our Savionrs Miracles: which to imagine, is ridiculous, and absurd. Now that s. Iohn speaks of our Saviours Miracles, is confessed by Whitaker, as a thing evident (de scripttur. Q. 5. P. 619.) saying; It is evident that the Evangelist speakes of [Page 167]the signes and Miracles of Christ, not of his Doctrine. The Protestant Bible sayth, Many other signes truly did Iesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this booke. But these are written, that ye might belieue that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God. Where we see, these are written, is referred to the substantiue which went before, that is, signes; and it appeares also by reflecting on the Antithesis which he makes betweē not written, and wtitten: Many are not written, which he sayes of signes (many other signes truly did Iesus, which are not writtē) and then adds: but these are writtē. Therfor writtē and not written fall vpon the same thing. But not written did relate to signes or miracles; Therfor written must be refered to the same. Chilling: himself [Pag: 211. N. 42.] saith; By, These are written, may be vnderstood, either these things are written, or these signes are written. And then, what consequence is this; S. Iohn wrote some Miracles of our Saviour Christ, that men might belieue him to be the son of God: Therfor all necessary Points of Faith are evident in scripture, or in S. Iohns Gospell taken alone? And he doth but play the Sophister, to deceyue some simple Reader when out of S. Iohns words (in the same Pag. 211. N. 42.) he infers, that, All that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell, was sufficient to make them believe that which being beleeved with liuely Faith, would certainly bring them to Eternall Life. For, a lively Faith, or a Faith working by Charity, must include not only that one Article, (Iesus is the son of God) but all other Mysteryes of Faith, togeather with the keeping of all Commandements belonging to Charity, and other Vertues; and it may be sayd of any least Poynt of Faith, that it being believed with a lively Faith, will certainly bring the believer to Eternall life; because a lively Faith, involves all other necessary Poynts of Faith, and Manners. And his silent leaping from Faith alone, (yea from one only Article of Faith alone) to a lively Faith, demonstrates that the believing of that Poynt alone, Iesus is the son of God, is not sufficient for salvation, vnless it be joyned with the belief of other Points belonging both to Faith, and Manners, and with observation of the Commandements; which he will never proue to be evidently contayned in the scripture alone, and much less in the Gospell of S. Iohn alone: wherof more shall be sayd herafter. In the meane tyme, take for your Instruction these wholesome words of S: Austine de vnit: Eccl: Cap: 4. Whosoever belieue that Iesus Christ is the son of God, yet so dissent from his Body, which is the Church, as their Communion is not with the whole [Page 168]wheresoever it is spred, but is found separate in some parte, it is manifest, that they are not in the Catholik Church. Therefore it is not sufficient for salvation, only to belieue, that Christ is the sonne of God.

64. The example of men of Beroea (Act: 17. V, 11.) who were searching the scriptures, if these things were so, is of no force, in many respects. First Heere is no least insinuation of any vniversall precept to reade or search the scriptures, but only a narratiō of what those mē did: and if the fact of some, may be alledged, as a command for all to reade the scriptures, why may not the example of others, who belieued only by hearing S. Paule, and the other Apostles preach, and seeing them worke Miracles, and propose excellent reasons and arguments of Cre [...]bility, be alledged for a command, that men should belieue without delaying their conversion, till they reade scriptures? Secondly; they did not search the scriptures with any intention to find all the particular Mysteryes of Christian Faith evidently expressed in them, which is our question, but only that mayne poynt which was preached to them by S. Paule, that this is Jesus Christ whom I preach to you. (V. 3) other particular poynts, they would easily learne by further instruction of the Apostles, being once assured in generall, that they were persons worthy of all credit, and Messengers of God. Thirdly; The scriptures which they did search, were the Bookes of the Old testament; in which, all the necessary particular poynts of Christian Faith are not evidently contayned, since Protestants teach, that all necessary poynts are contayned in scripture, only after the whole Canon of the Bible was ended: yea, the word searching, shewes, that euen that article of the true Messias was not evidently contayned in the Old testament; but that the finding of it required labour; as in the like case I shewed aboue out of S. Chrissostome, and others, about the word scrutamini, search. Fourtly; Although the search of scriptures, and consonance of them with s. Paules wordes, might help the conversion of those mē, yet who can doubt, but the preaching, and viva vox, interpretation, and explication of scripture, alledged, vrged, and illustrated by S. Paul, did also cooperate, and operate more then the only reading of scriptures, which many did reade, and yet were not converted? Which shewes their obscurity, even in this Fundamentall Article, concerning the Messias, as we reade (Act. 13.27.) Not knowing him, nor the voyces of the prophets that are read every sabboth. And (Luc. 24.44.45.) it is sayd. These are the words which I spake to you when I was [Page 169]with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moyses, and the Prophets, and the Psalmes of me. Then he opened their vnderstanding, that they might vnderstād the scriptures. Wherfor the example of the Beroeans is not to the purpose, vnless it can be proved, that they redd the scripture, without the assistance of such other meanes, as I haue mentioned; and that they found thē so [...]ident, that they needed no other help; which certainly is wholy impossible to be proved. Even Cartwright (in whitg. Def. P. 784.) confesseth, that Vnless the Lord workes miraculously and excraordinarily, the bare reading of the scriptures, without the preaching, cānot deliver so much as one poore sheepe from destruction; Therfor scripture is not evident in all necessary Poynts; otherwise it might deliver men from destruction. Fiftly: I say that not only those men had no obligation to read the scripture, before they believed S. Paul, but (as the rhemes testamēt vpon this place wisely observes) they were bound to belieue the Apostle, ād obey his word, whether he alledged scripture, or no; or whether they could reade and vnderstand it, or no. Therfor this example cannot be alledged to proue, that all necessary Poynts of Faith are evident in scripture alone. Sixtly: This example is wholy impertinēt, if the Beroeans did search the scriptures only for their greater comfort ād confirmation in the Faith which they had already embraced by the preaching of S. Paul, ād not by searching the scriptures; as Cornelius à Lapide holds, and to that purpose alledges the Text itself, which sayth: (V. 11.) And these were more noble thē they that are at Thessalonica, who receyved the word with all greediness, daily searching the scriptures, if these things were so. Where, first it is sayd, they receyved the word, and then, were searching the scriptures: And this also is the judgment of the Rhemes Testamēt.

65. Besides the places which I haue answered, Protestants are wont to alledg the words of the Apocalyps (22. V. 18.19.) I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecie of this Booke, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add vpon him the plagues writtē in this book. And if any man shall diminish of the word of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, ād out of the holy citie, ād of these things that be writtē in this booke. But what is this to the purpose of proving, that we are obliged to reade, and seek out of the Apocalyps alone (for of it only, S. Iohn expressly declares himself to speake) all necessary Poynts of Christian Faith; or that it contaynes evidently all such points in particular? So farr was [Page 170]this sacred booke from having been written for a Catechisme, or an entire Rule of Faith, that it is a Prophecy or revelation of things to come, so hidden, and sublime, and profound, that S. Hierome sayth; Tot habet Sacramēta quot verba; Every word is a Mystery. The curse which S. John interminates, falls vpon such, as either would add any thing contrary to this book, or corrupt it, by fathering on it some apocriphall writing, or Revelation, or diminish it by some part, or, which is worst of all, quite abolish it as not Canonicall, as in old tyme, Marcionistae, Alogiani, Theodosiani, as witnesseth Epiphan: (Lib. 2. Heres. 51.) did; And Erasmus, Lutherus, Brentius, and Kemnitius, doe. The Author of the Commentary vpon this booke, bearing the name of S. Ambrose, saith; that, He curses Heretikes that vsed to add somwhat of their own that was false, and to take away other things that were contrary to their Heresyes. But God forbid, we should interpret Him to exclude the Authority of the Church and lawfull Pastours, since S. John himself, as long as he lived, was a Living Rule, or Iudg for matters of Faith, besides the word written in the Apocalyps, or in other Canonicall scripture: and so no scripture was then the only Rule of Faith. Yea, S. John after the sayd curse, adds two verses more; and Cornel. a Lapide (Quest. Proaemialib. in Apocalypsim) saith: it is cleare, that S. John wrote the Apocalyps before he wrote the Gospell: For, this he wrote being retourned from his banishmēt of Patmos, (where he wrote the Apocalyps) as S. Hierome teaches in Catal. script. Ecclesiast. and Eusebius (Lib. 5. Hist. C. 24.) and S. Austine, and Bede, Proaemio in Evangelium S. Ioannis. Kemnitius also (Exam. Pag. 202.) confesses that S. John wrote his Gospell after the Apocalyps. And Cornel. a Lapide (Proaem. in Epist. 1. S. Joannis) speaking of S. Johns three Epistles, sayth; It seemes that he wrote them about the same tyme that he wrote the Gospell. By which account, they were written after the Apocalyps. Therfor that curse in the Apocalyps cannot be so vnderstood, as to exclude all other writings after it.

66. But the chiefest place which Protestants are wont to alledg for the sufficiency of scripture alone, is that of S. Paul, (2. Timoth. 3. V. 16.17.) All scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good worke. I answer: First; Speaking in rigour. Profitable; Necessary; sufficient; are things both different, and separable. A thing may be profitable, and not necessary; and a thing may be [Page 171]both profitable, and necessary for some effect, and yet not sufficient alone to produce it. Every line in Gods word is profitable, but not every line is either necessary or sufficient. Our question is, whether scripture alone be sufficient. The text alledged, saith only, that it is profitable; but saith not, that it is either, necessary, or sufficient. Therfor (if we consider this place alone) Faith may be conceyved without any scripture, because scripture heer is not sayd to be necessary; and cannot be conceyved by scripture alone, because scripture is not sayd to be sufficient. And then the argument comes to be retorted, in this manner. That which is no more than profitable, is neither necessary, nor sufficient; but in the text alledged, (which Protestants bring as sufficient to proue the sufficiency of scripture) scripture is only sayd to be profitable. Therfor it is neither necessary, nor sufficient.

67. Secondly. The words precedent to this text, are these: but thou continue in those things which thou hast learned, and are committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned: and because from thine infancie thou hast knowen the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the Faith which is in Christ Jesus. By which words it appeares, that the scripture of which S. Paul speakes, is the Old testament, which alone, Timothy from his infancy had knowen, and which could instruct him to salvation. And therfor if this Objection be good, the Old testament, taken alone, wilbe sufficient for salvation: and, if it be a good consequence, scripture is profitable to instruct; therfor it is necessary, and sufficient: the Old testament, which could instruct Timothy to salvation, must be necessary and sufficient, even for these tymes: or, if they were sufficient for those, but not for these our tymes, and that it be cleare that S. Paul spoke of those tymes, and only of the Old testament, as is confessed by Henoch Clapham, Aretius, Zwinglius, Hooker, and Ochinus: as may be seene triple Cord. (Chap. 7. Sect, 5.) with what conscience can they apply that text to vs, as if the scripture of which that text speakes, did signify the scriptures both of the Old, and New testament? Nay, seing S. Paul wrote that Epistle to Timothy about forry yeares before the Canon of scripture was perfited, and that Protestants affirme that a living Iudg was necessary till the Canon was complete, it followes, that the text whith they alledg, cannot signify, that at that tyme, the scripture alone was either necessary (because there was then a living Iudg which could determine all [Page 172]Controversyes) or sufficient, (because the Canon was not finished) And therfor although it were granted that the Old Testament (which was perfited) had alone beene evident in all necessary poynts, and therby sufficient for the Jewes, yet the scripture of the New Testament, being not perfited when S. Paul wrote these words, it doth not follow, that they can signify their sufficiency for Christians. As Hooker (Eccles. Polit. First Booke, N. 14. Pag. 43.) sayth: When the Apostle affirmed vnto Timo thy, that the Old was able to make him wise to salvation (2. Timoth. 3.15.) it was not his meaning that the Old alone can do this vnto vs which liue sithence the publication of the New. Mark how this great man amongst Protestants, affirmes, that S. Paul speaks only of the Old scripture, and that this alone is not sufficient for Christians: which he proves, because the Apostle sayth, that those scriptures were able to make Timothy wise through the Faith which is in Christ. (V. 15.) And this appeares also by the words of S. Paul saying to Timothy in the same Chapter, (V. 10.) But thou hast attayned to my doctrine, institution, &c. And afterward: But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned, and are committed to thee, knowing of whom thou hast learned. That is, of S. Paul his Maister. Where we see, that S. Paul did not send his scholler to Scripture alone, but to his owne Institution, Doctrine, and interpretation, and things committed to him by word of mouth, or to scripture taken togeather with an infallible Living Iudg: and so the Objection proves what we teach, and overthrowes the doctrine of Protestants.

68. Thirdly. Protestants must shew, that all things necessary are evidently contayned in scripture; and this they must proue, by some evident Text. For, if it be not evident, the matter will still remayne vncertayne. But this Text, on which they chiefly rely, is not evident: Therfor it is not sufficient to proue that which they intend, and vpon which, the whole Fabricke of their Faith depends. The minor (That this Text is not evident) is evidently proved, because it is impossible to shew evidently, that profitable, in this Text, signifyes necessary; or if that were freely granted, it will remayne more than impossble to proue, that profitable, or necessary, must in this Text, signify sufficient. For by what Grammer, Logick, or Divinity, can any dreame this to be feceable [Page 173]The like I say of the words; All scripture; which they interpret not to signify every part, or Book of Scripture; but the whole body of Canonicall scripture taken togeather▪ wheras Bellarm. de Verbo Dei, Lib: 4. Cap: 10. saith truly: In the judgment of all that vnderstand latin, that which is sayd of all scripture inspired of God, is of sayd every booke which is inspired of God. Beside, the Apostle by this Vniversall proposition, that all scripture is inspired by God, proves, that every particular scripture is profitable, and that the scripture of the Old Testament, which Timothy had knowen from his infancy, was profitable to instruct him to salvation. And therfor as every part of scripture is inspired, so also is it profitable. And this is more cleare according to the Protestant Englsh Translation (Anno 1611. and 1622.) and Greeke Text; All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine &c: Where we see, that of the same thing, or subject, and by the same word (scripture) it is sayd that it is inspired, and that it is prositable. Therfor as every part of Scripture is inspired, so is it also profitable. And what an incongruous change of sense were it of the same word, All Scripture, that is, every part of Scripture is inspired; and, all Scripture, that is, only the whole body of Scripture is profitable? How then will they be able to proue, much less to proue evidently, that the words, All Scripture, must be certainly taken in this sense? And yet till they doe this, they haue done nothing for their purpose.

69. Fourthly. We must also consider, to whom S. Paul avoucheth Scripture to be even profitable: Which is not to every vnlearned person, but that the man of God may be perfect: wherby is to be vnderstood a Doctour, and Bishop, as Corn: a Lapide affirmeth vpon this place, and (In 1. Timoth: Cap: 6. V. 11. where S. Timothy is called Homo Dei, the man of God) proves it out of S. Chrisost: and Theodoret, that men eminently holy, are called men of God: as Prophets are so called; 4. Reg: 1.11. & 12. Elias is called the man of God and Samuel 1. Reg: 9. The like we see Judic: 12.6. and 3. Reg: 13.1. It is also a title of Kings, Princes, and Prelates so Moyses Deut: 13.1. is called Homo Dei, man of God; and David 2. Paral: 8.14. Now, Timothy was a Doctour, Bishop, and Prince of the Church of Ephesus. This is also the interpretation of Beza. To those then who are supposed to be already well instructed by other teachers, the Scripture is very profitable; that is, not Scripture alone, but joyned with tradition and interpretation [Page 174]of Gods Church. A paralel to this of S. Paul, All scripture inspired of God; is the Text of S. Peter (Ep: 2. C. 1. 20.21.) Vnderstanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For, not of mans will was prophecy brought at any tyme; but the holy men of God spake, inspired with the Holy Ghost. If Heretiques did confider and practise this primum, first, that all prophecy is not made by private interpretation; For not by mans will, &c: they would not be Heretiques, but would see to whom scripture is profitable; not to those who will admitt no Guide, nor interpretation, but their own witt and will: to whom it becomes (by their only fault) not profitable, but pernicious, as experience tells vs. So far is it from being necessary or sufficient▪

70. Thus their Chiefest proofes out of scripture, being clearly confuted, it remaynes demonstrated, that they haue no solid proofe, that Scripture alone contaynes all things necessary to Salvation. But yet let vs alledg some more Arguments to disproue their Tenet.

71. Eleaventhly. Seing Protestants cannot proue out of scripture, that scripture is evident for all necessary poynts, this alone is sufficient to overthrow their Assertion and Religion. But for the difficulty and obscurity of scripture, we haue alledged evident scripture, even in a poynt most necessary concerning the Messias, in the example of the Eunuch, and the Apostles themselves: which difficulty is further most clearly testifyed by S. Peter, who expressly writes thus (2. Pet: 3.15.16.) As also our most deare brother Paul according to the wisdome given him, hath written to you. As also in all Epistles speaking in them of these things, in the which are certayne things hard to be vnderstood, which the vnlearned and vnstable depraue, as also the rest of the scriptures to their owne perditiō. In which words I obserue: First, that as by reason of the hardness of some things in S. Paules Epistles, mē did erre, so they did erre also in the rest of the scriptures, for the same reasō; which shewes, that other scriptures contayne things hard to be vnderstood. Secondly. That those mē did erre in necessary poynts, seing their errours were cause of their destruction. Therfor the scripture is hard and obscure in necessary matters. For, an errour cannot be damnable vnless the contrary truth be necessary. The translatour of the English bible Ann: 1600. (Preface) avoucheth, that it is, A very [Page 175]hard thing to vnderstand the holy scriptures; and that divers errours, sects, and heresies grow daily for lacke of true knowledg therof. Mark that he speaks of matters of moment, in which to erre, is to fall into Heresy.

72. Twelfthly. I take an Argument from these your owne words, (Pag. 54. N. 4.) If men did really and sincerly submitt their judgments to Scripture, and that only, and would require no more of any man but to do so, it were impossible but that all Controversies, thouching things necessary and very profitable, should be ended: and if others were continued or increased, it were no matter. In which words you seeme te extend the sole sufficiency and evidence of scripture to things very profitable. For if these be not evidently contayned in scripture, how can you say, it were impossible but that all controversies touching them should be ended; since obscurity or want of evidence, is that which produces all Controversyes? Besides, you say, that if Controversyes in things not necessary, or not very profitable, were continued, or increased, it were no matter. Therfor a contrario sensu, it imports that Controversyes about things very profitable, be ended. But this saying of yours demonstrates, how little credit you deserue in affirming all things necessary to be evidently contayned in scripture alone, since you teach the same of things very profitable, which are so far from being all contayned evidently in scripture, that for a convincing Reason for the contrary, we need no other proofe then manifest Experience, and contentions of Protestants among themselves, concerning many poynts which they expressly declare to be of great momēt; as for example, the Canon of scripture it self; and, How it is knowē to be the word of God; the infallibility of Christiā Faith; the Eucharist, Predestination; Free-will; vniversall Grace; Repentāce; Definition, necessity, effect of Sacraments; Government of the Church; and other poynts: and yet in Charity, whose essentiall Character is to judg and hope the best, as you say (Pag. 34. N 6.) I suppose you will not judg, but that all those your brethren; at least divers of them, do really and sincerely submitt their judgments to scripture, and seing it is manifest, that they do not agree, I see no remedy but that you must confess scripture alone not to be evidēt, nor sufficient in all things very profitable. If then, even according to your owne words aboue recited, it import that there be some evidēt, ād certaine meanes to end Controversies touching things very profitable, and that this cannot be done by scripture alone, it must require [Page 176]a living Guide. Besides, what evident text of scripture can you produce to proue, that it alone is evident in all things very profitable? And your Reader wilbe glad to know what you meane by things very profitable and; whether you intend to distinguish them from things profitable; and whether your meaning be, that scripture alone, is cleare for things very profitable, but not for poynts only profitable: and if you answer affirmatively; then you wilbe obliged to informe vs, how we may be able to distinguish so evidently between very profitable, and only profitable things, as that we may certainly know, what must be clearly contayned in scripture, what not. But it is impossible for you to giue any such intelligible, solid, practicall distinction, and therfore you cannot affirme, that all very profitable poynts, are evident in scripture, but not things only profitable. Since then, you cannot say, that al profitable things are evident in scripture (for, that were to affirme that all scripture is cleare, there being nothing revealed by God, which is not profitable, and yet who will deny but that the scripture is obscure in some poynts?) you must be content to conclude, that all very profitable things are not evidently contayned in scripture. And further, wheras you joyne togeather things necessary, and things very profitable, and assigne the selfsame meanes for ending all controversies concerning those two kinds of things (which is, really and sincerely to submitt their judgments to scripture, and that only) seing this means will not serue for ending all controversies in things very profitable, (as I haue shewed) it followes, that it is not sufficient to end all controversies concerning things necessary. And if in things profitable, and very profitable, that may seeme evident to one, which to another may seeme obscure, or even vntrue; the same also may happen in things necessary, in regard that all the Rules, and industryes, which Protestants assigne for finding the true sense of scripture, are no less fallible in things necessary, than in things very profitable. But whatsoever your opinion be concerning things very profitable, or profitable, I take thence a strong argument, and say.

73. 13: Not only for things necessary, but for things profitable also, there cannot be wanting in Gods Church some meanes to end controversies touching them, by declaring them with certainty, and infallibility. For although, if things profitable be taken in particular, and severally, every one is no more than profitable; yet speaking of a Community, or a great Misticall body (especially such a body as the Church [Page 177]of Christ is, instituted by an infinite wisdome, and ordayned to the sublime End of Eternall Happyness; toward the attayning wherof, every little advantage and help is not to be litle esteemed, and the privation and want therof, or euery errour therin, is to be in like proportion, avoyded) things profitable taken as it were in generall, ought in morall consideration to be judged necessary in such a body, which otherwise would looke like a man conceyved with his Essence only, devested of all accidents, and integrant parts: or like to his body indued with necessary parts only, for example, hart and braine, without feete, hāds, eares, eyes, and other senses. And therfor it cannot be imagined, but that God hath left meanes in his Church for declaring truths, and determining Controversyes in profitable poynts, as occasion shall require. The scripture of it self is most sacred, and effectuall to the conversion of sinners, and convincing of Heretikes, if it be redd with sobriety, and interpreted with submission of our vnderstanding to Gods Church. Otherwise, Experience shewes, that, men from it (by the fault of men, not of it) take occasion of implacable and endless contentions, without any possibility of remedy, till they submitt their judgments, and will, to some infallible Living Guide. For this cause also their Faith and Religion is sterill and barren, as being deprived of Gods blessing for the conversion of nations to Christ, fortold by the Prophets, as a Priviledge of the true Church. Thus, the very name of Christ, preached by some who were out of the Church, was not efficacious to the casting out of divells, (Act. 19.15.) yea contrarily, the divell so prevayled against them that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (V. 16.) Even so the scripture out of the Church, is neither effectuall for concord among Christians, nor for the conversion of Infidels to Christ.

74. 14. What I haue sayd about the necessity of profitable things, considered as it were in generall, and consequently, of some meanes to determine controversyes concerning them, may be confirmed by a discourse of yours (Pag. 9. N. 6.) where you say; VVe are bound by the loue of God, and loue of Truth, to be Zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable, (Mark any way, and not only Very profitable,) though not simply necessary to salvation. Or as if any good man could satisfy his conscience without being so affected and resolved. Our Saviour himself having assured vs (Matth. 5.19:) That he that shall break one of his least Commandements (some wherof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes, and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation) [Page 178]and shall so teach men, shalbe called the least in the kingdome of Heaven. And [Pag: 277. N. 61.] you teach, that, God hath promised such an assistance, as shall lead vs, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all, not only necessary, but very profitable Truth, and guard vs from all, not only destructiue, but also hurtfull, errours. Which words are directly against yourself, whom we haue heard saying; That, if controversyes touching things not necessary, or not very profitable, were continued or increased, it were no matter: Wheras here you say of things any way profitable, that by the loue of God, and loue of Truth, and obligation of conscience, and vnder payne of being the least in the kingdome of Heaven, (that is, of being excluded from the kingdome of Heauen, according to S. Chrysostome, and Theophylact, who interpret minimus, the least, to signify, nullus, none at all) we are bound to be zealous in the defence of them. A great zeale indeed, to maintayne, that, if debates concerning them, could not be ended, but continued or increased, it were no matter! Do you not through your whole Booke teach, that all errours against revealed truths, are breaches of Gods command, and are in themselves damnable, and will effectually proue such, if ignorance do not excuse, or a generall Repentance do not obtaine pardon for them? How then is it no matter, if they remayne vndecided, or that there be no meanes to decide them? Is it no matter whether one by breaking one of Gods commandements, be least in the kingdome of Heaven? As for your Parenthesis, that we pretend, some of the commandements to be concerning veniall, sins, the keeping wherof is not necessary to salvation; I say, it is either vntrue, or impertinent. For, if you meane, that we pretend some errour against any least revealed Truth, sufficiently proposed, to be a veniall sin, it is very vntrue. You know, that Cha: Ma: doth teach the contrary through his whole work, and theron grounds the maine scope of his Booke: That, of two, disagreeing in Poynts of Faith, or Objects revealed by God, and sufficiently propounded, one committs a deadly sin, and without repentance cannot be saved. If you meane only in generall, that some commands oblige only vnder a veniall sinne, your saying is impertinent to a matter, in which the least sin committed by disbelieving any Poynt sufficiently proposed as a divine Revelation, is deadly, as I haue declared, and you often, and purposely grant. Yea further; how can it be sayd, that some of the least commandements of which our Saviour [Page 179]speakes, are concerning veniall sins? seing our Saviour affirmes, that, whosoever shall break one of his least commandements, and shall so teach men, shalbe called the leastin the kingdome of Heaven, if those words signify an exclusion from Heaven? Or, if this exposition please you not, but that you will haue them vnderstood of veniall sins, then you must explicate, how our Saviour could say, he that shall break one of his Commandements obliging only vnder a veniall sin, shalbe least in the kingdome of Heaven, seing all men break such commands, by committing veniall sins, and so there shalbe no comparison or contradistinction of least or great, but all must be reckoned amongst the least. Besides; you must reflect, that our Saviour speakes of him that shall break one of his least commandements, and shall so teach men. Now, though it be but a veniall sin to breake a commandement, which obliges only to abstaine from a veniall sin; yet, to teach, that it is lawfull to breake any commandement, even concerning veniall sins, is a great and deadly sin, as being an errour against Faith: As for example, to lye or wittingly to vtter an vntruth, ossiciocè, or jocose, without prejudice vnto any, is but a veniall sin: yet to belieue, and much more to profess and teach, that it is no sin to lye, were a grievous deadly sin of Heresy. To what purpose then do you tell vs, of our pretending, that some least commandements are only concerning veniall sins? But the truth is, I conceyue it will be hard to name any writer who doth so oftē cast himself into labyrinths, and perplexityes, as you doe. In the meane tyme, it appeares more and more, how necessary it is, that there be some living judg for determining Controversyes of Religion, not only in Articles vniversally, and absolutely, and in all cases, necessary; but also for other Poynts, which by occasion of emergent Heresyes, or for avoyding contentions, and danger of Schismes, or other causes, may necessarily require to be determined: And that, things profitable, taken as it were in generall, are necessary to be believed in Gods Church, as I haue declared aboue.

75. Which truth is yet strongly proved by other words of yours in the same (Pag. 9. N. 7.) where, about holding errours not necessary, or not fundamentall, you say; It imports very much, though not for the possibility that you may be saved, yet for the probality that you will be so: because the holding of these errours, though it did not merit, might yet occasion damnation. As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the feare of Purgatory, and the doctrine of Purgatory the feare of Hell, as you well know it does too frequently. [Page 180]So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours, yet by meanes of them, many are made vicious, and so damned. By them, I say, though not for them. No godly Layman who is verily perswaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the vse of your Latine service, shall be damned, I hope, for being present at it; yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices vnderstood, might happily beget in them, the want of that instruction and edification which is might afford them, may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved. Besides; though the matter of an Errour may be only something profitable, not necessary, yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sinne. As not to regard veniall sinnes, is in the doctrine of your Schooles, mortall. Lastly: as veniall sinnes, you say, dispose men to mortall; so the erring from some profitable, though lesser, truth, may dispose a man to errours in greater matters. As, for example: The belief of the Popes infallibility is, I hope, not vnpardonably damnable to every one that holds it: yet if it be a falshood (as most certainly it is) it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to belieue Antichrist, if he should chance to get into that See. These be your words; to which I may add what you haue (Pag. 388. N. 6.) where you say to your adversary: Wheras you say, it is directly against Charity to our selves, to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation, this is true: but so this also that it is directly against the same Charity, to adventure the omitting any thing, that may any way helpe or conduce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure, or less dangerous. And therfor if the errours of the Roman Church do but hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, I am in Charity to my self bound to forsake them, though they be not destructiue of it. And, (Pag. 278. N. 61.) you say: If I did not find in my self a loue and desire of all profitable truth: If I did not put away idlenesse, and prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottome all my opinions of divine matters, being prepared in mynd to follow God, and God only, which way soever he shall lead me; if I did not hope, that I either doe, or endevour to doe these things, certainly I should haue litle hope of obtaining salvation. What could haue bene sayd more effectually, to proue the necessity of some infallible Meanes to decide controversyes evē in things only somthing profitable, (as you speake.) For, out of these your own words it will be demanded, whether it be no matter, that such poynts be declared, since they may import very much, though not for the possibility that men may be saved, yet for the probability that it will be so, because the holding of errours in those matters, though it did not merit, might yet occasion damnation; and by the meanes of them, [Page 181]many are made vicious, and so damned: and because the want of that devotion which the truths contrary to those errours, might happily beget, and the want of that instruction and edification which they might afford, may very probably, hinder the salvation of many, which otherwise might haue bene saved; since also, though the matter of such errours may be only somthing profitable, not necessary, yet the neglect of them may be a damnable sinne. (And I pray you, what greater neglect then to hold and write as you doe, that if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased, it is no matter?) since also erring from some profitable, though lesser truth (heer is no mention of necessary, or very profitable truth) may dispose a man to errour in greater matters; since finally it is against the vertue of charity to ourselves, not only to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvation, but also the omitting any thing which may any way help or conduce to our salvation, that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous.

76. These demands, I say, will in all reason be made; and since they are but the very same doctrine which you deliver in the same words, you must grant them all: and then it is easy for vs to infer the necessity of a living infallible judg, seeing all profitable poynts cannot, according to Protestants, be proved evidently out of scripture; both because their Argument holds not in this case; namely, (That if all things necessary were not evidently contayned in scripture, they could not be necessary, since we speake not of necessary, but only of profitable, and somthing profitable, and lesser truths, to vse your words:) And also because experience shewes, that Protestants do not agree, nor haue any infallible certaine meanes to bring them to an agreement, concerning such poynts.

77. But here is not an end of the advantages you giue vs against your self, adding greater strength to this Argument. For, (Pag: 277. N. 61.) You teach, that such an assistance is conditionally promised vs as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and ourselues, into all, not only necessary, but very profitable truth, and guard us from all not only destructiue, but also hurtfull Errours. And afterwards speaking of a Church which retaynes fundamentall truth, but is regardless of others, you say; Though the simple defect of some truths profitable only, and not simply necessary, may consist with salvation; yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance, that the neglect of such truths is not [Page 182]damnable? Besides, who is there that can put her in sufficient caution, that these Errours about profitable matters, may not according to the vsuall fecundity of errour, bring forth others of a higher quality, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and vndermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety? Who can say, that a Church hath sufficiently discharged her duty to God and man, by avoyding only Fundamentall Heresyes, if in the meane tyme she be negligent of others, which, though they do not plainly destroy salvation, yet obscure, and hinder, and only not block vp the way to it? Which, though of themselves and immediatly they damne no man, yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of Christian piety more remissly, then they should, many defer their repentance, many goe on securely in sinnes, and so at length are damned by meanes and occasion of their Errours, though not for them. And [Pag: 218. N. 49.] you say, I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants, vnconsiderable things, and matters of no moment. For, the truth is I am very fearfull, that some of their opinions, either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, (though not of themselves so damnable, but that good and holy men may be saued with them, yet) are too frequent occasions of our remissnes and stackness in running the race of Christian Profession, of our deferring Repentance and Conversion to God, of our frequent relapses into sinne, and not seldome of security, in sinning; and consequently, though not certaine causes, yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation. And [Pag: 280 N. 66.] Capitall danger may arise from errours though not fundamentall. And how can an inanimate writing declare, for all variety of circūstances, whē such danger is particularly to be feared?

78. From these your sayings I gather 2. things: the one, how dāgerous Errours are, in matters belonging to Faith, though they concerne only profitable Poynts. The other: That God hath promised an assistance sufficient to lead vs into all, not only necessary, but very profitable truth, if we be not wanting to it. From the first, I collect, as before, the necessity of some sure Meanes to avoyd Errours against profitable Truth: And that you speake very irreligiously in saying, That if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased, it is no matter. From the second, I frame this demonstratiue Argument: If God hath promised an assistance for attaining the knowledg of profitable Truths, he hath not fayled to leaue some Meanes wherby, we vsing our best endeavours, may certainly attaine that knowledg by those Meanes. But this meanes cannot be scripture alone, the interpretation wherof remaynes vncertaine, even though we vse all the Rules prescribed [Page 183]by Protestants, as we haue proved, and they confess. Therfor scripture alone cānot be that Meanes wherby, we vsing our best endeavours, may attaine the knowledg of profitable truths. Therfor we must have recourse to an infallible living judg. And now I beseech the reader to consider how vnreasonable and vnconscionable a thing it is First, to avouch a very great danger of being damned, vnless one come to the knowledg, not only of necessary, but also of profitable poynts; and that, God hath promised sufficient help and assistance to attaine such a knowledge, and yet. Secondly, that it is impossible for vs to fynd, or vse, any certaine meanes, which God hath left for that end of knowing things not only necessary, but also profitable. This contradiction, or inconvenience, cannot be avoyded, except (as I sayd) by acknowledging, and submitting to a living judg.

79. Before I leaue this poynt, I must not omitt to touch some inconsequent sayings of yours, and then goe forward. You confess (Pag: 277. N. 61.) that, Dr. Potter affirmes, that, God hath promised absolutely, that there shalbe preserved to the worlds end, such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation. If this be so, why do you not object against the Doctour, as you do against vs, and aske him; whether that company of Christians can resist Gods motions, and helps wherby they are preserved in the belief of things necesary? As also, how do you defend the Doctour, since you do not hold it absolutely certaine, but only hope that there shalbe such a company of Christians to the worlds end; wheras the Doctour alledges, and relyes on the promise of God, for such a stability of his Church, and so must hold it for ā article of Faith, as he professes to doe. Surely this is a poynt of greatest importance, and more then only profitable, and scriptures speak clearly enough for the perpetuity of Gods Church, and yet you two do not agree therin; which shewes, how impossible it is to decide controversyes by scripture alone.

80. Another saying of yours will, I belieue, hardly be defended from a contradiction. For, (Pag: 277. N. 61) having spoken of Errours against profitable truths, and declared how extremely dangerous they are, you say (P. 278.) Those of the Roman Church are worse, even in themselves damnable, and by accident only pardonable, Now an errour to be damnable in it self, must consist in this, that it opposes some truth revealed by God, which is intrinsecè matum, essentially evill, a deadly sin, against the will and Command of God, and therfor damnable in it self and by accidēt only excused by ignorāce, or pardonable by repētance. How thē [Page 184]can you say, that, errours against profitable points, are not damnable in themselves, and yet that the errours of the Roman Church are such? But why do I dispute against you by Argument? Heare, I pray you, your owne words, [Pag: 290. N. 88.] where you say: Fundamentall errours may signify, either such as are repugnant to Gods command, and so in their owne nature damnable, though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not vnpardonable; or such as are not only meritoriously, but remedilessely pernicious and destructiue of salvation, &c: Behold the reason for which, errours are in their nature damnable! namely, because they are repugnant to Gods command; which certainly is common to all errours against Divine Revelation, sufficiently proposed, whether the matter be in it self, great, or small. Besides, it is manifest, that scarcely in any matter of moment, Protestants do so vnanimously disagree from vs, as that divers of them do not hold with vs against their pretended Brethren: and therfor if our errours, as you call them, (which are indeed Catholique verities) be damnable in themselves, theirs also must be such, if they be considered in themselves; which yourselfe do not deny [Pag: 306. N. 106.] saying; For our continuing in their Communion (you speake of Protestants erring in some Poynt of Faith) notwithstanding their errours, the justification hereof, is not so much, that their errours are not damnable: as that they require not the belief and profession of these errours, among the conditions of their Communion. Wherfor I must returne to conclude, that, in affirming our errours to be damnable in themselves, and so, worse than those of Protestants, you manifestly contradict yourself, and truth, even though we should falsely suppose our Church to be stayned with errours. And heer I aske, how you can say, [Pag: 278. N. 61.] without impiety and contrariety to yourselfe, that, Heresyes not fundamentall do of themselves, and immediately, damne no man, seing you very often profess, that to oppose a thing, revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed for such, is a damnable sinne?

81. I will end this Poynt with noting an egregious falsification of yours about a passage of Ch: Mayntayned, in these your words: [Pag: 306. N. 106.] directed to Ch: Ma: A sift falshood is, that we daily doe this favour for Protestants, you must meane (if you speake consequently) to judg they haue no errours, because we judg they haue none damnable. Which the world knowes to be most vntrue. Thus you. But Ch: Ma: never sayd, nor dreamed, that Protestants did judg, that their Brethren [Page 185]had no errours, because they had none damnahle; but his words are these (Part: 1. Chap. 5. N. 41. Pag: 206.) If you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in judging that you connot be saved in the Roman Church, by reason of her errours, there is no other remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgment, that her errours are not fundamentall, nor damnable. And this is no more charity, then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you terme Brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errours (vnless you will hold, that, of contradictory propositions both may be true) and yet you do not judg it damnable to liue in their communion, because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall. Thus Ch. Ma: And now doth he not expressly suppose, affirme, and speak oferring Protestants? With what modesty then, can you say, that Char. Ma. would haue them judged to haue no errours, and not to separate from their pretended Brethren for such errours as are supposed not to be fundamentall? Yea He spoke so clearly, of some Protestants their communicating with other of their Brethren, notwithstanding their errours, that you answer as aboue I haue cited you, saying; For our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errours, the justification hereof is not so much, that their errours are not damnable, as that they require not the belief and profession of these errours, among the conditions of their communion.

82. No less inexcusably do you falsify His words in the same (Pag. 306. N. 105.) While you alledg as His, these words; If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours, this errour or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judginge those errours not damnable. Which indeed if he had spoken, were non-sense: but his words are those which I haue cited. 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 it no remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgment, that her errours are not fundamentall, nor damnable. Is this to say, that Protestants must judg that our Church hath no errours, because the errours are not fundamentall? Or is it not directly contrary, that though they did suppose her to haue errours, yet, even that supposition standing, they might judg that they might be saved in her communion, because her errours are supposed not to be damnable.

83. In the meane tyme, it is no small comfort to Catholiques, that Protestants confess they belieue errours damnable in themselves; wheras we Catholikes are infallibly certaine, that our Church is not [Page 186]subject to any errour in matter of Faith: and though she were, yet even by their confession, we may be saved, by the same meanes by which they can hope for salvation, that is, Repentance, or Ignorance, as you every where confess. And in particular, of our learned men, who, one would think, could not pretend to be excused by ignorance, you expressly say heer [Pag: 305. N. 105.] To think that all the learned men of your side are actually convinced of errours in your Church, and will not forsake the profession of them; this is so great an vncharitableness, that I verily belieue Dr. Potter abhors it. If our learned men may be excused, much more vnlearned persons are very safe, and sure to be excused: and so, all sorts of men in our Church may be saved, even by the Principles and Confession, of our Adversaryes.

84. But now, although it ought not to be to my purpose, in this occasion, to answer at large, the particular Instances which you brought to proue, that our falfly supposed errours in things profitable, may be occasion of danger, and damnation: Yet, least perhaps some vnlearned person, may apprehend them to contayne some great difficulty, I will touch them briefly. The Doctrine of Indulengces, say you, (Pag: 9. N. 7.) may take away the feare of Purgatory: and the Doctrine of Purgatory, the feare of Hell. But, first; how can you object to vs as an inconvenience, that the doctrine of Indulgences takes away the feare of Purgatory, since Protestants denying Purgatory, do much more take away all feare of it? 2. What harme is there, in diminishing in our soule the feare of Purgatory, by solid and true meanes, approved by Gods Church, as fasting, prayer, pennance, Indulgences &c: Doth not the Apostle admonish vs, [2. Pet: 1.10.] to labour the more that by good works you may make sure your vocation? And what is this, but to diminish in vs even the feare of Hell, and increase our hope of Heaven? For, the greater confidence we haue to be saved, the less feare we conceyue of being damned. Doth not S. John say (Ep: 1. Cap: 4. V. 18.) Charity casteth out feare? 3. Againe, it is to be wondered, that any Protestant can object to vs the Doctrine of Indulgences as overlarge, and taking away the feare of Purgatory, and so at an easy rate redeeming the temporall punishment, which remaynes due to our finnes, after the fault or guilt is pardoned, since they deny, that any such payne remaynes after the sin is forgiven, which in the opinyon of many of them is forgiven by one Act of Faith, firmely believing that it is forgiven. 4. So many conditions are required for gayning Indulgences, [Page 187]that we cannot be certaine therof, without particular Revelation: and so still we haue just cause to feare purgatory, and tremble at the consideration of Gods secret judgments. To omitt divers other conditions, necessary for gaining indulgences, one is, that we be in state of Grace; of which none can be sure in this life, nor, that he hath so perfect sorrow, that it is effectuall, and incompatible with any affection to any least Veniall sinne: and yet the temporall punishment due to sin, can never be forgiven till the guilt be perfectly cancelled. I say nothing of the pious and penall works, which are wont to be appointed for gaining indulgences, as, confessing, communicating, fasting, praying, visiting Churches, pilgrimages, giving Almes, and other holy exercises, wherby God is glorifyed, our neighbour edifyed, and our soules improved in vertue.

85. So that it is not so easy to obtayne the effect of indulgences, nor are they so cheape, as some, out of ignorance, or malice, are pleased to imagine; yea and that the Pope gives pardon for all sins, not only past but also to come; which is a shameless vntruth, and falfly layes on vs that aspersion, which truly belongs to Protestants, who teach, that, not only sins past, or present, but also all sinnes to come are forgiven by Baptisme. Kemmit: (In Exam: Concill: Part: 2. Tit: de Baptismo Pag: 80.) saith; Papists haue fayned, that the grace of Baptisme avayles only for remission of sinnes past, or for remission of those which are found in a man at the tyme of Baptisme. Calvin: (Instit: L. 4. C. 15. §. 3.) We must in no wise beleue, that Baptisme is conferd only for tyme past, so that for new sins into which we fall after Baptisme, there must be sought other new remedyes for pardon by I know not what other Sacraments, as if the force therof (Baptisme) were worne out. But we are to believe, that whensoever we are baptized, we are washt and purged for our whole life. As often therfor as we shall fall into sin, we must renew the memory of Bapisme, and by that remēbrance, our soule is to be armed, that it be always certaine and secure that our sins are forgiven. And §. 4. As if for sooth Baptisme it self were not a Sacrament of repentance. And seing this (Repentance) is commanded to vs for our whole life, the force also of Baptisme must be extended as farr. Perkins (in Serie Causar: Cap: 33.) sayth: In Baptisme being once administred, remission is givē not only of sins past, but also present, and to be committed through the whole tyme of our life. Sanchius (in sua Confessione: C. 15.) Baptisme is not given for remission only of Originall sin, or sins past, but of all, for our whole life. Is not this every easy and larg indulgence, and an encouragement to all sin for [Page 188]which so facil a remedy is prepared, even before they be committed? Doth not this indeed take away the feare, not of Purgatory, but of Hell? Which feare of Hell, you do very strangely affirme, to be taken away by the Doctrine of Purgatory, but bring not any reason to proue it; and it is certaine no shadow of reason can be brought. Purgatory is ordayned to pay the temporall punishment, due after the guilt of sin is forgiven. In Hell eternall torments are to be indured for deadly sin, not repented in this life. Now what consequence is this: One feares the bitterness of payne to be indured in purgatory, though he be sure of salvation, if ever he come to that place: Therfor he feares not Hell, the punishment of deadly sinnes which he is guilty to haue committed, and is not certaine whether they be forgiven, which certainty alone can take away the feare of Hell, neither can the feare of Purgatory affoard any such certainty. Contrarily one should rather make ād approue this consequē: He that feares the lesser punishment or evill, is apt much more to feare the greater. Therfor, he who feares Purgatory, will much more fear Hell; vnless he be sure to dy in state of Grace, of which none can be sure in this life, without some particular Revelation: and the feare of Purgatory and Hell, may well consist togeather, as their Causes or objects haue no repugnance; to witt, I may be adjudged to Purgatory, because I hope to die in state of Grace: And; I am not sure but I may be condemned to Hell, because I cannot know whether I shall die free from deadly sin; both which judgments of our vnderstanding, may cause proportionably just feare in our will, the one of Purgatory, the other of Hell. If a malefactour be doubtfull, whether be shalbe condemned to death, or onlie to some other milder punishment, for example, the Gallyes, or perpetuall imprisonment, or the like, may he not feare both death and other punishments, till his doubt be cleared? Which cannot be cleared in this life in order to be adjudged to Purgatory, or Hell. Protestants are they indeed, who take away all feare of Purgatory, by denying it; and of Hell, by their pretended certaine Faith, that they are predestinate to eternall Happyness; which certaine Faith must needs exclude all feare of the contrary.

86. The want, you say, of that devotion which the frequent hearing of the offices vnderstood, might happily beget in them, the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them, may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue been saved. But by [Page 189]this manner of arguing, what may not be proved, or disproved, if first one will begg the question, and suppose vs to be in errour, and then vpon remote consequences, rather fetch't than found, and wilde conjectures and panick feares, inferr I know not what dangers? In such manner, as if men were to leade their life according to such a way of direction, they could never be free, from inextricable perplexityes, and run hazard of loosing either their witts, or soules. We are in matters concerning our soules, to governe our selves by such Rules, as God hath revealed, and not by vncertaine, conditionall, hidden events, and which, if we be left to our owne conjectures, may be alledged contrary wayes: as for example, you say, that the doctrine of indulgences is dangerous, because it may take away the feare of Purgatory. And why may not I say, that the denying of Indulgences (besides the Heresy which is of it selfe damnable) is dangerous for the sequeles; because the want of that devotion, and omission of very many works of many vertues, as repentance, pennance, Charity &c: to which a desire, and endeavour to gaine Indulgences, would moue vs, would very probably hinder the salvation of many, which otherwise might haue bene saved, as you say of hearing the publike Offices, celebrated in a toung not vnderstood by all. Concerning which instances; I say, That if the doctrine of Protestants, in this matter be false, (as most certainly it is) then not very probably, (as you threaten vs) but certainly they shall be damned, who in this particular oppose their judgment, and Practise, against the Belief, and Practise of the Catholique Church spread over the world, before Luther appeared. Nay I say morè, that though we did suppose (which we can never grant) the Church to erre is this Poynt, yet godly Laymen, (as you speake) who in simplicity of hart, and out of Ignorance, obey the Church, by this their Obedience oblige, as I may say, Allmighty God, never to permit, that their goodness and godliness, proue to them an occasion of perdition. Rather, according to your manner of arguing, and according to truth, the defect of Obedience, Religion, and of other vertues, which they exercise in hearing those Offices, would hinder the salvatien of many which otherwise might haue bene saved. Besides, if the want of devotion, which the frequent hearing the Offices vnderslood, might happily beget, may very probably binder the salvation of many, which otherwise might haue bene saved, [Page 190]why shall not Protestants be obliged in all their Churches to more frequent Service, daily, and howerly, and be still receyving their Sacrament, least for want of devotion, which that frequency might happily beget, the salvation of many be hindered, which otherwise would haue bene saved? In the Vniversityes, they haue for most dayes in the weeke, their publike Service in Latine, which divers Lay men, who may be present, cannot vnderstand, and so be deprived of that devotion, the want wherof may hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue bene saved. But seing many Catholique Writers, haue handled this Poynt of publike Prayers in Latine, both copiously and learnedly, it is enough for me to haue answered, and retorted your Objections vpon yourself and your Brethren: and it is a great foolery to depriue men, as you doe, of their liberty, by imaginary, conditionall effects, which without end may be turned, on all sides.

87. Your last Example deserves no other Answer, than, that it is grounded on a wicked supposition, that, to belieue the Vicar of Christ to be infallible in his Definitions could be a congruous disposition to belieue Antichrist, or that Antichrist could get into that See, as you impiously speake. There is no malice comparable to the malice and blindness of Heresy. But it is tyme for mee to returne from this necessary digression, and to go forward in confuting the doctrine of the sole-sufficiency of Scripture. And therfor

88. 15. From Protestants themselves I argue in this manner. Most Protestants hold, that we know Scripture to be the word of God, by the private spirit, or some quality inherent or internall to Scripture it self; and think it so evident, that, to aske how we can know Scripture to be the word of God, Calvin (Lib. 1. Inst. Cap. 7.) sayth, is all one as to aske, whence we may learne how to discerne light from darkness, white from blacke, sweet from soure. And the Scottish Minister Baron (in Apodixi Tract. 9 Q 4. Pag. 630.) and (Q. 6. Pag: 663 Sect 2.) saith The Scripture doth sufficiently manifest its devineness by its owne internall light, majesty and efficacy. Amesius (de Circulo Pontificio) saith; We belieue that the Scriptures do shine by their owne light. Whitaker (De Scriptura Q. 3. Cap: 3. ad 3.) They who haue the Holy Ghost, can know Gods voyce even as a frend is wont to know, by the voyce, his friend with whom he hath conversed most familiarly a long tyme. Potter sayth (Pag: 141.) That, Scripture is of divine authority, the believer sees by that glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture; and by many internall arguments [Page 191]found in the letter it self. Which words while Chill: interprets to signify only, that men are strengthned in their belief, by that beame of light which shines in Scripture, he leaves no meanes for his client Potter to belieue with certainty the Scripture. For, he saith expressly in the same place, that the Church only presents, disposes, and prepares; which supposed, there is (saieth he) in the Scripture it self light sufficient, which (though blind and sensuall men see not, yet) the eye of reason cleared by grace, and assisted by the many motives which the church vseth for enforcing of her instructions, one may discover to be divine, descended from the Father and fountaine of light. But how come you M. Chilling worth to know, Scripture to be the word of God? We take it from your owne words, [Pag: 69. N. 46.] where you say to your adversary; The conclusiō of your tenth § is, that the divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone, but by some extrinsecall authority: which you need not prove, for no wise man denyes it. But then, this authority is that of vniversall traditiō, not of your church. Behold the agreemēt of protestāts in this maine poynt, on which their whole religion depēds. According to Potter, Chill: is a blind ād sesuall mā, who sees not that glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture. And Potter, Calvin, Baron, ād other Protestants deny that, which in Chilling worths judgment, no wise man denyes. Out of which premises of protestants, it is easy to conclude, That, seing so many of them imagine, a cleare light to shine in Scripture, which, others affirme no wise man can imagine, (which is very true: for if there be such a light evidently shining in Scripture, how is it possible, that they can disagree about the Canon of Scripture? or how could some books haue once been questioned, which now are receyved for canonicall?) We must affirme, that much more a particular text, may to one seeme evidētly to signify that which to an other doth no way appeare, but perhaps directly the contrary. And therfor although we haue heard Calvin saying, that it is as easy to discerne which be true scriptures, as to distinguish betweē white ād blacke; yet it appeares by what he writes (L 4 Inst. C. 9. N. 13.) that, for the interpreting of scripture, more labour, ād industry is required; as is also cleare by the many ād hard rules which protestants require for interpretation therof, as we haue seene aboue: and therfor it is cleare evē frō the doctrines of protestāts, that they haue no certaine meanes to judg whē scripture is evidēt, ād consequētly it alone is not sufficiēt, to judg evidētly of all poynts necessary to be believed. Nay, seing they haue no evident Ground to know that scripture is the word of God, they cannot be certaine of any one text of scripture, though we did suppose that the sense therof were very cleare.

[Page 192]

89. 16. It is a maine ground with Heretikes, that a living judg was necessary till the whole canon of scripture was perfited: which being done, they say, the scripture alone is sufficient. But even from this principle of theirs I argue thus: seeing they belieue nothing which cannot be proved out of scripture, they are obliged to proue out of scripture this very Ground, that the necessity of a living judg did expire, as soone as scripture was written. This is impossible for them to do; because no such text is to be found in the whole bible: Therfor they cannot hold it, even according to their owne principles. See what I haue sayd in my nynth reason, N. 59 to proue that according to their grounds, on text will serue their turne for our presēt purpose, vnless it be the last book or text; because they teach, that scripture alone was not sufficient till the whole Canon was perfited; and yet who will vndertake that such a last booke, or text hath evidently this Proposition; After the Canon of scripture was perfited, the necessity of a living judg did cease? To say nothing that it is not certaine, what part of Holy scripture was written last; as also that Protestants do not agree, whether some of those scriptures which were the last, or among the last, be Canonical, or no, as I sayd aboue.

90. 17. I take an argument from the confession of Protestants themselves; that, the Ancient Fathers stand for vs against them, and that therfor the Fathers erred. Which could never haue happened to Persons so holy, wise, learned, sincere, laborious, dispassionate, and whom all Christians acknowledg to haue wrought miracles on earth, and to be glorious Saints in heauen, if the scriptures were so express and evident, as our adversaryes pretend. Or if they will needs haue scripture to be so cleare, every man of Conscience and discretion, will stand for the anciēt Fathers, ād vs, who are acknowledged to agree with them. Now, that the Fathers are confessed by Protestants, to haue taught the same doctrines which we at this day maintayne, is diligētly demonstrated by that judicious, exact, and Faithfull Author of the Protestants Apology for the Roman Church, concerning divers poynts, (which the Reader, to be assured of the truth, and for the Eternall good of his soule, may find in the Alphabeticall Table, Verb. Fathers, and then examine them vnpartially) as, the Reall Presence, Transsubstantiation, Reservation of the Sacrament, Masse and Sacrifice, Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech, Propitiatory Sacrifice, euen for the dead, Purgatory, Free-will, the possibility of keeping the commandements, [Page 193]justification and Merit of works, invocation of Saints, Translation of Saints Reliques, and their worship, Pilgrimage to holy places, Grace conferd by Baptisme, necessity of Baptisme, Chrisme and Confirmation, Confession of sinnes, injoyned pennance, or satisfaction, Absolution, the Fast of Lent, other sett Fasting daves, Fasting from certaine meates, vnwritten Traditions, Hallowing of Alters, Churches, Water, Oyle, Bread, Candles &c: More Sacraments than two, that, Antichrist shalbe but one man, the great vertue of the signe of the Crosse, the worshipping of it, Lights in the Church in the day-tyme, Images in the Church, their Worship, S. Peters Primacy ouer the Apostles, the Popes Primacy aboue other Bishops, Vowed Chastity, monasteryes of vowed virgins, their consecration, their religious habit, Mòks, that priests might not marry that Bigamus may not be priest, the inferiour orders of deacons, subdeacons, acolyts, exorcists &c: In so much as in regard of these (and many, mo like) premises, many of the learned Protestants do deale plainly in making generall disclaime in the Fathers, as may be seene in Brierley, tract: 1. Subdiv: 14. where, beside other Protestants, he names Whitaker, Iacobus Acontius, Napper, Fulk, Downham, Melancthon, Peter Martyr, Beza, Caelivs Secundus Curio, Sebastianus Francus &c: Besides, it cannot be denyed, but that learned Protestants do taxe the Fathers of divers errours (as is notorious, and may be particularly seene in Brierly ibid:) wherin although they manifestly wrong those Holy and Ancient Doctours, yet these their Accusers ought to gather from thence, that scripture is not evident, since men indued with all ornaments, and helps for attayning the true meaning therof, were so much mistaken, as our sectaryes pretend.

91. The same is also clearly demonstrated, by reflecting, that very many of the most learned Protestāts, agree with vs in many points against their Protestant brethren, as Brierley Tract: 3. Sect: 7. lit. M. exactly demonstrates: For example, the Reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament; that, Sacraments do not only signify, but also conferr grace; that, Christ after his corporall death did descend in soule into Hell; that, the Church must continue visible; concerning Evangelicall Councells, Viz. that a man may do more than he is commanded, concerning the vniversality of Grace, and, that, Christ dyed for all; that men are not certaine of their election, and that he who is in state of Grace, may finally fall; that, in case of divorce vpon adultery, the innocent [Page 194]party may not marry againe; that, to children of the Faithfull dying vnbaptized salvation is not promised; Freewill: That in regard of Christs Passion and promise, our good works proceeding from Faith, are meritorious; Temporall punishment reserved by God in justice for sin remitted; The impugning of the civill Magistrates headship, though but of a particular Church; Intercession of Angels; Intercession of Saints; invocation of Saints; vowed chastity; voluntary Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience: prayer for the dead; purgatory; Limbus Patrum; Images in the Church; worship of Images; Reverence and bowing at the name of Jesus; the power of priests; not only to pronounce, but to giue remission of sinnes; private confession of sins to a priest; distinction of mortall and veniall sin in one and the same person; the indifferency of communion vnder one, or both kinds; sacrifice of the New Testament according to the order of Mechisadech: that first motions of our concupiscence, without our concent therto, are not sinnes: that the commandements are not impossible, Transubstantiation: that the Sacraments of the old Testament were not in working, and effect equall with ours: The visible signe of imposition of hands in confirmation, with the grace therby conferred: The like visible signe, and grace given in Orders; yea expressly counted a Sacrament: An indeleble character imprinted by certaine Sacraments; The baptisme of women, and lay persons in case of necessity: The knowen intention of the church needfull to the administration of Sacraments; Seaven Sacraments; implicite Faith: that, Antichrist is yet to come: the patronage and protection of certaine Angels over certaine countries and Kingdomes: that the alteration of the Sabboth from Satterday to Sunday, is not proved by scripture, but is acknowledged to be an Apostolyque Tradition to be perpetually observed: sett tymes of Fasting, and from certaine meates, appointed not only for politique order, but for spirituall considerations; the primacy of one, over the Church, in seuerall Nations and Kingdomes; vnwritten traditions, necessary to be observed; blessing of our meate and forhead with the signe of the crosse, and further vse therof in the publike liturgy about which Joannes Creecelius in his descriptio & refutatio Ceremoniarum Missae, &c: Printed Magdeburgi (An: 1603. Pag: 118.) giveth testimony of the Lutherans doctrine saying; We do not disallow the signe of the holy Crosse if once or twice without superstition it be freely vsed in the Divine Service: yea if in private, our meate and drinke [Page 195]be-signed therwith. For when we goe to bed, or rise, we signe our selves with the Crosse according to the institution of Luther and other godly men. And, Joannes Manlius Luthers Scholler in loc: Commun: (Pag: 636.) saith, Luther sayd, Having made the signe of the Crosse, God defend me, &c: As also the Communion-Booke in the tyme of King Edward the sixt (penned by advise and approbation of Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and other Protestant Divines of that tyme) printed Ann: 1549. Fol: 116. prescribeth the Priests signing of the Sacrament with the signe of the Crosse. And Fol: 131. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Font of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse,

92. These Poynts, and more than these, which I omitt, Brierley doth punctually demonstrate, divers Protestants to hold with vs against their owne Brethren: which I haue more willingly set downe, that Protestants may see, how little reason they haue to esteeme the very name of Papists, odious; since many of their greatest Divines are Papists, in so very many and chiefest Poynts, and (which ought not to passe without reflexion) even in those particular Doctrines which to the vulgar sort seeme most Superstitious, and for which they are brought vp in contempt and hatred of our Religion, and vs. If our Catholique Religion were as beggarly, as that of Protestants, which is content to call those Brethren who disagree from them in innumerable Poynts, we might easily encrease our number, with addition of as many Protestants as we haue rehearsed, and of many more than we can easily reckon. Certaine it is, that, Protestants will scarcely be able to object any Poynts of moment against vs, but that, joyntly they must wound their owne Brethren, if indeed they did vnderstand what they say, and did not think the name of Papists, to be a sufficient cause of hatred, whatsoever that name doth signify, wherof many are very ignorant. But for my purpose; I conclude, that, Scripture alone cannot be cleare, seing Protestants, in so many, and so important matters (especially in those very particulars wherin they pretend to differ from vs) are indeed so far divided among themselves, as that they fall to joyne with vs, with whom nothing but meere necessity, and force of evident truth could moue them to agree. And as the agreeing of so many Protestants with vs, shews that the Scripture is not cleare (at least in behalf of them who are forsaken by their owne Brethren) sō [Page 196]their disagreeing among themselves, doth convince the same. For how can men, if with sinceryty they seeke the truth, be so divided, having before their eyes, one and the same cleare and evident Rule, as they pretend scripture to be?

93. If any, for avoyding the premises, adventure to say, that, those learned protestants who affirme the Ancient Fathers to stand for vs, do not vnderstand the meaning of their words, ād that for the same cause, perhaps protestants do not agree with vs, nor differ among themselves, so much as their writings, not well vnderstood, make shewe: To this answer, although I might reply with those words of Tertullian, (in Apologet:) Nemo ad suum dedecus mentitur &c: No man will lye to his owne shame; but rather to his owne credit: we sooner believe the confession of men against themselves, then their denyall against themselves: as also I might say, that the testimonies of protestants for the sayd purposes, are so evident, so many, of so different persons, and delivered not incidently, or by some other occasion, but of sett purpose, at large, and as I may say in cold bloud, that they cannot with any modesty be avoyded: yet I will only say (and the Objection deserves no other answer) that if the writings of mē which are infinitely beneath the Majesty and sublimity of the Style and misteryes of holy scripture, and proportioned to the weakness of humane vnderstanding, be so hard and obscure, we ought, even from this Objection, to conclude, that scripture alone cannot be evident. Thus the Lutherans do grievously complaine against the Calvinists, ^(a) because (say they) you alledge Luthers words against his meaning. In like manner, the same Lutheran Charges them, for that they ^(b) endeavoured to make the Confession of Augusta (which teacheth the Reall presence) to be Zuinglian, that is, against the reall presence, exclayming therat; if this thing had bene done in Arabia, America, Sardinta, or such like remote Countryes, and of former tymes, this vsurpation of fraud and historicall falshood were more tolerable. But seing the questiō is of such things, as be done in our owne tymes, and in the sight of all men, who with a quiet mynd can endure such lyes? In like manner Fulk, ( in his Answer to a counterfaite Catholique, Artic: 17. Pag. 61.) is not ashamed to say, that the Lutherans and the Zuinglians do both consent in this, That the Body of Christ is receaved spiritually, not corporally, with the hart, not with mouth; which all the world knowes to be manifestly vntrue. Thus also Dr. Field (of the Church L. 3. C. 42. [Page 197]Pag: 170.) sayth; I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, there shalbe no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the Vbiquetary Presence, or the like, between the Churches reformed by Luthers ministery in Germany, and other places, and those whom some mens malice call Sacramentaryes. And Dr. Potter [Pag: 90.] is not afrayd to say, that the Lutherans and Calvinists differ rather in forme and phrases of speech, then in substance of Doctrine, even in the maine controversy between them about Consubstantiation, which after occasioned that of Vbiquity. The maine truth on both sides is out of Controversy; that Christ is really and truly exhibited to each faithfull communicant, and that in his whole person hee is every where. The doubt is only in the manner, how he is in the symboles, and how in Heaven and Earth, which is no part of Faith, but a curious nicyty. Is it all one to be exhibited in figure only, or only by Faith and Apprehension, and to be really and substantially receaved? was Christ as really exhibited to the Jewes by their figures of him, as after his Incarnation, by his reall existence? No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence; vnless first he be supposed to be really present, and not only in figure, or bare Faith, which must presuppose, not make that presence which it believes; and so the doubt and debate between Lutherans and Sacramentaryes is, whether Christs Body be substantially present, not how he is present; of the substance, not of the manner only. To say, his whole person is every where, makes not to the purpose; seing the question is not of his Divine Person, but concerning his sacred Humanity. Howsoever, if this Reason be good, it will serue for transubstantiation, at least as well as for Consubstantiation, or vbiquity, of which, the Protestant Hospinian (in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602.) sayth Hoc portentum &c. This monster (for it ought not be called a doctrine, or assertion, or opinion, or even a single Heresy) is repugnant to scripture, contrary to the Fathers; it overthrowes the whole Creed, it confoundes the natures of Christ with Eutyches, it rayses from out of Hell almost all the old Heresyes, and lastly, which is strange, it destroyes the Sacrament for the maintayning wherof it was invented. And yet this poynt is to Potter only a curious nicity. Is it not intollerable partiality, to excuse Vbiquity, or Consubstantiation, and yet condemne Transubstantiation? but by these examples we see, what command Passion hath over their vnderstandings and will. And I must still conclude, that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants, it appeares, that scripture in matters of great moment is not cleare.

[Page 198]

94. 18, You haue least reason of all other, to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone, who deliver such Doctrines, concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture it self, that it could not be āy Rule at all, although it were snpposed to containe evidently all necessary poynts. Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch heer, as much as belongs to my present purpose, intending to speake of them more at large in the next Chapter. First then; you teach (Pag. 62. N. 32.) that Scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith, or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles, but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs. And, (Pag. 116. N. 159.) having spoken of some barbarous Nations, that believed the Doctrine of Christ, and yet believed not Scripture to be the word of God, for they never heard of it, and Faith comes by hearing, you add these words: Neither doubt I but if the Bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church, where they had bene before receyved, and had bene doubted of, or even rejected by those barbarous Nations, but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity they might be saved, God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation, only to belieue the verityes therin contayned, and not the divine authority of the Bookes wherin-they are contayned. This Doctrine of yours being supposed, togeather with that other principle of Protestants, that, after the Canon of Scripture was perfited, the only meanes, which Christians haue to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ, is the Scripture, (which for that very cause they say must containe evidently all things necessary to salvation) it followes, that if Scripture be not a materiall Object of Faith (that is a thing revealed by God, and which men are obliged to receyue and belieue as such) men are not obliged to believe that meanes by which alone they can come to the knowledg of Divine revealed verityes: ād then it clearly followes, that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that meanes, to the knowledg of which meanes you say they are not bound. Neither cā you say, that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be knowen only by Scripture, we are consequently obliged to know and belieue the Scripture; because our supposition is, that we haue no knowledg, suspicion, imagination, or inkling of revealed Truths, except by meanes of Scripture alone. (For if you grant any other meanes, you overthrow your maine ground of relying vpon scripture alone, and admitt Tradition.) And therfor antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediatly revealed Truths, [Page 199]we must know that meanes which alone proposes them to vs, who cannot belieue any necessity of knowing revealed truths, but by believing aforehād the scriprure; which if we be not preobliged to belieue we, cannot be obliged to belieue the verityes themselves, which in respect of vs shall remayne as if they had never been revealed, like to infinite other truths in the abyss of Gods wisdome, which shall never be notifyed to Men or Angels: This deduction of myne you cannot deny, since it is the same with one of your owne, (Pag. 86. N. 93.) where you say; It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserue the Scripture from any indiscernable corruption, in those things which he would haue knowen: otherwise it is apparent, it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen: the only meanes of continuing the knowledg of them being perished. Now, is it not in effect all one to vs, whether the scripture haue perished in it selfe, or, as I may say, to vs, while we are not obliged, to belieue that is it the word of God? And the same argument I take from your saying (Pag: 116. N. 159.) that we are not bound to belieue, scripture to be a Rule of Faith. For since Protestāts hold it to be the only Rule of Faith, if I be not obliged to belieue that it is such a Rule, I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith: But you say we are not obliged to belieue scripture antecedently or for it self; Therfor we are not bound to belieue any revealed Truths; vnless you grāt some other meanes besides scripture for comming to the knowledg of them; and consequētly although we should suppose, scripture to be evident in all poynts, yet it alone cannot be sufficient for men who are not bound to take notice of it, as of the word of God, nor to receaue the contens therof, as divine revealed truths. In a word. Either God hath revealed this truth (scriprure is the word of God) or he hath not revealed it. If he haue reuealed it, then it is one of the things which we are to belieue, and is a materiall Object of Faith, against your particular Tenet. If God hath not revealed it, then we haue no obligation to belieue it with certainty, as a divine truth, nor consequently the contents of it, nor can it alone be sufficient to deliver all things necessary to salvation; against the doctrine of all Protestāts. And who can belieue scripture to be a perfect Rule, if he do not belieue it to be any Rule of Faith? Surely, if he belieue it to be a perfect Rule he believes it to be a Rule.

95. Besides this, you deliver another doctrine, which overthrowes the sufficiency of scripture taken alone. Thus you write (p. 144. N. 31.) The Apostles doctrine was confirmed by Miracles, therfor it was entirely [Page 200]true, and in no part either false or vncertaine: I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certaine divine truth, and which had the attestation of divine Miracles. The falshood and danger of this doctrine, I will purposely confute herafter. For the present, I say; that it makes Scripture wholly vncertaine, and vnfit to be a sufficient, yea or any Rule of Faith, although it were never so cleare and evident in all necessary points. For if once we yield, that the Apostles could err in poynts belonging to Religion, we cannot belieue them with certainty at any other tyme, or in any other article, as I demonstrate in the next Chapter: and the thing is manifest of it self. All Divines, and all men by the light of Reason, require an vniversall Infallibility in that Authority for which they must belieue with divine Faith; and if it could erre at one tyme, it might erre at another, for ought we could know: or if it say one thing to day, and the contrary to morrow, what certainty can we haue, to belieue rather the one than the other? And indeed we can belieue neither of them with certainty. Besides, you seeme to require, that every part of Christian doctrine be confirmed by miracles, beforwe can be certaine of the truth therof; which blastes the credit of all scripture. For how do you know, that the Apostles wrought miracles to proue immediatly and in particular, that, scripture is the word of God; Or how can you belieue, that, miracles were wrought severally in confirmation of every rext of scripture? And yet we belieue every such Text with an assent of divine Faith. Nay wheras protestants alledg some texts to proue, that scripture contaynes evidently all necessary points, you must shewe, that those very texts were confirmed by miracles, if you will belieue them with certainty as entirely true; which I suppose you will judg to be a Chimericall endeavour: and therfor we must inferr, that by no text of scripture, you can proue it to contayne all necessary poynts of Faith. Divers other errours you maintayne against holy scripture, which as in the next chapter I will demonstrate, make it vncapable of being any Rule at all for Christian Faith; and therfor you must either retract those errours, or renounce the common principle of protestants, that scripture alone contaynes evidently all points necessarily do to believed.

96. 19. And lastly. I overthrow theit sufficiency of scripture alone, by not only answering, but also confuting, the arguments, by which they endeavour to establish it. For, seeing it lye vpon them positively to prove their Assertion; if it be demonstrated, that the arguments [Page 201]which they bring, are either impertinent, or insufficient, it wil remayne effectually proved, that they cānot avouch Scripture alone to contayne all things necessary to salvation. I must therfor of necessity be large in answering their Objections; in performing wherof, I both Answer and Impugne; Defend the truth, and Confute my Adversary in one generall poynt, which alone implyes, or extends it self to all particular controversyes in Faith. Your

97. First Objection (Pag. 109. N. 144.) is taken from a saying of Bellarmin (de Verb. Dei L. 4. C. 11.) That, all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all.

98. Answer. First; Bellarmin: even as you alledge him, speaks only of things necessary for all, that is, for every private person, not of things necessary for the whole Mysticall body of the Church, as if all such things were evidently contained in scripture; yea he expressly declares himself to the contrary § Nota Secundo, affirming that the Apostles were wont to preach some things only to Prelats, Bishops and Priests, as of the manner of governing the Church, administring Sacraments, refuting Heretiques &c: Secondly, he sayes not, that all things which are necessary for all, are writtren evidently (which only could serue your turne) but only that they are written, which is true, though they were writtē, obscurely, as many things are contained in scripture in particular, and yet obscurely: and much less doth he say, that they are evident without the declaration of the Church, and helpe of tradition, (which only were for your purpose) yea that his words can haue no such meaning, but the direct and express contrary, Bellarm: himself will best declare, in that very Chapter from which your objection is taken, and almost immediatly after the words by you cited. Thus he speaks § sed admissa: Dico eorum omnium dogmatum &c: I say, that there are found in scripture testimonyes of all those Doctrines which belong to the nature of God, ād that we may concerning such Doctrines be fully and plainly instructed out of the scriptures, if we vnderstand them aright: but that sense of scripture depends on the vnwritten Tradition of the Church. Wherfor Theodoret (L. 1. C. 8.) relates, that scriptures were alledged on both sides (both by Catholiques and Arians) and when the Arians could not be convinced by them, (scriptures) because they did expound those selfsame scriptures otherwise then Catholiques did, they were condemned by words not written, but vnderstood according to piety, and no man ever doubted [Page 202]but that Constātine consented to that condemnation. Could any thing haue been spoken more clearly, solidly, and truly, to shew in what sense, things of greatest moment (as was that article of the Divinity of Christ our Lord against the wicked Arians, for defense wherof the church suffered so much, and so many Martyrs shedd their bloud) are contaynd fully and plainly in scripture, that is in those texts which fully and plainly recommend the church and vnwritten tradition, as I noted in the beginning. And yet further in the same (Lib. 4. Cap. 4. § 7.) Necesse est &c. he saith, that oftentymes the scripture is doubtfull and intricate, so that it cannot be vnderstood vnless it be interpreted by some who cannot erre: therfore it alone is not sufficient; which are his express words: and then gives divers examples of some chief points, even belonging to the nature of God, which all good Christians beleeue as matters of Faith, and yet cannot be proved by scripture alone. And (Cap. 7.) he saith, S. Austine sayd, that, that Question (whether they who were baptized by Heretiques, were to be rebaptized) could not be decided by scripture before a full Councell of the Church, but that after the Councell had declared the doubt and the whole Question, there may be taken assured documents from the scripture. For, scriptures being explicated by the Councell, do firmely and certainly proue that which they did not firmely proue before. But why do I stand vpon particular passages, since in the same (Lib. 4. Cap. 3.) he speakes vniversally, and sayes, that we Catholikes disagree from Heretiques, because we affirme that all necessary doctrine concerning either Faith or Manners, is not contayned expressly in scripture: and, that beside the written word of God, there is required the vnwritten word, that is, Divine and Apostolicall Traditions &c: ād (C. 4.) the very title wherof is this; The necessity of Traditions is proved; in the beginning he sayth: First we will endeavour to shew, that scripture without Traditions was neither simply necessary, nor sufficient. Secondly: that there are extant Apostolicall Traditions not only concerning manners, but also Faith. Is it not very strāge you should alledg Bellarmine for the sufficiēcy of scripture alone, who in a whole booke, containing twelue Chapters, professes to teach, and proue the necessity of Tradition, or Gods vnwritten word; and in most cleare words (which even now we alledged) declares how scripture is cleare and sufficient, namely togeather with Tradition and Interpretation of Gods church? But by this is confirmed what I sayd aboue, how hard it is to find evidence in holy Scripture, [Page 203]the matter and manner wherof surpasses all naturall witt, seing the words of men are so confidently alledged, out of those places, wherin they purposely teach, profess, and proue the direct contrary of that for which they are produced; as here you say that the words you cite out of Bellarmine, are as you conceyue, as home to your purpose as you could wish them.

99. Object: 2. You say [Pag: 337. N. 20.] S. Luke plainly professeth, that his intent was to write all things necessary. And [Pag: 212. N. 43.] For S. Luke, that he hath written such a perfect Gospell (that is, as you speake, the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ) in my judgment it ought to be with them that belieue him, no manner of question. And this you endeavour to proue out of these words of S. Luke in the Introduction to his Gospell. For asmuch as many haue taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed amongst vs, even as they delivered vnto vs, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty, of those things wherin thou hast bene instructed. To this place you add, the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles: the former treatise haue I made, ô Theophilus, of all that Iesus began both to doe and teach, vntill the day in which he was taken vp. Therfor, say you, all things necessary to salvation, are certainly contayned in S. Lukes writing alone.

100. Answer. First, you falsify S. Luke in saying, that he plainly professeth, that his intent was to write all things necessary. For, where do you find those words, all things necessary? And much less can you find, that he plainly professeth to deliver all things necessary; and least of all, that he plainly professeth to deliver all necessary things plainly, or, evidently. The Question is not between vs, whether all necessary things be contayned in scripture obscurely, or implicitely, or in a generall way of referring vs to Gods Church, for divers particulars; but whether all necessary Points be contayned in scripture, expressly, in particular, evidently, without reference to the Tradition, Interpretation, or Declaration of the Church: and it is evident, that S. Luke hath no evident words to proue all that I haue sayd you must proue, if you speake to the matter. Which also appeares by considering that not only Catholiques, amongst whom you will not deny but there are many learned, pious, and desirous to saue their soules, but Protestants [Page 204]also see no such evidence, for proving the sufficiency of S. Lukes Gospell, or any other Gospell, or particular Booke of Scripture, taken alone; seing their doctrine is, that, scripture contaynes all things necessary, only after the Canon was finished; and yet S. Lukes Gospell was written forty yeares before the whole scripture was written. For this cause, Protestants interpret Omnis scriptura vtilis est (2. Tim. 3.16. All scripture is profitable, not distributiuè, for every particular part or Booke of scripture, but collectiuè, for the whole Bible; and some English Protestant Translation Ann: 1586. hath not (All scripture) but (the whole Bible) is profitable: where by the way is to be noted, how they can helpe their errours, by their different Translations, and how litle credit is to be given to their Bibles.) Neither do Protestants commonly alledge these Texts of S. Luke, for the sufficiency of scripture, but other places, as we haue seene aboue: and who can imagine that they would haue omitted so pregnant a proofe; if they were of your mynd concerning the evidence therof? Remember here, what you say [Pag. 61. N. 24.] The thing is not evident of it self; which is evident, because many do not belieue it. How then can the words, and meaning of S. Luke be evident of themselves, seing so many, both your Brethren, and Adversaryes, neither see, nor belieue any such meaning? Call also to mynd, what you write [Pag: 99. N. 119.] How shall I be assured, that the places haue indeed this sense in them? Seing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ, that does say in plaine termes, the Church of Rome is infallible. This I retort, and fay; seing there is not (I say not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ, but not) one learned writer for 1500. yeares after Christ that interprets this Text as you doe, How shall I be assured, that this place hath indeed this sense in it? Yea even by this appeares the necessity of a living judg to declare the true meaning of this, and other Texts of Scripture, as occasion shall require.

101. 2. S. Luke saith, Assecuto omnia, Having had perfect vnderstanding of All: And; the former Treatise haue I made of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach. Of All; All, is a signe of Vniversality: he that sayes all, excepts nothing. If therfor we follow the plaine, obvious, vsuall, Grammaticall, and Logicall sence, it must signify, that S. Luke delivered in writing, absolutely all that our Saviour wrought and taught. But this larg notion you cānot admitt without contradicting S. John, (Cap: 21.25.) But there are many other [Page 205]things which Jesus did: which if they were written in particular, neither the world it-self I thinke were able to containe those books that should be writtē. Well thē, being drivē from the Logicall ād seeming evidēt notion of (All,) you must vnderstand All not in the whole latitude of the word, but with some restriction. I pray you, shew vs this particular restriction, not from any probable, vncertaine, topicall discourse of your own, but from some certaine, express, evident Text of Scripture declaring this restriction. But this is impossible for you to doe, as every child will see. Therfor this your argument is already at an end, for as much as can be proved out of any Text of Scripture, which to you is the only rule of Faith.

102. Perhaps some will vnderstand All, to signify all things profitable. But this sense cannot be admitted, since no man can deny, but that the knowledg of those things which S. John witnesseth not to haue bene written, had bene profitable to vs now, as then the performance, or delivering them was to the beholders, or hearers. It were blasphemy to say that S. Paul exercised an idle action, or recited vnprofitable words, when (Act. 20.35.) he sayd; you must remember the word of our Lord Jesus, because he sayd: it is more a blessed thing to giue rather then to take: which words of our blessed Saviour are not to be found in S. Luke, or the whole bible; but S. Paule receyved them only by tradition. Those things also which are omitted by S. Luke, but recorded in the other Gospells, no Christian will deny to be profitable. Therfor by All, we must not vnderstand All things profitable.

103. Will you vnderstand by All, all things necessary to be written by any? First, in this sense, this text makes nothing for your purpose, vnless first you begg the Question, and suppose that all things necessary to be believed, must also necessarily be written; which is the very point in Question between vs. For, if all things necessary to be believed, are not particularly written, in the bible, then more is necessary to be believed than is necessary to by written, and consequently, though S. Luke had set downe all that is necessary to be written, yet this would not proue that his Gospell contaynes all things necessary to be believed. Secondly, your selfe cannot allow of this sense without contradicting yourself, who hold, that every Gospell containes all things necessary to be believed, and therfore S. Luke could not judg it necessary that he should write all such things, which had bene but to repeare, [Page 206]and write the things, already written more than once. Thirdly: The common doctrine of Protestants is, that the sole-sufficiency of scripture consists in the whole Canon, or bible, and therfor S. Luke (according to this supposition) could not think himself obliged to write every poynt necessary to be believed, since he was not ignorant, that before he wrote his Gospell, the Gospels of S. Matthew, and S. Marke, and some Apostolicall Epistles were written, and in them some poynts necessaty to be believed, which therfor were not necessary to be written by him. Wherfor you cannot maintayne this sense, as being contradictory both to your self, and the common doctrine of Protestants.

104. What then remaynes, but that S. Luke vnderstood All that was necessary to be written by himself, without omission of any such point, according to the particular purpose and End which he had in writing his Gospell, by the particular motion, assistance, and direction of the holy Ghost, as we see every one of the foure Evangelists, and other Canonicall writers do not deliver all, the same things, for matter, or manner, as the holy Ghost, for ends knowen to his Infinite Wisdome, did moue and direct them. This sense is true, and contaynes both a full Answer, and a cleare Confutation, and, as I may say, a totall Destruction of your Objection, for any force it can haue against vs. For, now you are obliged to proue, out of some other evident text of scripture, that the Holy Ghost intended that S. Luke should write in his Gospell, all things necessary to be believed, before you can assure vs, that he, by the word All, vnderstood all such necessary points: but then you change your Medium, or Argument, and passe to a new, distinct proof; and clearly confess that the Objection which you haue brought, is of no force, vnless antecedently to this word All, you proue that S. Luke intended to sett downe in particular all necessary Poynts. Yea, though you could proue by some other Argument independently of the word All, that S. Lukes purpose was to write all necessary Points of Faith, yet from thence you could only infer, that if All were taken in that sense, it should containe a truth, but not that it hath de facto that sense, and not some other meaning: because there is no necessity that every part of scripture contayne all truth, though we are infallibly sure, that it contaynes nothing but truth. How vaine then is your bragg of the evidence of this Text of S. Luke for your purpose? Even yourself shew how litle you can gather from the word (All) when [Pag: 210. N. 40.] you say, that every one of the [Page 207]Evangelists, must be believed to haue expressed all necessary Poynts, because otherwise how haue they complyed with their owne designe, which was, as the Titles of their Bookes shew, to write the Gospell of Christ, and not a part of it? Thus you say; and then add these words: By the whole Gospell of Christ, I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ, but All that makes vp the covenant between God and man. But by what, or whose Commission, do you vnderstand the whole Gospell with that limitation and declaration? is not all that is contayned in the Gospell of S. Luke, or of the other Evangelists, part of their Gospells, respectively? And is not this still to begg the Question, and suppose, or take as granted, that the designe of the Evangelists, was to set downe all things necessary to salvation, or, all that makes vp the covenant between God and man? Or do you not by this your voluntary restriction of (All) beare witness, that you haue no other ground for vnderstanding All poynts, or the whole Gospell to be vnderstood of all necessarie poynts, except your owne voluntary affirmation, and preconceyved opinion.

105. Thirdly. Of all men in the world, you haue least reason to vrge this Text of S. Luke, though it were granted the meaning therof to be that which you pretēd. My reason is grounded in a doctrine which you deliver (P: 144. N. 32.) in these words. For those things which the Apostles professed to deliver as the Dictates of humane reason, and prudence, and not as divine Revelations, why we should take them as divine revelations I see no reason, nor how we can do so and not contradict the Apostles, and God himself. Which doctrine, though in it self very vntrue, yet being by you believed to be true, engages you in a very hard taske, of proving, that S. Luke in these words all, and, of all, intended to deliver a divine Revelation, and not only a Narration of his owne. Certainly if your doctrine could be true in any case, it might with greatest reason be conceyved to be such, in prefaces, and like occasions, wherin the writer may seeme to declare his owne intention, endeavour, and proceeding, rather than matter of doctrine, Manners, or revelations from God; as we see, S. Luke in the preface to his Gospell, sayth; Visum est mihi assecuto omnia; It seemed good to me; not, Visum est Deo & mihi, It hath seemd good to God and me, or Visum est Spiritui Sancto & mihi: It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and me, as the Apostles in the first Councell sayd; Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis: It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs. Beside, this manner of expression; It seemed to me also, having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first, (or as [Page 208]the Rhemes testament hath out of the vulgat, and Greeke, having diligently attained to all things, and as Cornel: a Lap: interprets assecuto out of the Greek, assectato, & studiosè investiganti ideoque assecuto, all which; may according to your divinity, signify an humane endeavour and diligence, rather then divine inspiration, Revelation, or infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. And this argument may be strongly vrged, by calling to mynd, that Calvin (in Antid. Cocil:) seekes to proue, that the writer of the book of the Machabees cannot be esteemed Canonicall, because in his second booke, second Chapter, he sayth; And to our owne selves indeed, which haue taken vpon vs this worke to make an abridgment, we haue taken in hand no easy labour, yea rather a business full of watching and swette. For, Canonicall writters did write not out of their owne witt and industry, but by the revelation of the Holy Ghost. Doth not this argument of Calvin, if it be good, (as it is not, yet as good as Chillingworths Principle, or rather the same in effect) proue also against S. Lukes both Preface and Gospell, because he affirmes that he hath diligently attained to all things, and that he wrote in order taking them from those who had heard and seene them. Which words according to Calvins discourse, signify that S. Luke composed the Gospell after a humane manner, by inquiry, by diligence, by labour, by following a method, and order, &c. Wheras Sacred authors wrote not by their owne witt and labour, but by revelation of the holy Ghost. Therfor if once it be granted, as you both grant, and seeke to proue, that the Apostles did somtyme deliver not divine Revelations, but the dictates of humane reason and prudence, where can it happen more probably than in this our present case? Or what proof can you bring out of some evident Text of scripture, that in fact it is not so? Thus in steed of prooving out of S. Lukes Preface to his Gospell, that his Gospell containes all Points necessary to salvation, you plainly deprive both Preface and Gospell, of all credit due to them as to the word of God; And therfor you cannot draw Arguments from them for yourself against vs.

106. 4. Since it cannot be denyed, but that the Holy Ghost might haue vsed the pen of S. Luke, to deliver what best pleased his Divine wisdom, and Goodness; neither can we by humane reason, or topicall and seeming probable discourses, gather with certainty how far he decreed from Eternity to vse the writing of that holy Evangelist, dare any man presume by the strenthg of witt, or arguments, to force God himself to decree and performe, what he imagines should haue been [Page 209]donne? yourself (Pag. 102. N. 128.) affirme this ground to be false, that, That course of dealing with men seemes always more fit to Divine providence which seems most fit to humane reason. And (P. 104. N. 136.) you say; It is our duty to be humbly thankfull for those sufficient, nay abundant meanes of salvation which God hath of his owne Goodness granted vs: and not conclude, he hath done that which he hath not done, because forsooth in our vaine judgements it seems conveni [...]nt he should haue done so. And (Pag. 84. N. 85.) Though i [...] were convenient for vs to haue one, (Judg of controversyes) yet it hath pleased God (for reasons best known to himself) not to allow vs this convenience. These passages of yours I relate in this place, as very considerable, not only for this present occasion, but as a generall antidote against your poysonous manner of proving your opinions, not by authority, or evidēt texts of scripture, but with some conceypts, or reasons of your owne, which you apprehend as probable. But this humane prudence is but foolishness, when it is applyed to determine, what were the Free Eternall decrees of God, whose thoughts are raysed aboue our imaginations, more than Heaven aboue earth. And to come to our purpose; the Holy Ghost might haue decreed to teach the world by S. Luke, either all things necessary to every man, or necessary to the perfect constitution of the Church, or mysticall Body of Christ; or no things necessary, but only profitable; or some necessary, and some profitable; leaving other points necessary, or profitable, to be learned from the other Canonicall writers, or from the Church, and Tradition. In all which cases, the word, All, had bene truly verifyed, because S. Luke had perfectly written All that the Holy Ghost intended to be written by his meanes, concerning the words, and works of our Blessed Saviour. For, seing, as I sayd aboue, All cannot be taken in the most vniversall sense, which of it self it might beare, the particular limitation, or restriction therof must wholy depend on the hidden will, and Decree of God, which we cannot know with certainty by any humane probable discourse, but only by Revelation; and consequently, no sound and certaine limitation or explication of the vniversall particle All can be given, except that which I haue declared, that S. Luke hath delivered All according to the End, prescribed by the Motion and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise what certaine reason can be given, why all the Evangelists do somtyme deliver the self same Points, and somtyme not; yea some one expresses some particular, which all the rest haue omitted? Or why of these millions of words, or deèds, which all of them haue omitted, [Page 210]some were not sett downe as well as those which now we reade in thē? And so vpon due consideration, the expressing the word All, cannot he of any advantage to you, because it must haue been vnderstood though it had not bene expessed, and being expressed signifyes no more then if it had bene only vnderstood, and collected from the nature of Holy Scripture, and Priviledg of Canonicall Writers, for whom we may and must most certainly avouch, that they perfectly sett downe All things, according to the direction which they receyved from the Holy Ghost. Yourself teach, (Pag. 35. N. 7.) that, Christians haue mea [...]es sufficient to determine, not all controversyes, but all necessary to be determined; and why should you judg it an incongruity in vs to say, that S. Luke wrote not all the words and works of our Sauiour, but all necessary to be written by him; whose purpose, if it had bene to make a Catechisme, or Creed, or a Summe of Christian Doctrine, would haue required an other forme and method, different from the Historicall way which he and other Evangelists hold. And that S. Luke proposed to himself a farr different End, appeares by Eusebius (L. 3. C. 24.) affirming, that S. Luke wrote for this only reason, that he saw some others had rashly presumed to write things wherof they had not full knowledg, he intending hereby to withdraw vs from others vncertaine narrations. And Cornel. a Lapide vpon S. Luke, observes that S. Luke wrote the Gospell against some idle, ignorant, and perhaps false Evangelists, who in Syria or Greece, had written the Gospell imperfectly, yea perhaps lyingly, as S. Luke himself insinuates in the beginninge of his Preface, in saying, that for as much as many had taken in hand to set forth a declaration &c. it seemed good to me also, having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the first, to write to thee in order &c: So Origen, S. Ambrose, Theophylact here &c. S. Luke therfor taxeth Apocryphall Gospells which went about vnder the name of Matthias, Thomas, and other Apostles. Wherby it appeares, that S. Luke never thought of making a Catechisme, or giving a Catalogue of all points necessary to be believed, but to secure vs from falshood, errours, vncertainty, or fables, which indeed might haue made the whole Gospell of Christ suspected, whether the poynts contayned in such apocryphall Writers, be supposed to haue bene many or few, necessary, or only profitable &c. And therfor we may say that as others wrote against false Teachers, so this Holy Evangelists wrote particularly against false Writers; with which End he declares himself fully to [Page 211]haue complyed, by that care and diligence, which he mentions in the Preface to his Gospell. For, by this necessary industry concerning All things, he was enabled and secured not to deliver vncertayntyes, or falshoods, or fictions in those particular points which afterward he thought fitt to write, whether they were to be many or few; necessary, or only profitable; or some necessary, and some profitable. Neither was there any necessity, or congruity, that he should write all that by industry he came to know; as will appeare in my next Consideration. Now what a consequence in this? S. Lukes Intention was, not to deliver any false or vncertaine Narration: Therfor it was necessary he should expressly set downe all things necessary to salvation. The true consequence should be this, and no more; Therfore to comply with the sayd intention, it was necessary he should not set downe any thing vncertaine, false, or fabulous. And then, I hope, yourself will not allow this Consequence: It was necessary he should not set downe any thing false or fabulous; therfor it was necessary he should set downe all things necessary to be believed.

107. 5. Considering with attention this place of S. Luke, I observed him to affirme indeed, that he had (assecutus omnia) attayned to the knowledg of all things, but saith not vniversally, that he had written all things, but only indefinitely it seemed good vnto me to write to thee, Good Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherin thow hast been instructed. And who can doubt but that S. Luke attayned the knowledg of many particulars, which he vvrote not in his Gospell? Even in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles he setts downe some particulars, which happened before our Saviours Ascension, and are omitted in his Gospell: or who dare say, that he knew not one of all those innumerable things, which S. John affirmes not to be vvitten by any? As also vvhen it is sayd, that S. Luke vvrote, that Theophilus might knovv the truth of those words wherof he had bene instructed, it cannot be doubted, but that Theophilus was instructed in more Points then he could read in S. Lukes Gospell aone; since, as I sayd, S. Luke in the Acts expresses somthing concerning Christ, vvhich he hath not vvritten in his Gospell, and Theophilus might haue redd the Gospells of S. Matth. and S. Mark, and some other Canonicall scripture, written before the Gospell of S. Luke; and therfor the knovvledg or Faith of S. Luke, and Theophilus extended it self to more Objects, or Truths, than are vvritten in his Gospell; so [Page 212]that still vve see, that, All cannot be vnderstood of all simply, but vvith divers limitations and degrees. One All may signify absolutely all things that our blessed Saviour spoke or did: Another All, all things which S. Luke believed: another, all, that vvherin Theophilus vvas instructed: Another, all that S. Luke intended to write: and amongst all these and other limitations, you will never be able to proue, that your All, that is, all things necessary to be believed, is the meaning of S. Luke.

108. In this Reflection, that S. Luke sayth he had vnderstood all, but saith not that he wrote all, I was not only confirmed, but setled, when I found it to haue been deliuered, aboue twelue hundred yeares agoe, by S. Ambrose in his explanation of this preface of S. Luke, in these words: visum est mihi assecuto omnia a principio &c. It seemed good to me having attained to all things from the beginning to write to thee in order. He sayes that he hath attayned not to a few things, but to all: and having attained to all, it seemed good to write, not all things, but some of all things. For he wrote not all, but attayned to all: for, if all those things which (saith S. John) Jesus did, were written, I thinke the world it self could not containe them. For, you may perceiue, that he purposely omitted those things also, which had bene written by others, to the end that a different grace might shine in the Gospell, and every booke might excell as it were with certaine particular miracles of mysteryes and works. To this we may add, that S. Luke in the entrance to the History of the Acts of the Apostles, saith, that in his Gospell he had written of all that Jesus began both to doe and teach: But it is certaine, that he wrote not all that our Saviour Jesus did: Therfor it is not certaine, that he sett downe all that he taught.

109. 6. Let vs suppose, (not grant) that by All, S. Luke vnderstāds, all necessary poynts ād thē I pray you marke how you make him speake; Because may have gone about to compile a Narratiō of the things (will you haue vs add here necessary, that haue been accomplished among vs; it seemed good also to me, having diligently attayned to all things necessary from the beginning, to write to the in order, that thou mayst know the verity of those necessary words wherof thou hast beē instructed. And in like manner, his Preface to the acts, must goe thus; the first speech I made of all things nacessary ô Theophilus, which Jesus began to doe and to teach. &c: Let, I say, S. Luke be falfly supposed [Page 213]to speake thus; and then tell me what good sense will you find in those words, of all things necessary, which Jesus began to doe? And how dare you limit the contents of S. Lukes Gospell to things necessary, seing it containes many things not necessary? Perhaps you think I do you wrong, in saying you limite the word All, to things necessary: and that you say only, that (All) must at least imply All things necessary. Thus (Pag: 212. N. 43.) your Nynth demand is, whether in the text (of the Acts) All things which Iesus began to doe and teach, must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things? be it so; will you then haue the Text of S. Luke beare this sense? It seemed good vnto me, having attained at least to all things necessary, &c. as if the Evangelist himself were doubtfull of what kind of truths he had bene informed, or had set downe in his Gospell; whether necessary points only, or both necessary and profitable. Do you not see, into what labyrinths, you cast yourself, by your voluntary vngrounded limitations, or interpretations of S. Luke? And how many wayes your Objection is evidently both answered and confuted? and further, how easily the twelue demands which you make, to proue that S. Lukes Gospell must containe all necessary Points, are answered? Which I will now doe, having first told the Reader, that every one of your Demands or Proofes, is but a begging of the question, and a supposall of that which is in Controversy, as will appeare in every particular Poynt.

110. Your Demands (Pag. 212. N. 43.) are these:

1. Whether S. Luke did not vndertake the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand. [...]

111. Answer may be given to this Demand, either as the thing is in it self; or as it relates meerly to our present Controversy, to wit, whether S. Luke vndertooke, to set downe all things necessary to salvation. For which last consideration or respect, it imports nothing for you, or against vs, though it were granted, that S. Luke did vndertake the very same thing, which he sayes, many had taken in hand; vnless you could proue, that those many did take in hand, to write a Gospell, containing all things necessary to salvation, which you will never be able to doe, otherwise then by way of imagination, or as in a dreame: especially if we add, that you must doe it out of some evident Text of Scripture, telling vs, that those Persons (wholy vnknowen to vs) had such a particular designe: which till you can performe, giue me leaue, to retort against you, this Argument. S. Luke (in your supposition, or imagination [Page 214] vndertook the very same thing which he sayes many had taken in hand▪ but there is no imaginable ground to affirme, that those many had taken in hand, to deliver evidently all particular points necessary to salvation: Therfor there is no ground to affirme, that S. Luke had any such designe.

112. But if we answer your Demand, according as the thing is in it self; I say, that we must in no case grant that S. Luke vndertooke the very same thing, which he sayes many had taken in hand, but rather the direct contrary; his purpose having bene, after a diligent and faithfull search, (wherin those others fayled) to oppose their proceeding, by providing an antidote against their careless, or false, or vncertaine, and apocryphall Narrations. Yet if your meaning be only in a generall way, that as those men purposed, or pretended, to write the History of our Saviour Christ, so S. Luke also had the same generall ayme: (although one might deny, or Question this very thing, and without any great rashness of judgment conceiue, that they had some other sinister End agreeable to the Meanes they vsed, of false, or fabulous storyes, yet) I will not stand with you in the denyall of this, as being a thing, which can neither hurt vs, nor helpe you, but is wholy impertinent, till first it be proved, that those men intended, to set downe all necessary Points of Faith; and then further, that S. Luke agreed with them, in that particular designe of writing all such Points; yea and vntill you can proue both these things, out of some evident Text of scripture. Besides, although you could performe an impossible taske, and proue that some of those many, had that designe of specifying all necessary Points: by what dreame can any man assure himself, that we must say the same of all? Rather (if we will discourse according to meere humane reason or conjectures, without certaine authority) they being many, as S. Luke affirmes, it was lesse needfull, that every one should set downe all necessary Points, it being abundantly sufficient, that some, or divers, or many of those many, should doe it. At least, it is impossible for you to evince, that of those many, all had such a purpose; as you profess not to be certaine, but only probably perswaded, that every one of the Evangelists, who yet were but foure, should write all things necessary; (and I hope, you will not pretend to be sure, that all those many intended to doe more then some of the few Evangelists had done.) Now, if some of those many had such an intention of expressing all necessary truths, and some of them had not, how could [Page 215] S. Luke vndertake the very same thing, which he sayes many had taken in hand? Could he vndertake contradictoryes, to deliver, and not deliver all necessary Points? But, as I sayd, whatsoever you will imagine those men to haue intended in particular, there is no necessity, that S. Luke should be obliged to doe, whatsoever they proposed to performe; as we see, he hath not set downe all the particulars, which are recorded by the other three Evangelists. We haue heard S. Ambrose expressly affirming, that S. Luke wrote non omnia, not all, and that he purposely omitted things written by others; and yet we may say truly, speaking in generall, that all the foure Evangelists vndertook the same thing, that is, to write the History or Gospell of our Blessed Saviour: and therfor we might say (if there were any need to say so) that S. Luke may be sayd, to vndertake the very same thing, which he sayes, many had taken in hand, though he did not set downe all the particulars, which you may fancy they intended to write. If S. Ambrose could say (and the thing of itself is cleare) that S. Luke, did not write all that himself with diligence had learned, and belived; why will you oblige him, to write all that those vnknowne people had written, or designed to write? Especially considering that indeed he doth not commend, but rather insinuates a dislike or disallowing of their purpose and performance, as wanting either necessary care, or sincerity, or both: as hath bene shewed aboue out of good Authors. In which respect, I had reason to say, that we might well deny, that S. Luke agreed, even in the generall designe, with those many whom he affirmes to haue gone about to compile a Narration of those things which haue been accomplished among vs. I will therfor conclude, with putting you in mynd, that you begg the Question, in regard your Demand must go vpon a supposition, that all necessary Points are to be contayned in scripture. Otherwise vpon what ground can you affirme, that all they who intended to write the Gospell of Christ, were to set downe all particular Points necessary to be believed? For, if you would be pleased to belieue (or at least for the present to abstract from both parts, and not suppose the contrary) that beside scripture, there are other Meanes to propose Divine Verityes, your Demand looses all force; it being no consequence, that when there are divers Meanes to attaine one End, we must either make vse determinately of one meanes alone, or els not arriue to that End: and therfor you must first suppose, that there is no meanes but scripture, to belieue Divine Revelations, before you can [Page 216]make good this consequence; Those many of whom S. Luke speaks, and S. Luke himself, intended to write the Gospell of Christ; Therfor they were obliged to write all Poynts necessary to salvation. For, you will be instantly, and easily, taken of, and answered; that beside scripture, there are other meanes for the sayd purpose; at least, in your Argument you must not suppose the contrary, without any proof.

113. 2. You demand; Whether this were not to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst Christians?

114. Answer: to, this I haue sayd already, that it is a Chimera, for you to faine what in particular those many purposed to sett downe: as also, why S. Luke should be obliged, to write the same particulars, which you may dreame, those men should haue set downe. And your Demand must be answerd by yourself, in regard you cannot deny, but that many things were and are, most certainly believed among Christians, which are not expressed in S. Lukes Gospell: for example; those particulars concerning our B. Saviour, which S. Luke sets downe, only in the Acts of the Apostles, about his Ascension, Apparition to S. Stephen, to S. Paule &c: as also those mysteryes, which are omitted by S. Luke, and written by the other Evangelists; and other poynts, once believed by Christians, and written by none of the Evangelists, nor any other Canonicall Writer, as S. Iohn (Cap. 21.) witnesseth. You do therfor both begg the question, in supposing, that those many, of whom S. Luke speaks, must of necessity, haue set downe all necessary points; as if all such points must be written by every one who vndertakes to write the Gospell of Christ; and also deliver a manifest vntruth, as if Christians did not most surely belieue, many more Articles, than are set downe in S. Lukes Gospell, or in the writings of those others, if they intended to write the same things which he did.

115. Your 3. Demand is, Whether the whole Gospell of Christ, and every necessary Doctrine of it, were not surely believed among Christians.

116. Answer: Every Doctrine necessary to salvation, was surely believed by Christians; but to suppose that every thing believed by Christans, is written in S. Lukes Gospell, or in the whole Bible, is to begg the question. For you know it is the thing which we deny. As also it is certaine, that many things surely believed▪ by Christians, are not written in S. Lukes Gospell, nor in any of the Gospells, as I shewed in answer to your second Demand. You demand

117. 4. Whether they which were eye-witnesses, and Ministers of [Page 217] [...]he word from the beginning, delivered not the whole Gospell of Christ?

118. Answer: you either begg the Question, if you will still suppose, that they delivered in writing the whole Gospell, that is, all the Doctrine of Christ; and also vtter a falshood, it being most certaine, that they delivered, and others believed, more then is written, as S. John witnesseth: Or else you speake nothing to the purpose; if you meane only, that they delivered in writing, some things of the whole Gospell, which no man denyes, but you should proue, that they delivered all necessary Poynts.

119. 5. You demand, Whether he does not vndertake to write in order these things wherof he had perfect vnderstanding from the first?

120. I answer this, as I did the last: If you meane, that he vndertakes to write in order All things necessary wherof he had perfect vnstanding, you both begg the question, and say more than is true. If you meane, that he vndertaks to write only some of these things, wherof he had perfect vnderstanding from the first, you speak not to the purpose of proving, that he writes all necessary Points of Faith. You demand

121. 6. VVhether he had not perfect vnderstanding of the whole Gospell of Christ?

122. Answer: Who can assure you that he had perfect vnderstanding of every Miracle which our Saviour wrought? But suppose he had perfect vnderstanding of the vvhole Gospell in the largest sense, that you can imagine; vpon this if you vvill say, that he vvrote all Points of vvhich he had perfect vnderstanding, you both begg the question, and deliver a manifest vntruth, as I haue proved.

123. 7. You demand, VVhether he does not vndertake to write to Theothilus of all things wherin he had been instructed?

124. Ansvver: vndoubtedly no; and I must still repeate that you begg the Question by supposing it, and vtter an vntruth by affirming it. For, to omitt other poynts, S. Luke himself in the very first Chapter of the Acts, instructed Theophilus in severall things not expressed in his Gospell, for example, of some circumstances of our B Saviours Ascension: his giving the Faithfull at that tyme most holy documents; an Angell declaring to them that he vvas to come in judgment; a punishment of Judas the Traytour, not expressed in the Gospell; He burst in the middes, and all his bovvels gusshed out; (Act. 1.18.) his sending the Holy Ghost; to say nothing of other Points contayned in the Acts; in the Gospells of S. Matthevv, S. Mark, and S. John, and [Page 218]in other Canonicall writings, not expressed by S. Luke in his Gospell; of all which, we cannot imagine Theophilus, so famous and principall a Christian, to haue bene ignorant.

125. 8. You demand: VVhether he had not bene instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ?

126. Answer: Certainly he was, and in many more Points, than were necessary. But you begg the Question, if you suppose that S. Luke wrote all things wherin Theophilus had bene instructed, as also vtter an vntruth, as I haue proved, or speak not to the purpose, if you meane only that he wrote some of those Poynts.

127. 9. You demand: VVhether in the other Text, All things which Iesus began to doe and teach, must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things?

128. Answer: This were an excellent way of proving, if it were as good, as it is easy, To proue what you would haue, by the only asking whether it be so, which is indeed nothing but to begg the Question. Our Question is, whether S. Luke haue set downe all necessary Poynts; and you proue it, by only asking whether it be not so; You know, we say, that neither the Gospell of S. Luke, nor the whole scripture alone, containes in particular, all Points necessary to salvation: and as for the word All in S. Luke, it cannot signify vniversally and absolutely all things; neither ought you to determine the restriction without evident scripture, which if you leaue, you can bring vs no certainty. For if you fly to reason alone your Faith must floate in vncertaintyes for things aboue reason; and what certaine reason can you giue, that S. Luke should necessarily set downe all necessary points, rather than S. Matthew, and S. Mark, whom you only probably affirme to haue written all things necessary? Yea seing those two Evangelists, wrote before S. Luke, they should rather haue done it; especially S. Matthew, who wrote the Gospell before the rest; and so, in reason it might seeme more needfull, that he should haue written all necessary points, if indeed your false doctrine were true, that all necessary things must be written. In the meane tyme, you must not confound Principall and Necessary things, as if vniversally they were all one. Some points may be in themselves Principall, and not necessary; Others Necessary, and yet in themselves not principall: Others, both Principall, and Necessary. The manner of the existence of God; Identity with his attributes; Free Decrees; Infallible Prenotion of all things; the proceeding of one [Page 219]Divine Person from another, and the like, are in themselves, and as they appeare to Angells and Saints in the Beatificall vision, most Principall Objects; but for the manner (which is also a most principall Object) are not vniversally necessary for all, nor possible to be knowne in this mortall life. Contrarily, the Matter and Forme of Baptisme, and other Sacraments, and the like, are not principall Points in themselves, or in their naturall perfection and entity; yet they are Necessary to be knowne. The Conception of the Sonne of God in the wombe of the most B. Virgin, by power of the Holy Ghost; his Nativity, Ascension, and sitting at the right hand of his Father, are Articles both Principall, and necessary, and yet S. Mark (who alone beginns his Gospell with these words, The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ, as part of scripture) doth not mention them: and if one should demand concerning S. Mark (as you doe of the Text of S. Luke) whether his words, (The Gospell of Jesus Christ) must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things, which Jesus began to doe and teach, what would you answer? Whatsoever can be answered for S. Mark, wil serue for answer concerning that Text of S. Luke. Yea, what will you answer even for S. Lukes Gospell, wherin is omitted the sending of the Holy Ghost, which is a very Principall and Necessary Article of Christian Religion? Could he say, All, assecuto omnia, that he had attained the knowledg of all, and yet omitt a Poynt so principall and necessary? If so, then you cannot by the particle All in the Acts, vnderstand all things principall and necessary. Neither will it serue your turne, to say, that S. Luke makes profession, to deliver all things which Jesus began to doe and teach, which the other Evangelists do not profess. For the signe All in S. Luke, being not to be vnderstood vniversally, as I haue often sayd, and is cleare out of S. John, (Cap. 21.) it must admitt some limitation, and can signify no more, than what all the Evangelists did purpose and performe, that is, to deliver all things which Jesus began to doe and teach, as far as was necessary for the End which they intended, according to the direction and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that all men should be obliged to receiue our Saviour Christ as the true Messias; or els for confutation of some particular heresy; or for prevention of false and sictious narrations: in which respect, every one of the Evangelists, might haue vsed the same word all as in deeds, they did fully comply with the same duty which S. Luke performed. Which I confirme by the Protestant [Page 220]Translation Anno 1622. saying in the Preface to S. Lukes Gospell; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect vnderstanding of things from the very first. &c. Where there is not the word All, and yet you will not deny but that it is to be vnderstood, as if it were expressed; and accordingly the Protestant Translations, or Editions of the Yeares 1593. 1596. 1602. express that word; It seemed good also to me, as soone as I had searched out perfectly all things from the beginning. And therfor all the Evangelists, as I sayd, might haue expressed All, and must be vnderstood in reality to write all, no less then S. Luke who expresses so much.

129. But here occurrs a difficulty, which moves mee also, to make this demand: whether All in the preface to S. Lukes Gospell (as soone as I had searched out all things from the beginning) signify the same thing with, All in his preface or entrance to the Acts of the Apostles (The former treatise haue I made of all that Iesus began to doe and teach, vntill the day in which he was taken vp?) You cannot say, that they signify the same thing: because it is certaine, that S. Luke had searched out divers things concerning our B. Saviour, which he did not committ to writing; as for example, those particulars, which are written by the other Evangelists, and not by him; as also some of those things, which were not written by any. Therfor, the word all in S. Luke must haue a different signification, when he sayth, that he had searched or had notice of all, and when he sayes, that he wrote all: and so, by all which even in these two texts, hath a different signification, you cannot possibly learne, that S. Luke wrote in his Gospell, all things necessary to salvation of those things, which Jesus began to doe and teach, but you must doe it out of some other texts of scripture, declaring that he in the texts of the Acts, by All, vnderstands all things necessary to salvation, though he vnderstand much more by All in his Preface before his Gospell, assecuto omnia, having vnderstood all, but no man in his wits will vndertake any such task. You demand

130. 10 VVhether this be not the very interpretat [...]ō o your Remish Doctours in their Annotation vpon this place?

131. Answer: why make you not a conscience, to deceiue, the Reader, by alledging Authours against their knowen meaning? But this shewes, as I observed aboue, how hard it is to find any Writing so cleare, that either by malice or mistake, is not obnoxious to be misvnderstood. And Cha: Ma: (whom you egregiously wrong in this kind and particularly in fathering on him, that which through his whole [Page 221]Booke he disproves and detests, that a formall Heretique may be saved without relinquishing his heresy) may comfort himself with what, that great Dionysius Corinthius, (as we find in Eusebius L. 4. C. 12 Hist: Eccles:) sayd: what wonder is it if they haue endeavoured to falsify the words of holy scripture, who haue corrupted those meane things which we haue written? you know, that, those most pious, zealous, and learned men, who wrote the Annotations vpon the New Testament, firmely believe, and vpon all occasions teach, proclaime, and proue, the necessity of Tradition, and that scripture alone is not evident, or sufficient without a living judg, and the Gift of interpretation bequeathed by God to his Church. Do they not, even in their Annotations vpon this very first Chap: of the Acts, 14. and 15. verse, purposely avouch, and proue the same? When therfor, they say in their short marginall Note vpon these words, all things, (Act: 1.) not all particularly, but all the principall and most necessary things, it is cleare, their meaning is not, that S. Luke had written all particular poynts, necessary to be believed in Gods Church, but only, that he had set downe, what was principall and most necessary for the End at which he aymed; that is, to proue our Saviour to be the messias, and to oblige men to belieue so much; as also, to preserue vs from false or fayned Narrations. And it is certaine, S. Luke omitted nothing that was most necessary for these ends. I might add, that if we examine exactly those words, All the, principall and most necessary things, they signify not, all necessary things, but all most necessary, which may be very true, though some necessary things be ommitted, and left to the other Evangelists, and Canonicall Writers, or to Tradition, and the Declaration of Gods Church: and so the words of those Doctours, do not make good your demand, which concerned absolutely all principall and necessary things.

132 Neither doth this any way hinder, but that S. Luke and the Evangelists may be most truly and properly sayd to write the Gospell and life of Christ while he lived on earth, in order to the ends which I haue declared; as also because though they wrote not all, but somthing of all, as S. Ambrose speakes; and we may say, not singula generum but genera singulorū; yet every one of them wrote, of our B. Saviours miracles, of his Doctrine, of his Parables, of his promises, of his sufferings, of his Death &c: but not every particular, that might haue bene recorded vnder these kinds, or generall heads. And this is a proper [Page 222]and literall explication, both for the words of S. Luke which you object, ād for what you alledg concerning the other three Evangelists, to proue that every one of thē must express every necessary point of faith. For if the Evangelists may be truly sayd to haue written, for example, the Miracles of our Saviour though neither any one, nor all of them together, haue written the twenty thousandth part of them, as we gather out of S. John, much more may every one of them be truly sayd, to write the Gospell, or History of Christ, though they express not every particular point or object of Christian Faith, taken in the whole latitude therof. I hope you will not be objecting against the Evangelists, how can they be sayd to write the Miracles of Christ, of they write not the halfe, nor fourth, nor tenth, no nor the thousandth part therof; as you are pleased to object against vs, and say, (Pag: 210. N. 40.) If every one of them (Evangelists) haue not in them all necessary Doctrines, how haue they complyed with their owne designe which was, as the titles of their Books shew; to write the Gospell of Christ, and not, part of it? Good Sir. are not the Miracles of our Sauiour, a part of the Gospell, and is not your vnderstanding by the whole Gospell (as you declare yourself in the same place) not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man, (which signifyes all necessary things) a voluntary vnderstanding, and a meere begging of the Question? And by what I haue sayd in this occasion, we may gather, that although scripture should expresly affirme, that it self contaynes all things necessary, yet without a Living Judg, and authenticall Interpreter, we should remayne [...]ncertayne, of the meaning of that very Text, since the Annotations, vpon the Rhemes Testament say, that S. Luke wrote all the principall and most necessary things which Jesus began to doe and teach, and yet yourself know, that those learned Doctours were farr from conceyving that S. Lukes Gospell containes all Poynts necessary to be believed by Christians.

133. 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith, without the belief wherof, no man can be saved, be not the principall and most necessary things which I [...]sus taught?

134. Answer: Omitting to repeate, what I sayd about the difference of things principall and necessary, I grant that the Articles of Faith, without the belief wherof no man can be saved, are the most necessary things which Iesus taught: But you are perpetually begging the Question, in supposing, that all that Jesus taught, concerning the Articles without [Page 223]the belief wherof, no man can be saved, are particularly, expressly, and evidently written, either by S. Luke, or any one, or all, of the Canonicall Writters; which you know we deny.

135. 12. Whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospell, be not less principall, and less necessary then all, and every one of these?

136. Answer: I suppose you would make this Argument: S. Luke hath written many things less principall and lesse necessary, then those without the belief wherof, no man can be saved: therfor he hath written, all those things without the belief wherof, no man can be saved. But why do you not say? Not only the foure Evangelists, but all, and every one of the Canonicall Writers, haue written many things, which be less principall, and less necessary, then those without the belief wherof, no man can be saved: therfore they haue written all such necessary things. You should consider, that things may be principall and necessary, compared to one end, and not principall and necessary in order to another. S. Luke hath not fayld to set downe all things necessary, for that end, which by inspiration of the Holy Ghost he proposed to himself; which was, beside other causes, ver: grat: preventing false Narrations &c: to proue our Saviour to be the Messias; for attaining of which end, there was no necessity, of expressing all other Articles of Christian Faith: and therfor you cannot gather, that he hath expressed all necessary Poynts, because he hath written many things less necessary. For those things less necessary to be believed by all, may yet be more necessary, in order to some particular end, which the Canonicall Writer, may haue prescribed to himself. And therfor as the Writers of scripture, wrote vpon severall ocasions, and for different ends, we must not determine, what they were obliged to set downe, by the nature of things in themselves, but with relation to such diversity of ends: otherwise we must say, that the Saints Peter, Paul, James, and John must of necessity haue expressed in their Epistles, all Points necessary to be believed, because they delivered some things less necessary in themselves, than those which they wrote. And who can deny, but that the Evangelists omitted some Poynts, more principall in themselves, then some other which they set downe? Therfor we cannot gather pecisely from the quality of the things in themselves, the necessity of their being set downe in writing.

137. Thus, I hope, your Objections, and Demands set out with so great pompe, and demonstration of some hidden mystery, only to [Page 224]amuse some vnwary Reader, are answered, and confuted, and demonstrated, to begg the Question, and to contayne either manifest falshood, or to be wholy impertinent: wherin I haue stayed the longer; because this Argument taken out of S. Luke, is that wheron you most rely; as also in regard, that what I haue sayd here, will serue a fortiori, to answer the Reasons, which you bring to proue, that every one of the foure Evangelists, hath set downe all things necessary to be believed, though you thinke it most certaine of S. Luke.

138. This you endeavour to proue (Pag: 210. N. 40.41.42.43.) though (N. 40.) you say only, that of all foure it is very probable, but of S. Luke, most apparent; and (N. 43 It is very probable that every one of the foure Evangelists has in his booke the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the Gospell of Christ. But for S. Luke in my judgment, it ought to be no manner of Question. Now this doubtfulness being acknowledg by you, and your conclusion pretend to be no more then probable, your reasons can be only probable, and some topicall congruityes; and then I confute you with your owne words (Pag: 60. N. 21.) for ending of civill controversyes, who does not see it is absolutely necessary, that not only judges should be appointed, but that it should be knowen, and vnquestioned who they are? Otherwise, if it were a disputable thing, who were these judges and they had no certaine warrant for their Authority, but only some Topicall congruityes, would not any man say, such judges in all likelyhood would rather multiply Controversyes then end them? If this be true; how will you haue vs, in matters of Eternity, and of infinitely higher concernement than civill Controversyes, take for a Rule, or as Protestants speake, a judg, every one of the foure Gospells, since according to your owne Axiom, it is absolutely necessary, that it should be knowen and vnquestioned that they are such. Otherwise if it be a disputable thing, whether they be judges, and we haue no certaine warrant for their Authority, but only some Topicall congruityes, vvill not any man say, such judges in all likelyhood vvill rather multiply Controversyes than end them? Besides, Christian Faith must rely not vpon probable, but on some infallible and vndoubted authority, vvhich that Rule, or judg cannot pretend, whose Authority, they, who are to be tryed by it, and who appeale to it, directly acknowledg not to be such. Morover, seing Protestants hold, that scripture is not only the Rule; but the only Rule of Faith, topicall Arguments or congruityes, which in other matters might be of some waight, can be of no force with them in this our case. And therfor your endeavours are in vaine, vnless you bring some [Page 225]text, yea ād some evidēt text of scripture, to proue this tenet; which since you do not, as will appeare your argumēts ād hath bin cōfessed by your self, I might wel reject all your proofes drawē only frō humane reasons, as insufficiēt ād impertinēt, without any other particular answer. Yet that it may appeare, how weake your proofes are, I will examine every one in particular: ād I belieue they will be found no better thā a perpetuall begging of the questiō; ād to proue nothing, vnless you presuppose that all necessary points must be particularly set downe in holy scripture: and that although you seeme to multiply arguments, yet indeed you do but repeete the same, to witt, that no reason can be imagined, that any of the Evangelists should omitt any thing necessary, and the like conjectures of your owne.

139. That this may appeare more clearly, let vs propose three Propositions: First, the doctrine of Catholiques, that scripture taken alone, contaynes not particularly and evidently all things necessary to salvation: then, that it is doubtfull, whether or no, scripture containes all such necessary points: thirdly, that all things necessary to salvation, are particularly and evidently contained in scripture, as the Protestants hold. This being premised, I hope to demonstrate, that, every one of your arguments must either begg the Question, or at least proue nothing.

140. Pag: 210. N. 40. you say: VVhat reason can be imagined, that any of them should leaue ou [...] any thing, which he knew to be necessary, and yet put in many things (as apparently all of them haue done) which they knew to be only profitable, and not necessary? VVhat wise and honest man, that were now to write the Gospell of Christ, would do so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion:

141. Answer. First; let vs apply to this your Objection, the three propositions I mentioned. First, then Catholiques belieue, that all necessary Points of Faith, are not expressly, and evidently contayned in scripture; therfor no reason can be imagined, that any of the Evangelists, hath left out any thing, which he knew to be necessary. Yourself will not approue of this consequence; but we must say the contraty: therfor we can haue no reason to belieue, that they were obliged to do so, it not being a thing necessary to be done by them, or any Canonicall Writer: and, to retort your owne words, what reason can be imagined, to oblige them therto? Therfor vnless you expressly presuppose our doctrine (all things necessary are not evidētly contained in scrip [Page 226]ture) to be false, and your contrary assertion true, your argument hath no force; and what is this, but still to be begging the question? Do you not know, that according to the Rules of Logick, the disputant must proue, and that it is sufficient for the defendant, to stand to his Conclusion, till you can remoue him from it, by force of argument? And yet, for the present, I need not make vse of this Right, but only abstract from the truth or falshood, of our most true doctrine in this matter; and therfor; secondly, let vs suppose it to be doubtfull whether all things necessary are contained in the whole bible. In this case it must remayne much more doubtfull, (and so, not so much as probable, but only by Imagination) whether every one of the Evangelists hath set downe all such things. For, it may be supposed not to be done by every one, but by all of them, or by all the Canonicall Writers, collectiuè; as it is the common opinion of Protestāts, who therfor, must sol [...]e your Objections, no lesse thā we Catholiques 3. Although we suppose your false Doctrine about the sufficiency of scripture alone, to be positively true, and notonly doubtfull; yet you can only infer from thence, that all necessary points must be contained in the whole bible, as other Protestants teach: but you cannot gather, that they must, be contained in all, and much less in every one of the Gospelss. Contrarily vnless you suppose your owne tenet, that the scripture alone containeth all things necessary (that is, vnless you begg the Question) you cannot so much as pretend, that every one of the Gospells contaynes all such poynts. 4. you hold it only probable, that every one of the Evangelists, hath written all necessary points; therfor you belieue it cum formidine oppositi, and must think it not impossible, but that some good reason may be alledged (and much more, imagined, which is your word) for the contrary.

142. Secondly. I answer: you ought to remember, that as the Apostles, and other Canonicall Writers, wrote not their owne humane sense, but were inspired and directed by the Holy Ghost, (of whom we must say, Quis Consilarius ejus fuit? (Rom: 11. V. 34.) Who hath been his Counseller? So you must not expect, that we rely on your Topicall cōgruityes for finding out what in particular [...] was fit for them to write: that is, what was the will of God, that they should write. What reason, I pray you, can be given, why that Holy spirit, did inspire foure Evangelists to write; neither more, nor fewer: Why these men were chosen, and not others? Why they wrote no sooner? and not all at [Page 227]once, but at very different tymes? Why they omitt millons of things, and write others, and those very few in comparison of those which they omitted? and why rather these few in particular which they wrote, than some few of those which they wrote not? Why some things are written by all of them, some only by some, and some by one only? VVhy other Canonicall VVriters, write many profitable, but not all necessary things? and yet they were wise and honest men, and wrote not in a negligent fashion? And particularly, what reason can be imagined (according to your manner of discoursing) why any of the Evangelists, or other writers of scripture, should leaue out any thing necessary for the whole Church, as forme of Government, Matter ād forme of Sacraments &c: and yet put in many things which they knew to be only profitable, and not necessary, either for the whole Church, or every particular person; or had they great care of what is necessary for particular men, and regarded not what was necessary for the whole Church? Of this we are very sure, that they complyed with that end, for which the Holy Ghost moved them to write; and the conjectures of such considering men, as you take pleasure to be styled, cannot be of force with any religious mynd, except to condemne you of presumption, in prescribing to the Holy Ghost, what he should haue moved the Apostles to write vnder payne of forfeiting the repute of vvise and honest men and of being censured of having done so great a worke of God after such a negligent fashion.

143. Thirdly: I Answer. If you will needs haue reasons (though we must not rely vpon our owne reason in matters of this nature) jam sure, betterreasons may be given, to proue that the Evangelists were not obliged, to write all things necessary, then you can with any least ground, bring them vnder any such burthen.

144. First: he who, will impose an obligation vpon another, in the first place obliges himself to a positiue proofe of what he sayes. For, till that be done, every one, by the law of nature, enjoyeth the liberty of which he is possessed: as on the other side, he who denyes an obligation of performing, this, or that, doth sufficiently acquitt himself, by pleading, that no such obligation can be proved. And this is not a bare word or voluntary affirmation, as if in that case, both contrary parts had equall reasons, because neither of them seemes to bring any positiue proofe; but such a denyall of an obligation not sufficiently proved, is a solid and convincing reason, grounded vpon [Page 228]positiue Axiom, Melior est conditio possidentis: in vaine therfor do you aske, what reason can be imagined, why any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary &c: it being a most sufficient proofe that they had no such obligation, because you can bring no positiue proofe for the contrary: and if they were not obliged to do it, how can you accuse them for doing so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion, meerly because they do not that, which they had no obligation at all to doe?

145. A second reason may be not only imagined, but truly deduced, both from your particular Assertion, and from the generall doctrine of Protestants. You teach, that he who wrote the First Gospell, (S. Matthew) delivered evidently all things necessary; which to the other Euangelists might be a very sufficient reason, to hold themselves free, from obligation, of repeeting those things, which had bene delivered already with evidence; and, which they did certainly know (if the thing were true) to haue bene so delivered. And this reason vrges yet more, concerning S. Luke, who vvrote his Gospell after S. Matthevv, and S. Mark had vvritten theirs, and as I sayd, did knovv certainly, that they had vvritten all necessary points, if indeed they had done so. Lastly. S. John, before he wrote his Gospell, had seene the Gospels of the other three Evangelists, beside other canonicall scriptures, and therfor might with good reason, think himself disobliged, from doing that which had bene done by so many before him. And that Holy Spirit which directed the first Writer of scripture, (S. Matthew) foreseeing all future Canonicall writings, in which, many necessary points were to be expressed, might, even according to your humane discourse, moue him to omitt so me necessary points, which he saw would be delivered in other Scripture or tradition, especially if we reflect that a truth once delivered in scripture, beleeved to be Gods word, is a much as a million of tymes. Now, from the generall doctrine of Protestants, that all necessary things are contained in the vvhole scripture collectiuè, not in every part therof, a cleare reason may be taken, to disoblige the Evangelists from vvriting, that vvhich they vvere sure, could not but be vvritten in other parts or bookes of holy scripture, because that Doctrine implyes, that the sole-sufficiency of scripture, is perfectly asserted and maintayned, if all necessary Points be contained in the whole Bible, though they be not all set downe, in any one Part, or booke therof.

[Page 229]

146. A third reason may be taken from the End which moved the Evangelists to write, which, as I haue often sayd, being not to make a Cathechisme, or a Summe of Christian Doctrine; what reason can be imagined, that any of them, should think himself obliged to set downe in particular all necessary points?

147. Will you haue a Fourth reason? Let it be this (which may also serue for a wholsome and necessary document for you, and such as you are) we haue good reason to belieue, that the Holy Ghost thought not fitt to express either in the Gospells, or other Parts of Scriptures all necessary things, that we might be put vpon a wholsome and happy necessity of exercising humility in our selves, and obedience to Gods Church, and to our Saviour himself, who sayd (Luke 10.16) He that heares you heares me, and (Matth. 18.17.) If he heare not the Church, let him be vnto thee as a Heathen, or Publican; together with a dependence of one man vpon another, as it was sayd to S. Paul even in that great vision (Act. 9. V. 7.) Goe into the citty. And it shalbe told thee what thou art to doe; and to him who was cured of the leprosy, (Matth. 8.4.) Goe, shew thy self to the Priest: As also for procuring peace and vnity in Religion, which cannot be conserved, if all controversyes must be tryed by scripture alone, that being in effect, to leaue every man to his owne witte, will, and wayes, as we see by constant experience, in all those who reject the Authority of a Living Judg.

148. But what you cannot evince by reason, you endeavour to proue by an example, in these words. Suppose Xaverius had bene to write the Gospell of Christ for the Indians, think you he would haue left out any fundamentall Doctrine of it?

149. Answer. Are these Arguments taken from evident Texts of scripture, as yours against vs ought to be in this poynt, which is the only foundation of Protestantisme? If you tell vs what you meane in this particular Objection by the Gospell of Christ, yourself may easily answer for vs, out of what hath beene sayd already. We haue heard you saying; By the Gospell of Christ, I vnderstand not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man. Now then to your example; I Answer: that if S. Xaverivs had intended to write the Gospell as it signifyes the History of Christ, he had not bene obliged, to write all necessary Points, as neither the Evangelists, who wrote the Gospell, were obliged to do; ād it is strāge, that we denying it [Page 230]of them, you would seek to proue it only by changing the person, as if any would attribute more to S. Xaverius, than to the Evāgelists. But if S. Xauerius had purposed to write, not the History of our B. Saviour, as the Evangelists did, but a Catechisme, or summe of Christian doctrine, or the Gospell as it signifyes (to vse your words) all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man, which the Evangelists did not intend, then what you say, or imagine of S. Xaverius, cannot be applyed to the Evangelists, seeing in that case, their ends in writing, had bene very different. Nevertheless, even vpon this supposition, that S. Xaverius had purposed to write a Catechisme, we must consider some particular circumstances, before we can affirme, that he was obliged to write all necessary points of Faith: for example, if that Saint had bene assured, that in his absence, and for all future tymes, there would never be wanting Preachers, Teachers, Prelats, Pastors, and Apostolicall men, to instruct Christians, convert Infidels, and supply abundantly by word of mouth, and a perpetuall Succession, and Tradition, whatsoever was not expressed in such a Catechisme (as de facto we see God in his Goodness hath furnished the Indyes, with so many Pastours, Preachers &c. that no one Cathecisme is absolutely necessary:) in that case, I say no man can judge, that S. Xaverius had bene obliged to leaue in writing, precisely every particularnecessary Point, but only such as, Tyme, Place, Persons, and all other particular circumstances considered, should in prudence seeme most for the purpose: and such a Catechisme, togeather with those other helpes, had bene a most sufficient Meanes for that End, which S. Xaverius had proposed to himself, vpon the sayd supposition of Pastours &c. Now, this is our case. The Evangelists were most certaine, that Hell-gates could no [...] prevaile against the Church (Matth. 16.) that there should be a perpetuall Succession of Pastours; that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1. Timot. 3.) that he gaue some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastours and Doctours &c. that now we be not children wavering, and carryed about with every winde of doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in craftyness, to the circumvention of errour; (Ephesi. 4.) Where we see, that for avoyding errours, Scripture alone is not appointed as the only Meanes, yea is not so much as mentioned, but Apostles, Pastours, Doctours &c. to the worlds end. To which purpose; ancient S. Irenaeus (Lib. 3. Cap. 4.) speaks very fully in these [Page 231]words; What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures? ought we not to haue followed the order ād tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches? to which order, many nations yielded assent, who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God, without letters, or inke, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition. It is easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church, seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her, as in a rich storehouse, all things belonging to truth. It is therfor cleare, that the Evangelists had no obligation to write all necessary points in particular: and some may retort your example, thus: the Evangelists had no reason to doe so; therfor, neither S. Xaverivs in the like case and circumstances, had been obliged therto; and not argue as you doe; S. Xaverius should haue bene obliged to do so; therfor we must say the same of the Apostles. I will not stand heer to say, that although S. Xaverius had bene obliged, to set downe all Points necessary to be believed, by every priuate person, as such: yet, I hope you would not haue obliged him, to expresse all things necessary for the whole Church, as I sayd in the beginning; which yet is a most necessary thing.

150. But here occurs a difficulty, which will shew your example of S. Xaverius, or of any other, to be not only insufficient, or impertinent, but also impossible and chimericall, and even ridiculous, (in your grounds:) of which, I believe you did not reflect. You teach, that there cannot be given a particular Catalogue of fundamentall poynts, but that men may be sure not to faile in believing all such Articles, if they belieue all that is evidently found in scripture, which clearly containes all necessary things in particular, and many more. If then S. Xaverius could not know precisely, what points in particular be fundamentall, how will you oblige him, or any other, not to omitt any one such point? Neither I do vnderstand how in your principles, any man can set downe all necessary points, in such manner as he may be sure to omitt none, except by referring them to scripture, or procuring that they haue either the whole bible (according to the common opinion of other Protestants) or at least, the Gospell of S. Luke, which you hold for certaine that it contaynes all necessary points (for of the other three Evangelists you are doubtfull) which is a strange kind of composing a Catechisme; and yet there can be no other perfect Catechisme made, either by Catholiques or Protestants, according to your grounds [Page 232]for the reason which I haue given.

151 By what I haue sayd, all your other demands or objections are answered If (say you) every one of them haue not in them all necessary doctrines, how haue they complyed with their owne designe, which was, as the titles of their Bookes shew, to write the Gospell of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how haue they not deceived vs in giving them such titles? By the whole Gospell of Christ, I vnderstand, not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man.

152. Answer. Heer is nothing but begging the Question, in supposing without any proofe, that the designe of the Evangelists was to write, not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man, (that is, all things necessary to salvation) which is the very Point in Question; and a contradicting your self in saying, that the designe of the Evangelists was, as the titles of their Books shew, to write the Gospell of Christ, and not a part of it: and yet you say expressly, that you vnderstand not the whole History of Christ, but all that which makes vp the covenant between God and man; which is but a part of the Gospell, which containes many Historyes and truths not necessary to salvation. Yea we see, that S. Matthew begins his Gospell in an Historicall, not a dogmaticall way, saying; The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ. S, Mark saith: The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ, and then passeth to the History of the appearing, baptizing, and preaching of S. John Baptist. S. Luke after the Preface to his Gospell (which Preface is a brief history or narration) begins his Gospell with History; There was in the dayes of Herod the King of Jewrie a certaine Priest named Zacharie, &c. S. John indeed begins his Gospell with a sublime point of doctrine; In the beginning was the word, &c. against Ebion, one of your progenitours, who denyed Christ to be the Son of God, consubstantiall to his Father; and accordingly sayes, (Cap: 20.31.) These are written, that you may belieue, that Jesus Christ is the son of God: which shewes, that his purpose was, not to make a Catechisme, or set downe all points of Faith, but to confute that particular Heresy: and yet even this blessed Evangelist through divers verses of the same first Chapter, relates how S. John gaue testimony of our Saviour, to shew that his purpose was to write the History of Christ, as the other three did, and not to make a Catechisme, as I sayd.

[Page 233]

153. But then say you, How haue they complyed with their owne designe, which was, as the titles of their Books shew to write the Gospell of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how haue they not deceyved vs in giving them such titles?

154. Answer. I have often told you, that they haue written the whole Gospell, and not a part of it, for all that was to be written, and written by them, in order to that End which by instinct of the Holy Ghost, they proposed to themselves. Neither do the Titles of their Books signify any thing more: and therfor not the titles deceyue you, but you deceyue yourself, and wrong the Holy Evangelists by framing a fictitious and false meaning of true Titles, by your interpreting them to signify all particular Points necessary to salvation. Thus S. Luke doth fully comply with the Title, Acta Apostolorum, The Acts of the Apostles, though he speak nothing of some of the Apostles by name, yea litle of any, except of S. Paule, nor all that might haue been said of him; because he sets downe all that he intended to write, according to the direction of the Holy Ghost. And S. Chrisostome about the same Title of The Acts of the Apostles, (Lib. cont. Gentil.) teacheth, that Booke to be so called, not that it contaynes all the Acts, nor of all, but only of one or two, and▪ even of those, such as were easy to be set downe. Nay if we speake in all rigour, the word Evangelium, which signifyes, Good tidings, is verifyed, though one write not all good tidings and so, Evangelium secundum Mattheum, signifyes good tidings delivered by S. Matthew, or the Book of good tidings written by S. Matthew, which is litterally true, though that Booke containe not all necessary Points. The same I say of the other Evangelists: And this observation doth clearly make voyd all your Arguments.

155. But in this place also, a difficulty offers it self, which, I bebelieue, you will not answer, otherwise than by acknowledging some contradiction, and which turnes vpon yourself that which you impose vpon vs, as if it did follow from our Doctrine, that the Evangelists wrote not the Gospell, but only a part of it; wheras yourself alone are guilty of such a sequele, where you say; By the whole Gospell, I vnderstand not the whole history of Christ, but all that makes vp the covenant between God and man. Wheras therfore, the Gospell, according to your owne Division, may signify two things, and containe two parts, namely, The whole History of Christ; And, all that makes [Page 234]vp the Covenant between God and man, (that is, all things necessary to salvation) you restraine the Gospell to the second part; and so you must answer your owne Objection, How haue they complyed with their onwe designe, which was, as the Titles of their Bookes shew, to write the Gospell of Christ, and not a part of it? You say then; they write not the Gospell, but a part of it: And yet you also saie, that their designe was to write, the Gospell, and not a part of it; which is a plaine contradiction as I toucht aboue. Againe, you and every one must affirme that the Title, Gospell &c. as it signifyes the History of Christ, is not taken vniversally for the whole History of Christ, and then how can you with any shew of probability proue, that the same Title, must be taken vniversally, as it is referred to Points necessary to be believed? The titles themselves say not vniversally, the whole or all the Gospell of Christ, but indefinitely, Gospell of Christ; and by what Authority can you draw them vnto an vniversall signification, and an vniversall of your owne, to witt, of all necessary Points?

156. And here, I make the same Argument, which I made about the word all in S. Luke; and aske, whether the Gospell of Christ signify absolutely all things both necessary and profitable; or els only things necessary; or only things profitable; or lastly, at least all things necessary, as (Pag. 112. N. 43.) You demand Whether in the Text (of the Acts) All things which Iesus began to doe and teach must not at least imply all the principall and necessary things? You cannot say without contradicting S. John, that the Gospell of Christ signifyes absolutely all things, both necessary and profitable; or only things necessary, it being manifest, that the Evangelists haue written many things not necessary; and you will not say, that it signifyes only, things only profitable, which would overthrow your Assertion, that they haue written all things necessary: And therfor it remaynes, according to your manner of discoursing, that it signifyes, at least all things necessary, which cannot be sayd without absurdity, as if the Evāgelists, ād S. Mark in particular, who beginns thus (The beginning of the Gospell of Iesus Christ the Son of God,) as part of his Gospell, had bin doubtfull whether they wrote only things necessary, or both necessary and profitable; and therfor to be sure not to erre did add, at least.

157. Before I ptoceed, one thing is to be observed, to wit, that it seemes you are of Opinion, that the Evangelists, themselves gaue the titles to their owne Bookes; For you say: if every one of them haue [Page 235]not in them all necessary doctrines, how haue they complyed with then owne designe, which was, as the Titles of their Books shew, to write the Gospell of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how haue they not deceyved vs, in giving them such Titles?

158. But in this you are mistaken; which beside other reasons, appeares sufficiently by this; that the inscription or Title of all the Gospells, is the very same, only the name of every patticular Evangelist being changed; and S. Mark, beside his particular manner of beginning his Gospell, with these words, (The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ the son of God) hath also the same common Title, which is prefixed before the other Gospells, with difference, only of his name. And it is not likely S. Mark would haue repeated the same words. In Protestant bibles Ann: 1586. 1596. I find this Title; The holy Gospell of Iesus christ according to Mark: (and the same they say of the other Gospells, respectiue) but Ann: 1611. and 1622. they say; The Gospell according to S. Mark, where we see different words, and some, such as the Evangelists would not haue vsed, calling themselves Saints, or terming their owne writing, The holy Gospell of Iesus Christ. Do you think, that S. Paul, for example, for his Epistle to the Romans, gaue this Title, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, over and aboue that, which he hath in the beginning of the Epistle it self; Paul the servant of Jesus Christ, to all that are at Rome, the beloved of God called to be Saints. Grace to you: &c:? Or that he premised this Title; The first, or second, Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, beside the particular address which he makes to them in the beginning of the Epistles themselvest. The same I say of his Epistles to Timothy, the Corinthians, Thessalonians &c: Or do you belieue, that S. John premised before his (The second Epistle of John) notwitstanding that in the Epistle it self he sayth; The Seniour to the lady Elect, and her childrē; the like I say of the third? Epistle vvhich, begins, the Seniour to Caius the dearest. If then these titles were not given by the Evangelists, they haue not deceyved you in giving such titles, which they never gaue; nor can it be gathered, as you inferr that they haue not complyed with their owne designe, which was, as the Titles of their Books shew, to write the Gospell of Christ, and not a part of it; seing, as I sayd, those Titles are not theirs. Besides, if those Titles were not given by the Evangelists, all your Arguments grounded on them, are no proofes taken out of Holy Scripture, which alone you ought to [Page 236]bring in the Principles of Protestants. By the way, I know not whether Protestants reflect, that they haue in their bibles, and reade publikly, apocryphall Writings, that is, not Divine scripture, which yet commonly most of them take to be scripture, I meane, the Titles of the Gospells, Epistles; and I might add, distinction of Chapters and Verses &c. And even out of the Premises, I may conclude; that if the meaning of the Titles of Canonicall books (and in particular, that which S: Marke hath in the beginning of his Gospell, which is a part of Scripture) be not cleare, who can believe, that the meaning of the scripture it self is evident?

159. You goe forward and say: If this (all that makes vp the Covenant between God and man) be wholy contained in the Gospell of S. Mark, and S. Iohn, every considering man will be inclinable to beleeve, that then without doubt it is contayned in the larger Gospells of S. Matthew, and S. Luke.

160. Answer. You know we deny your supposition, that all necessary Points are written in the Gospells of S. Mark and S. John. And though your supposition or Antecedent were true, yet your consequence or deduction is so weake, that without doubt no considering man wilbe inclinable to approue it. For, what a poore consequence is this? The Gospells of S. Matthew, and S. Luke are larger than the Gospells of S. Mark, ād S. John; Therfor if these containe all necessary Points, those also must containe them: As if some, or many, or all necessary Points might not be set downe within a small compass, and none at all written in a larger Volume. How many large Chapters are there in scripture, which you will acknowledg, not to containe any one necessary Point of Christian belief? And yet the Apostles Creed, which Dr. Potter, and you affirme to containe all necessary Points of Faith, consists not of very many words. It is likely, you are of opinyon, that all Points absolutely necessary to salvation, are very few, and might perhaps be contained in a few lines or words; in comparison of which small compass, one Gospell may be truly sayd, to be no larger than another, because every man will be inclinable to belieue, that three lines may be as well contained in a book of three Chapters, as in a Volume of a great bulke; as ten cubits may be esteemed as larg, as twenty, for the effect of containing a body of one cubit. In fine, all these your topicall toyes, proue nothing, till first you proue positively and solidly, out of scripture, that all [Page 237]necessary Points must necessarily be expressed in scripture, and consequently that that was particularly the intent of the Evangelists. Let vs see what proofes you can bring that S. Mark and S. John, haue written all things necessary to be believed.

161. You say (P: 210. N. 40. ād 41) that S. Marke wants no necessary Article of this covenant, I persume you will not deny, if you belieue Irenaeus when he sayes, Matthew to the Hebrewes in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospell, when Peter and Paul did preach the Gospell and founded the Church or a Church at Rome, or of Rome, and after their departure, Mark the scholler of Peter, delivered to vs in writing, those things which had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the follower of Paul, compiled in a Booke the Gospell which was preached by him: and afterward, Iohn residing in Asia, in the Citty of Ephesus, did himself also set forth a Gospell. Having set downe these words of S. Irenaeus, you vrge them thus; (Pag: 211. N. 41.) In which words of Irenaeus, it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretikes, that pretended (as you know, who do now a dayes) that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell, were vnwritten, and that out of the Scriptures, truth (he must meane, sufficient truth) cannot be found by those which know not tradition. Against whom to say, that part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter, was written by S. Mark, and some other necessary parts of it omitted, had been to speak impertinently, and rather to confirme, than confute their errour. It is plaine therfor, that be must meane, as I pretend, that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell, which was preached by S. Peter, was written by S. Mark. Now you will not deny I persume, that S. Peter preached all, therfor you must not deny, that S. Mark wrote all. In your Margent you cite S. Irenaeus (Lib. 3. Cap. 2.)

162. Answer: you set nor downe the Booke or Chapter for the first place which you cite out of S. Irenaeus: I haue found it, and find that your ill dealing is so very exorbitant, and manifold, that I scarcely know where to beginne the discovery, or how to exaggerate sufficiently your fraude.

163 First: In those words which you cite, (they are Lib. 3. Cap. 1. adversus Haereses) it is only sayd, that the foure Evangelists wrote their severall Gospells, but it is not so much as insinuated, that every one, or all of them, wrote all things necessary to salvation, nor any least thing that may seeme to looke that way, or to be for your purpose in āy other respect, as shall appeare anone. But your misery is, that still you suppose that all necessary things must be expressed in scripture, and in vertue [Page 238]of that begging supposition, you extend indefinite Propositions, as if they were vniversall, and yet did signify not absolutely all, as vniversalls are wont to doe, but determinately for your purpose all things necessary for salvation; wheras S. Irenaeus hath neither the word all, nor the words necessary Articles. Your chief or only care should haue bene, to proue positively a necessity, that all things necessary should haue bene written, in every one of the Gospells, and then you might with some more shew of reason turne indefinite, into vniversall, propositions: but your negatiue way, or only asking questions, what reason can be imagined, that any of them should leaue out any thing which he knew to be necessary &c: will not satisfy. S. Irenaeus teaches, that S. Marke delivered to vs in writing, those things which had been preached by Peter; but doth he say, all those things which had bene preached by Peter? He neither did, nor could say so, the thing being in it self manifestly vntrue. For, S. Peter delivered many things by word of mouth, which neither S. Mark, nor any other of the Evangelists haue written, as we may learne from S. John, (Chap. 21.) and S. Mark omitts divers things which the other Evangelists and canonicall Writers haue written, and can you affirme, that S. Peter delivered none of those points? And in particular, could he be silent of the Incarnation and birth and other Mysteryes of our Saviour Christ, till his baptisme, which yet S. Mark omitts, as we noted aboue? It is therfor evident, that S. Irenaeus could not meane, that S. Mark wrote whatsoever S. Peter delivered, and therfor he wrote only some, and not all. This then must be your Argument: S. Peter preached all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell, and much more; but S. Mark wrote only some, and not all that S. Peter preached, therfor S. Mark wrote all the necessary doctrine of the Gospell, and more. An Argument like to this: God knowes all things. Mr Chillingworth knowes some, but not all things that God knowes therfor Mr. Chillingworth knowes all things. Eusebius (Lib. 5. Hist. C. 8.) cites S. Irenaeus thus: Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter committed to writing, those things which he had receaved from him: where we see no vniversall, but only an indefinite proposition Neither did it make any thing to S. Irenaeus. his purpose to treate whether or no, the Evangelists, or other Canonical VVriters, did set downe all necessary points. For, he wrote against certaine absurd Heretiques, whe denyed, that God created Heaven and earth, or breached some other such pernicious fooleryes, [Page 239]which might be confuted out of scripture, though it do not containe all other necessary points of Faith: And it is too much boldness (another would call it impudency) in you, to say, that in the words of Irenaeus, it is remarkable, that they are spoken by him against some Heretiques, that pretended that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospell were vnwritten, and that out of the Scriptures, truth (he must meane, sufficient truth) cannot be found by those which know not tradition; and for this you cite S. Irenaeus (Lib: 3. Cap: 2.) and (Pag: 346. N. 30) you say, Irenaeus had to do with Heretiques, who, somwhat like those who would be the only Catholiques, declining a tryall by Scripture, as not contayning the Truth of Christ perfectly, and not fitt to decide Controversyes without recourse to Tradition &c: But in this, your fraud is intolerable. For, those Heretiks, of whom S. Irenaeus speakes, when Catholikes did alledge scripture, excepted not against it because it did not contayne all necessary truths, or not the truth of Christ perfectly, (which exception could nothing availe them, it being sufficient for confutation of their particular heresy, if the scripture did containe as much as was contradictory to their errours, supposing they did believe it to be the word of God) but their exception was, that it was not well written, was false, and not agreeing with it self; as may be seene in that very third Booke and second Chapter, which you alledg against vs, in the words which now I haue cited out of you; and therfor you cannot pretend ignorance for excuse of your want of sincerity. Thus then S. Irenaeus in that (Lib: 3. Cap. 2.) (the title of which Chapter is; Quod neque scripturis, neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici: That Heretiks obey neither Scripture, nor Traditions.) beginns that Chapter with these words; When they are convinced out of Scripture, they fall vpon accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not right, nor of sufficient authority, and that they did varie from themselves, and that, truth could not be gathered from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. These very words yourself (Pag: 361. N 40.) alledg out of S. Irenaeus, and say; The Fathers vrged tradition against them, who when they were confuted out of Scripture, fell to accuse Scriptures themselves as if they were not right, and came not from good authority, as if they were various one from another, and as if truth could not be found out of them, by those who know not Tradition, for that it was not delivered in writing (they did meane say you, wholy) but by word of mouth, and that thervpon Paul also sayd, we speake wisdome amongst the perfect. But the word, wholy, in your parenthesis is wholy your owne false [Page 240]glosse, to make those Heretikes seeme like to vs Catholiques; wheras it is plaine, as we haue heard out of your owne confession, that those Heretiks held scripture vnfitt to proue any truth at all, and not only vnfitt to proue all necssary truths; because they held it not to be the infallible word of God, but to contayne falshoods and contradictions: and your conscience cannot but beare witness, that we do not deny the sufficiency of scripture alone, and necessity of tradition, vpon any such Atheistical perswasion as that was.

164. This also appeares by S. Irenaeus in the first Chapter of the same Book which you cited, where he sayth against those Heretiks; Neither is it lawfull to say, that they preached, before they had receyved perfect knowledge, as some presume to say, boasting that they are correctours of the Apostles. And this horrible Heresy he confutes, because the Apostles did not preach, till first they had receyved the Holy Ghost. Where I beseech you, remember with feare and trembling, your owne doctrine, that the Apostles did erre, about preaching the Gospell to Gentils; and in some things did not deliver divine truths, but the dictates of humane reason, and all this, after they had receyved the Holy Ghost; and then consider whether you, or wee disagree from S. Irenaeus, and detract from the sufficiency of scripture, which, if these your doctrines were true, would be of no greater authority than those absurd Heritiks wickedly affirmed it to be, with whom therfore you do in this perfectly agree. This also appeares by the words of S. Irenaeus (Lib: 1. Cap: 29) where he sayth of Marcion the Heretike; he perswaded his disciples, that his word was more to be believed, than the Apostles who delivered the Gospell.

165. You could not also but speak against your conscience, while you liken the Tradition which Catholiks belieue, to those of the sayd wicked Heretiques, who indeed agreed with you in the point of denying the Traditions which we defend, as is fully witnessed by S. Irenaeus in that very Chapter and Book which you alledg, and therfor you. are inexcusable in laying to our charge the traditions of those men. For, S. Irenaeus in the same (Lib: 3. Cap: 2.) having sayd, that when those Heretiks are pressed with scripture, they fly to tradition, he adds; But when we provoke them to that Tradition which comes from the Apostles, and which is kept in the Churches by the Successions of Priests; they oppose themselves against Tradition, saying, that they themselves being wiser not only than Priests, but also than the [Page 241]Apostles, haue found out the sincere truth. And so it comes to passe, that they assent neither to scripture, nor Tradition. Which is agreeable to the Title of that Chapter; Quod neque scripturis &c. as I sayd aboue. Wherby it appeares, that they rejected Catholike Traditions derived from the Apostles by succession of Pastours; and therfor when they appeale to Tradition, it was to certaine secret traditions of their owne men; which even yourself (Pag. 344. N. 28.) affirme out of S. Irenaeus, where you say, that Catholikes alledged Tradition much more credible than that secret tradition to which those heretikes pretended against whom he [S. Irenaeus] wrote. And (Pag. 345. N. 29.) You speake most clearly and effectually to your owne confutation. For there, you make a paraphrase of some words of S. Irenaeus, and make him speake in this manner: You heretiks decline a tryall of your doctrine by scripture, as being corrupted and imperfect, and not fit to determine Controversyes with out recourse to Tradition, and insteed thereof, you fly for refuge to a secret tradition, which you pretend that you receaved from your Antecessours. Do not these words declare, both that those heretiks held scripture to be corrupted; and that they relyed vpon certaine hidden and vaine traditions of their owne? As contrarily, it is evident out of S. Irenaeus, that the Fathers were wont to convince heretiks by Tradition coming from the Apostles, and which is conserved in the Churches by succession of Priests: which demonstrates, that there was no necessity, that all necessary points should be written; and you wrong S. Irenaeus alledging him to the contrary, wheras it is most certaine, and evident, that this holy Father writes most effectually in favour of Traditions descending to vs by a continued succession, of Bishops and Pastours, ād particularly of the Bishops of Rome, whose succession and names he setteth downe to his tyme, as may be seene (Lib. 3. Chap 3.) and then concludes: by this order and succession that tradition which is in the Church derived from the Apostles, and preaching of the truth came to vs. And this is a most full demonstration, that it is one and the same life-giving Faith which from the Apostles to this tyme hath bene in the Church conserved and delivered in truth. I beseech the Reader for the good of his owne soule, to read what this holy Father writes of traditions (Lib. 3. C. 4.25.40.) and (Lib. 4. C. 43.) where he hath these remarkeable words; wherfore we ought to obey those Priests which are in the Church, and haue succession from the Apostles, who with Episcopall succession haue receyved the certaine [Page 242]gift of truth, according to the pleasure of the Father. But others who depart from the principall succession, and haue their conventicles in what place soever, we ought to hold for suspected, either as Heretikes, and of ill doctrine, or as schismatikes, and provd, and pleasing themselves, or els as hypocrites, doing these things for lucre and vainglory. And yet further (L. 4. C. 45.) he hath these words: Paul teaching vs where we may find such, (he meanes Faithfull persons, whom our Lord hath placed ouer his family, of whom he spoke in the end of the precedent 44. Chapter) saith; he placed in his Church first, Apostles, secondly, Prophets, thirdly Doctours where therfor the gifts of our Lord are placed, there we ought to learne the truth, with whom there is a succession of the Church from the Apostles, and that is constantly kept which is wholsome, vnblemished for conversation, and not spurious but incorruptible in doctrine, (that is, both for manners, and Faith; affirming, that in neither of those the Church can erre.) For, those men do keepe our Faith which is in one God who made all things, and expound to vs the scriptures without danger. And the same he sayth (L. 4 C. 63.) yea even vvhitaker Controu: 1. 9. Q. C. 9. saith; We confess with Irenaeus, the Authority of the Church to be firme, and a compendious demonstration of Canonicall doctrine a posteriori. Where vve see Whitaker speakes of doctrine, and not only of conserving and consigning scripture to vs. And S. Epiphanius is so cleare for traditions (Heresi 61.) we must vse traditions, for the scripture hath not all things, and therfor the Apostles delivered certaine things by writing, and certaine by tradition; (with vvhom agrees S. Basile de spiritui sancto, (Cap. 27.) saying some things we haue from scripture, other things from the Apostles tradition &c: both which haue like force vnto godlines) that Dr. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference (1. conclus: Pag. 689.) ansvvering to these sayings of S. Epiphanius, and S. Basil, sayth; I took not vpon me to control them; but let the Church judge, if they considered with advise enough. &c: And for other Fathers both Greek and Latine, they are so plaine for tradition against the sufficiency of scripture taken alone, that (as may be seene in Brierley, Tract: 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 12.) wheras S. Chrysostome saith (in 2. ad Thessal: Hom: 4.) The Apostles did not deliver all things by writing, but many things without, and these be as worthy of credit as the other; Whitaker, de Sacra Scriptura (Pag: 678.) in answer therto sayth: I answer, This is an inconsiderate speech and vnworthy so great a Father. [Page 243]And wheras (Eusebius Lib: 1. Demonstrat: Evangel: Cap: 8.) is objected to say, That the Apostles published their, doctrine, partly without writing as it were by a certaine vnwritten law; Whitaker, (Pag: 668.) saith therto: I answer, that this testimony is plaine enough, but of no force to be receyved, because it is against the Scripture. And of S. Austine, Cartwright saith; (in Mr. Whitgifts Defence, Pag: 103.) If S. Austines judgment be a good judgment, then there be some things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures. Yea, not to insist vpon every particular Father, Kemnitius (Exam: Part: 1. Pag: 87.89.90.) reproves for their like testimony of vnwritten Traditions, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen. Epiphanius, Hierome, Maximus, Theophilus, Basil, Damascen: &c: Fulk also confesses as much of Chrysostome, Tertullian, Cyprian, Austine, Hierome, &c: And Whitaker acknowledgeth the like of Chrysost: Epiphanius, Tertullian, Austine, Innocentius, Leo, Basil, Eusebius, Damascene, &c. Now sir, are not these Fathers and Ancient Doctours, who teach that the Apostles haue not delivered all things in writing, directly opposite to your contrary Assertion, so often repeated, but without any proofe, which you know is but to begg the Question? Of people without succession of Pastours, which is the ground of Tradition, we may truly say as Optatus saith of the Donatists (Lib. 2. cont. Parm.) Sunt sine Patribus filii &c. They are children without Fathers, disciples without maisters, and in a prodigious manner begotten and borne of themselves.

166. I will make an end of this matter, if first I haue noted, that it is a false glosse of yours, (like to that which I haue noted aboue) and directly against S. Irenaeus, that when he sayth; those Heretiks taught, that truth cannot be found by those who know not Tradition, he must meane sufficient truth, as if those heretiks had agreed with Catholikes, that all truth is not sufficiently contayned in scripture alone; wheras S. Irenaeus expressly declares the doctrine of those Heretiks to haue been, that the scriptures were not right, and came not from good authority, but were various one from another, as I haue shewed, and yourself affirme in those very words which you translate out of S. Irenaeus: and so not only sufficient truth could not be learned in the scriptures, but they could not assure vs of any truth at all. Wheras you say; (to haue sayd against those Heretiks, that, part of the Gospell which was preached by Peter, was written by S. Mark, and some necessary parts of it omitted, had been to speake impertinently▪ and rather to [Page 244]confirme than confute their errour. I must say, that your consequence is no less impertinent, than your supposition is false; because no body did ever go about to confute those Heretiks by saying, that part of the Gospell was written, and some part omitted; but by proving that the scriptures were true, and of infallible authority, which they denyed; and also, that beside scripture, there are true Catholique Traditions (opposite to the foolish traditions of those Heretiks) from which, truth may be learned: both which Points S. Irenaeus proves, and so confutes the double errour of those heretiks, that truth could be found, neither by the scriptures, nor by the Traditions of Catholiques; and therby expressly makes good such Traditions, and that both out of scripture and Tradition we may learne some Points of Christian Faith; which is directly against that very thing, for which you alledge him, and proves my chief intent, that scripture is not the only Rule of Faith. To which purpose, I beseech you, heare your owne words [Pag: 345. N. 29.] where you bring S. Irenaeus [Lib. 3. Cap. 2.] speaking thus to those Heretiks; Your calumnyes against Scripture are most vnjust, but yet moreover assure yourselves, that if you will be tryed by Tradition, even by that also you will be overthrowne. For our Tradition is farr more famous, more constant, and in all respects more credible than that which you pretend to. It were easy for me, to muster vp against you the vninterrupted Successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles, all conspiring in their testimonyes against you: But because it were too long to number vp the Successions of all Churches, I will content my self with the Tradition of the most Ancient, and most glorious Church of Rome, which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine, &c: Thus you: And though you render very imperfectly both the words and meaning of S. Irenaeus, and in some words following those which I haue sett downe, falsify his sense: (And therfor I beseech the Reader to examine the place) yet this is sufficient to shew, by your owne confession, what was the judgment of this glorious Saint and Martyr concerning Traditions, and the no-necessity that all Poynts of Faith should haue bene written, since we may receyue them from the Church.

167. By the way: For what mystery do you goe about to proue that S. Mark hath written all things necessary, because S. Irenaeus (Lib. 3. Cap. 1.) saith; Mark S. Peters disciple, delivered to vs in writing those things which S. Peter had preached; and yet do not apply the same [Page 245]proof to S. Luke, of whom S. Irenaeus in the same place, saith: Luke a follower of Paul, wrote downe the Gospell which had bene preached by him. (S. Paul.) To what purpose would you goe the further way about, first proving, that S. Mark hath all necessary points, and from the nce inferring, that S. Luke whose Gospell is larger than that of S. Mark▪ must needs haue written all such things? When as you might haue immediatly proved the same thing of S. Luke, of whom S. Irenaeus speaks in the very same manner, as he speaks of S. Mark.

168. From S. Mark you passe to S. John, whom (Pag. 211. N. 42.) you would proue to haue written all necessary points, because he saith; Many other signes also did Iesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this Booke: But these are written, that you may belieue that Iesus is Christ the Sonne of God, and that believing you may haue life in his name, (John. 20. V 31.) By (these are written) may be vnderstood, either those 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 less then all, and therfor all much more was sufficient to make them belieue that which being believed with lively Faith, would certainly bring them to eternall life.

169. Answer: Of this Text we haue spoken already. Who would ever haue dreamed of this Argument? S. John sett downe in his Gospell as much of the Miracles which our B. Saviour wrought, as was sufficient to oblige men to belieue that he was the Son of God: Therfor he sett downe evidently all things necessary to salvation; as if nothing were necessary, except the belief of that single Point; or as if none can be damned if he belieue that Point, which is to say, no Christian can be damned. For, he who believes not Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, and the Messias, is no Christian. Doth the Apostles Creed consist only of that Poynt? And yet Potter and you say, it containes only things belonging to Faith. Do not many Heretiks beleeve that Point? Yea if they did not belieue that Article, they were not Heretikes, but Jewes, Turks, or infidells, and Aposttaes from Christian Faith. Suppose S. John had written only some Miracles, sufficient to proue Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, without mentioning any other doctrinall point at all, who will say, that he had evidently sett downe all things necessary to salvatiō? And S. John (Epist. 1. C. 2. V. [...].) saith: these things I write to you that you may not sinne: as he saith in his Gospell; These things are written, that ye may belieue that Jesus is Christ, the son of God. Therfor as you will not say, that [Page 246]in that Epistle he evidently setts downe all Points of Faith, and other conditions required for keeping the commandements, and avoyding sin; but only that he wrote it to that end, which yet was not to be obtained by that Epistle alone; so although S. John saith (Ep. 1. C. 1.4.) These things we write to you, that your ioy may be full; yet the contents of that Epistle alone could not giue full ioy, which requires the state of Grace, and observation of all things belonging to Faith and Good life. Nothing is more ordinary than to attribute an effect to some one cause, because indeed it is a cause, though it alone be not sufficient to produce such an effect. He that shall belieue, and shalbe baptized shall be saved, Mark (16.16.) and yet Historicall Faith alone, even according to Calvinists, togeather with baptisme, is not sufficient for salvation. Luther (Postilla in Dominic. 5. post Pasch.) saith, Here we see, that to belieue in Christ, doth not consist in believing that Christ is one Person which is God and man. For, this would availe no man. Sadeel (Resp: ad Artic: abjurat: 33. Pag 495.) saith; it is not enough to belieue that Iesus Christ came into the world; that he suffered death; that he rose againe, and ascended into Heaven: for, this Historicall Faith will not saue me. This you did see, and therfor to helpe the matter, you closely add, that S. John wrote sufficient to make men belieue that which being believed with lively Faith, would certainly bring them to eternall life. With lively Faith? Therfor not by believing that Point alone, Jesus is the Son of God. A lively Faith signifyes the belief of all other Points of Faith, and all things necessary for keeping all the Commandements; and you should haue proved, that S. John setts downe in his Gospell evidently all Points belonging to Faith and manners. Here I must put you in mynd, of your doctrine, that there cannot be given a Catalogue of necessary or fundamentall Points of Faith; and yet it may be easily and speedily given, (and you actually give it in this place) if the belief of this Article alone, Iesus Christ is the Son of God, will certainly bring men to eternall life.

170. But indeed is this Poynt which you alledg, cleare and evident in S. Johns Gospell? You could scarcely haue picked out a place, or Poynt, less for your, and more for our, purpose. Do not Protestants differ both from Catholiks and amongst themselves about the Consubstantiality, Merit, and Satisfaction of out B. Saviour? And for that which you say was S. Johns prime intent in writing his Gospell, Vt credatis, That you may belieue, do not you in this, differ from [Page 247]other Protestants toto genere, as much as a belief only probable and fallible, differs from a most certaine and infallible assent? And concerning the words, that you may haue life in his name, do not you and your Socinian brethren, differ from other Protestants, who belieue the Value of our Saviours workes, his Merit, Satisfaction for our sinnes, and Redemption of mankind? And so (in his name) must be vnderstood, by different Protestants, in a very different sence, which is the life of scripture. In which maine differences, you in your Principles will not say, but that many, or divers, or at least, some, Protestants, do sincerly seeke the true meaning of scripture, and therfor could not disagree among themselves, and from Catholikes, if those words of S. John were evident, according to your owne Rule. That a thing is not evident, when men so qualifyed, disagree about it. Catholique Bishops did overthrow the Arians, (who made no end of alledging scripture for their Heresy) by Tradition, and the word homoousion, which is not found in scriprure. And so you could not haue brought any Text of greater strength to proue the necessity of Tradition, and of a Living Judg, then this, which you alledg for the evidence and sufficiency of scripture alone: and if this Text itself be so difficult, how can you by it proue, that all other necessary Points are evident? especially if we reflect on your words (Pag. 93. N. 106.) That the Evangelists wrote not only for the learned, but for all men. And therfor that they intended to speake plaine, even to the capacity of the simplest. A pretty paradox! that the simplest are able to learne with certainty, out of the bare words of scripture alone, the most sublime mysteryes of Christian Religion, which is more than the learned can do without observing divers Rules exceeding the capacity of the vnlearned; and yet this absurdity cannot be avoyded, if scriprure alone be the sole Rule of Faith: because God hath provided meanes of salvation both for the learned and vnlearned: and therfor if there be no other meanes beside scripture, it must be cleare to all sorts of people. What is this but to cast men into despayre?

171. By what hath bene sayd, there offers it self an easy answer, to the Objection which you make (Pag. 93. N. 105.) Where speaking of the Evangelists, you say: Can we imagine, that either they ommitted somthing necessary out of ignorance, not knowing it to be necessary? Or knowing it to be so, maliciously concealed it? or out of negligence did the work they had vndertaken, by halfes? If none of these things can without Blasphemy [Page 248]be imputed to them, considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this worke, then certainly it most evidently followes, that every one of them writt the whole Gospell of Christ; I meane, all the essentiall and necessary parts of it. In which words you do nothing but begg the Question, still supposing that the Evangelists were obliged to set downe in writing all necessary Points of Faith; which though they knew to be necessary to be believed, yet they neither did, nor could know, that they were necessary to be written: which two things you ought to distinguish, though it seemes you are resolved never to do so. And here also you take vpon you to limit the Gospell to the essentiall and necessary parts of it; of which your voluntary restriction I haue already sayd enough.

172. But Sr. I cannot chuse but aske you, vpon the occasion which here you giue; how you can say, that ignorance or negligence cannot without blasphemy be imputed to the Evangelists? seing (Pag. 144. N. 31.) you affirme, that the Apostles even after the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and through inadvertence, or prejudice, continued for a tyme, in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth, and against our Saviours express warrant and injunction: and (Pag. 137. N. 2.) you teach, that the Church of the Apostles tyme, did erre against a revealed truth through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause; which last generall reason gives scope to proceed in blasphemy (if once we say, that the Apostles were not in all things belonging to Faith directed by the Holy Ghost) and for such as you, to say, that if they could erre by inadvertence, prejudice, or some other causes, it was not impossible, but at length one of those other causes might grow to be malice. But more of this herafter. Now I will only touch that which I noted before, how little credit, or authority your reasons ought to haue with any judicious person, since you acknowledg it to be but probable, that every one of the Evangelsts hath written all things necessary, and yet you would needs haue your proofes therof to be certaine and evident. Thus we haue heard you say (Pag. 211.42.) Take it as you will, this conclusion will certainly follow, that all that which S. Iohn wrote in his Gospell was sufficient to make them belieue, that which being believed with lively Faith, would certainly bring them to eternall life. Vrceus institui coepit, cur Amphora prodit? A probability improved to a certainty, by the only strength of confidence; And (Pag. 93. N. 105.) you say; that vnless we will blaspheme and accuse the Evangelists either or ignorance, or malice, or negligence, certainly it most evidently follows, that every one of them writt the [Page 249]whole Gospell of Christ; I meane, all the essentiall and necessary parts of it.

173. Morover, although you pretend to a certainty, that S. Luke hath written all necessary Points, which you hold only probable for the other three Evangelists; yet your reason comes to be the same for all, which is, that the Evangelists were obliged to write all things necessary; or els this (which in effect is all one with the former) what reasōn can be imagined, that they should not write all things necessary, and yet set downe many things only profitable? For, vnless you presuppose this reason (which is common to all the Evangelists) you haue no ground to affirme, that the words of S. Luke (all that Jesus began to doe and teach) must signify determinately all necessary things, as I haue often sayd; and so vppon the matter, you haue the same reason for all the foure Evangelists, which is no more then the same begging of the Question.

174. But what need we vse many reasons? Our eyes can witness, that the Evangelists haue not written all necessary Points of Faith. For, (to omitt, that they haue not set downe the matter and forme of Sacraments, the forme of Government of the Church, the power of inflicting censures, and many such Points, which cannot be evidently proved out of scripture alone, without the assistance of tradition) we do not find clearly expressed in S. Matthew the Eternall generation of the Son of God, wherwith S. Iohn beginnes his Gospell, In the beginning was the word &c. S. Mark is silent of the Incarnation of our Lord in the wombe of the B. Virgin by vertue of the Holy Ghost; His Birth, and all other Mysteryes of his sacred life till his age of thirty yeares. S Luke, as also S Mark; omits the giving power to forgiue sins. (Ioan. 20. V. 22.23.) and (Matth. 18. V. 18.) which is a chief Article of our Creed, I beleeue the remission of sinnes. S. Iohn wrote nothing of the Annuntiation, Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, and Ascension of our Saviour Christ; and according to Protestants, he speakes not of the Eucharist. For, they deny that [Cap. 6.] he speakes of that Sacrament: And consequently, communion vnder both kinds, which they hold to be a Divine precept, and therfore necessary to salvation, is omitted by him; as also our Lords prayer. All of them haue omitted in their Gospells, that which is expressed [Act. 2.] about the sending of the Holy Ghost; and the Decrees of the Councell of the Apostles, (Act. 15.) wherin amongst other things, they declare, that it [Page 250]was not necessary to obserue the Mosaicall Law, which is a most important and necessary point. I haue bene longer in answering this objection, as contayning many heads and divers Arguments of the same nature, which I thought best not to divide. Let vs now see what more you can object.

175. Object 3. (Pag: 93. N. 105.) If men cannot vnderstand by scripture, enough for their salvation, why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy, the scriptures are able to make him wise vnto salvation?

376. Answer: First, It is not sayd, the scriptures alone are able to make one wise to salvation: And if you had dealt honestly, and not conceald what went before and after, it would haue been cleare, that S. Paul speakes not of scripture alone; and of what scripture he speakes; and how scripture may instruct to salvation; which points being well considered, it will appeare, that this Text is so farr from proving what you intend, that it makes against you. S. Paul (V 14. and 15.) saith; Tu vero permane, &c. But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned, and are committed to thee knowing of whom thou hast learned; and because from thy infancy thou hast knowen the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the Faith that is in Christ Iesus. In which words S. Paul speakes of things which Timothy had learned of him (though out of humility ād modesty he concealed, his owne name as he doth 2. Cor. 12.2. scio hominem &c I know a man in Christ aboue fourteen yeares agoe, &c.) beside scriptures, which Timothy had knowen from his infancy; therfore he speakes not of scripture taken alone, or without a Teacher, and so it can only be inferred, that scripture or the word written, ioyned with the vnwritten word, is sufficient to instruct vnto salvation. But besides this, of what scriptures doth S. Paul speake? Of those in which S. Timothy had been conversant from his infancy, which could be only the scriptures of the Old Testament, and therfor that which S. Paule delivered by word of mouth, must containe many more Points concerning Christian Religion, than Timothy could learne evidently, distinctly, and in particular by the Old Testament alone. Of that maine Point, which one would think should be most cleare, that Christ our Lord is the true Messias, the Eunuch sayd▪ and how can I (vnderstand) without an interpreter? Which yet he might haue done, if scripture in that fundamentall Point had bene evident, according to the Axiom of the Socinians, he needs no guide who clearly and certainly knowes [Page 251]the way. No doubt but the Old Testament may help to belieue in Christ, being rightly interpreted; but it alone is not so evident as you pretend scripture to be. The starre which appeared to the three Sages, had not bene sufficient to call and direct them to Bethleem, without some other helpe; as that tradition, ^(*) There shall arise a starr from Jacob (Num. 24.17.) And of Bethleem it self, that Prophecy (Mich. 5.3. And thou, Bethleem, the Land of Juda art not the least among the Princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth a Captaine to governe my People Israel) had not bene cleare without the declaration of the Clergy of that tyme; which declaration they also received by tradition. Wherby it appeares, that when it is sayd; The scriptures can instruct thee vnto salvation, this being spoken of the Old Testament only, can signify no more then that they may helpe to that effect, but not that they alone are sufficient, which is the thing you should proue. Which may be confirmed by considering, that S Paul doth as it were prevent an Objection, or Demand which might be made: why doth the Apostle exhort Timothy to be constant in those things, which he had learned out of the scriptures, of the Old Testament, if they be not sufficient to make a man perfect? To which, S. Paul answers, that although those scriptures alone be not sufficient, yet they are profitable. And this he proves, in the next verse (16.17.) because all scripture being inspired by God, is profitable to teach &c. And therfor nothing can be gathered from this place to proue the sufficiency of scripture alone. Which appeares also by those words which the Apostle adds; per Fidem &c. by Faith which is in Christ Jesus, declaring that the Old Testament may instruct to salvation, not taken alone, but with the helpe of a teacher expounding it according to the Analogy of Christian Religion: and so this Text proves, that besides scripture, a Living Guide is necessary: which is also proved by those words: (2. Tim. 3.14.) But thou continue in those things which thou hast learned, and are committed to thee: that is; (saith Cornel: a Lapide vpon this place) are committed to thee as a Bishop, to be conserved and promulgated: which interpretation he proves out of the Greeke. And so it still appeares more and more, even by this place of S. Paul, that more is to be believed, than is contayned particularly in scripture; as also we learne out of the same Apostle, (2. Tessalon: 2.15.) Observe [Page 252]the Traditions which you haue received from vs, whether by word, or by Epistle: and (2. Tim. 1.13.14.) Haue thou a forme of Sound words, which thou hast heard from me in Faith, and in the loue of Christ Jesus: (Mark, he sayth, which thou hast heard from me, and not which haue bene written by me) keep the good depositum by the holy Ghost, which dwelleth in vs; ād (2. Timoth. 2.2.) The things which thou hast heard of me (mark againe, hast heard, not hast redd in my words) by many witnesses these commend to faithfull men, which shalbe fit to teach others also. He taught, and would haue others teach; and this perpetuall course of Teaching, is the Catholike Tradition.

177. Object: 4. [Pag: 179. N. 80.] You aske, Why may not the Apostles writings be as fit meanes to conserue vs in vnity, and keep vs from errour, as the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Counsell of Trent, or the Pope that confirmed them? Or as the Decrees themselves? Surely their intent was to conserve vnity of Faith, and to keep vs from errour. Was the Holy Ghost then vnwilling, or vnable to direct them so, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attaine that end they aymed at in writing? For, if he were both able and willing to do so, then certainly he did so. And then their writings may be very sufficient meanes, if we would vse them as we should doe, to preserue vs in vnity in all necessary Points of Faith, and to guard vs from all pernitious Error.

178. Answer: As you are still begging the Question, so I may not faile to be putting you in mynd, that you do so. You should proue, and not take as granted, that the intent of the Apostles was to conserue vnity of Faith, and to keepe vs from errour by their writings, taken alone, without any vnwritten word, or Tradition. Our Question is, whether all necessary particular Points be evidently contayned in Scripture alone: if they be not so contained; then it followes, that the scripture alone, can neither conserue vs in vnity, nor preserue vs frō errour in those points of which it sayes nothing, but for such things, all will proceed, as if there were no scripture, therfore you must suppose all necessary things to be contayned in scripture, before you can affirme, that the intent of the Apostles was to conserue vnity, and to keep vs from errour, by their writings alone; that is, you must begg, that which you know is denyed. The Holy Ghost was both able, and willing, so to direct the Apostles and all Canonicall Writers, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attaine that end they aymed at in writing, and certainly he did doe so. But you haue nor proved that they aymed at that end, which [Page 253]not the Holy Ghost, nor the Apostles moved by his inspiration, aymed at, but which you only presume to prescribe, for making good your errour. You say; the scriptures may be very sufficient meanes if we would vse them as we should doe, to preserue vs in vnity, &c. But experience teaching, that by not following a Living Guide, no vnity can be hoped for by scripture alone; to vse them as we should doe, is not for every one to follow his owne interpretation, but that of Gods Church. And it is an injury to the insinite wisdom of our B. Saviour, to imagine, that he left that, for a sufficient Meanes to conserue Vnity, which hitherto neither hath had, nor ever will, nor ever can haue that effect, without a perpetuall, great, and vnusuall Miracle, by making men, different in all other things, agree in the sense of Scripture. You will not deny, but that while the Apostles and other Canonicall writers were aliue, the scripture, ioined with such explication as they could giue by word of mouth, or by writing new bookes, was sitter to conserue vnity, then now it is: and, by not making vse of such help of some authenticall interpreter, it is sayd of the Epistles of S. Paul, (2. Pet. 3 V. 16.) that there were in them some hard things to be vnderstood, which, vnlearned and inconstant persons did depraue to their owne perdition, as they did also other Scriptures. Now the Church supplyes that want of the Apostles personall presence: And so we may say of all Controversyes in Faith, as S. Austine (de vnit: Eccles: C. 22.) writes concerning the Question about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretikes: Seing we find not in Scripture, that some pass to the Church from heretiks, and were receyved, as I say, or as thou sayest, I suppose, that 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 feeme to gainsay, not him so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beares witness to his Church. And a litle after: Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himself, who by his testimony recommends the Church.

179. To your demand; Why may not the Apostles writings be as fit meanes to conserue vs in vnity, and keep vs from errour, as the Decrees of the Church? The Answer is easy and cleare. First, If one Decree be obscure, it may be declared by another, seing the church cā never perish. 2. If any new cō troversy in faith arise, the Church, alwayes living and present, cā determine [Page 254]it by some new Decree or Declaration. These conditions are wanting in scripture, which is alwayes the same, and wilbe no more cleare, or of any larger extent for the contents therof, to morrow, than it is to day; nor can 'it speake and declare it self by it selfe, but only can be declared by some living Judg or Interpreter. And you are in a great errour, if you conceiue that we hold any one Writing or Decree, to be sufficient for deciding all Controversyes; But we say, that the Church vpon severall exigents can declare her mynd, either by explicating former Decrees, or by promulgating new ones, as necessity shall require. And for this cause, there are extant so many Decrees of Councells, &c: If we did yield to any one writing the sufficiency of ending all emergent Controversyes, God forbid we should deny it to hòly scripture! Neither do we distinguish Tradition from the written word, because Tradition is not written by any, or in any booke or writing; but because it is not written in the scripture or Bible. For Tradition hath this advantage, that it may be both written and delivered by word of mouth; and so be certainly conserved. By these considerations, is answered an Objection which you make against some words of Cha: Ma: and it shall be.

180. Object: 5. [Pag: 54. N. 5.] You are pleased to speak to your Adversary in this manner: In the next words (of Cha: Ma: Part: 1. Chap: 2. N. 1.) we haue direct Boyes-play, a thing given with one hand, and taken away with the other; an acknowledgment made in one line, and retracted in the next. We acknowledg (say you) Scripture to be a perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule: Only we deny that it excludes vnwritten Tradition. As if you should haue sayd, we acknowledg 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 therfor you must revoke your acknowledgment, or retract your retraction of it; for both cannot possibly stand togeather. For, if you will stand to what you haue 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 needes no addition, and so evident, that it needs no interpretation. Now that a writing is capable of both these perfections, (you say N. 7.) is so plaine, that I am even ashamed to proue it. For he that denyes 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 [Page 255]evident rule of Faith may also be written. Answer me; Whether your Church can set downe in writing all these, which she pretends to be Divine vnwritten Traditions and add them to the verityes already written? And whether she can set vs downe such interpretations of all obscurityes in Faith, as shall need no farther interpretations? If shee can; let her doe it, and then we shall haue 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, no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus, if he had pleased, could haue writ vs a rule of Faith so plaine and perfect, as that it should haue wanted neither any part to make vp its integrity, nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible, and then a writing there might haue been endowed with both these propertyes.

181. Answer I haue had the patience to set downe your words much more at large, than was needfull: the answer having been given already; that no one writing, can without a great and vnvsuall miracle, be capable of being a perfect Rule of Faith; and your Arguments proue no such matter, as will appeare anone. But first I must tell you, that you cite Cha: Ma: very disadvantagiously, or rather falsely, thus: We acknowledg scripture to be a perfect Rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule, only we deny that it excludes vnwritten Tradition; and here you stopp; wheras He added; We only deny, that it excludes either divine Tradition, though it be vnwritten, or an externall judge to keep, to propose, to interpret it, in a true, Orthodox, and Catholique sense. Now, that no writing is able to propose, or proue it self to be authentiall or true, or to keep and conserue it self, Cha: Ma: proved ibidem, (N. 3.4.5.6.) and the thing is of it self so true and evident, that (Pag: 61. N. 24.) to the words of Cha: Ma: (The scripture stands in need of some watchfull and vnerring eye, to guard it, by meanes of whose assured vigilancy, we may vndoubtedly receyue it sincere and pure) you answer; Very true: and (Pag: 69. N. 46.) to His saying (That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone, but by some extrinsecall authority) you answer expressly, that he n [...]ed not proue it, for no wise man denyes it. And (Pag: 62. N. 25.) you confess, that we belieue not the bookes of scripture to be Canonicall, because they say so. For (say you) other bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are, and those that are so, may say nothing of it. All which acknowledgments of yours, make good what Cha: Ma: sayd, that no writing alone can propose itself to be Authenticall, [Page 256]and much less infallible, and divine, or can keep and preserue it self from corruption. Seing then you grant, that no writing alone can performe these things, it followes, that scripture cannot do them. Or if any one writing can do so, I hope, you, and Protestants who pretend so much to reverence scripture, will not hold it any great crime in Cha: Ma: to haue sayd, that if any writing alone were capable of these propertyes, to proue, conserue, and interpret it self, we would acknowledg scripture to be endued with them.

182. But here (Pag: 55. N. 8.) you make an Objection against Cha: Ma: in these words: You will say, that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith, yet it must be beholding to Tradition to giue it this testimony that it is a Rule of Faith, and the word of God. I answer: First, There is no absolute necessity of this. For, God might giue it the attestation of perpetuall miracles. Secondly: That it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith; another, to be proved so vnto vs. And thus, though a writing could not be proved to vs to be a perfect rule of Faith, by its owne saying so, for nothing is proved true by being sayd or written in a booke, but only, by Tradition, which is a thing credible of it self; yet it may be so in it self, and containe all the materiall Objects, all the particular Articles of our Faith, without any dependance vpon Tradition; even this also not excepted, that this writing doth contayne 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 proved by Scripture to a gainsayer, that there is a God, or that the booke called Scripture, is the word of God. For, he that will deny these Assertion; when they are speken, will belieue them never a whitt 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, contaynes all the materiall Objects of Faith; is a compleat and totall, and not only an imperfect and partiall Rule.

183. I answer to your Objection, and to your Answer, that wheras you say to Cha: Ma: (you will say, that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith, yet it mi [...]st be beholding to Tradition to giue it this testimony, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the word of God) If you had cited his words aright, you could not haue sayd (you will say, that although a writing be never so perfect, &c:) For every one would haue seene, that he had sayd it already: But you had reason to dissemble [Page 257]those words, which were both evidently true, and did clearly by way of anticipation confute what you say now, that a writing alone may haue all propertyes necessary to a perfect Rule of Faith, of which none can be more essentially necessary, then that such a writing be believed to be infallible, and that it can conserue itself pure and incorrupt; which two qualityes yourself grant that no writing can haue, as hath been shewed out of your owne words; though now in your First Answer you either contradict them, and yourself, or els speake wholly impertinently to the purpose, in saying; there is no absolute necessity that a writing be beholding to Tradition, to giue it this Testimony, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the word of God. For, God might, if he thought good, giue it the attestation of perpetuall Miracles. Good Sr., Reflect that the Question is, whether any writing alone can giue to it self this testimony, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the word of God; and remember your owne words which I cited aboue out of your (Pag: 69. N. 46.) that we need not proue that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowen from it self alone, but by some extrinsecall authority; For no wise man denyes it. You must therfor, vnless you will contradict yourself, grant that no writing alone is sufficient for such an effect; and if God should doe it by Miracles, it were not done by a writing alone, and so it makes not for our present purpose. But you will say; in that case it should not be done by Tradition. I reply; that seing de facto God vseth no such Miracles, as we did suppose as a thing evident by experience, and which your self doe also suppose, and therforteach every where that we can know by Tradition only, that Scripture is the word of God, and even here (N. 8.) in this Objection which we answer, you say expressly, Nothing is proved true by being sayd or written in a Booke, but only by Tradition, which is a thing credible in it self; Which according to you were not true if de facto God did give it the attestation of perpetuall Miracles; It followeth, that as things stand, though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith, yet it must be beholding to tradition to giue it this Testimony, that it is the word of God; otherwise why do you teach, that by Tradition alone, we know Scripture to be the word of God? Besides, if you will fly to Gods Omnipotent Povver in vvorking Miracles, for excluding the necessity of Tradition and a Living Judge, you may ease men of all dispute about Scripture, or necessity therof, seing God can direct every man vvithout Scripture by perpetuall Miracles, and make all as infallible in their Thoughts, as the Apostles vvere in [Page 258]their words and writings, We ought therfor to speake of things as they are, and according to their natures, and the way which God hath set downe; without recourse to a meere possibility of Miracles, against Experience teaching that He workes not such imaginary wonders. Wherby I come now to proue, that it is not only impossible for any writing alone to propose, or proue, and conserue it self, but also to interpret its owne meaning; because as Cha: Ma: saith, (Part: 1. Chap: 2. N. 3.) It must be, as all writings are, deafe, dumbe, inanimate, and being alwayes the same, cannot declare it self any one tyme, or vpon any occasion more particularly than vpon any other; and let it be redd over an hundred tymes, it will be still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate Controversyes in Faith, than the Law would be to end suites, if it were given over to the phansy, and glosse of every single man.

184. And this which hath bene sayd in generall of any one writing, is in a particular manner to be affirmed of Holy Scripture, or of any writing contayning Divine and sublime Mysteryes, which seeme repugnant to naturall Reason. For, the height of such truthes moves the will, and perswades the vnderstanding, to seek out any sense of words, though orherwise seeming cleare, rather then to belieue things seeming evidently contrary to Reason. Besides, seing (as I alledged out of Doctour Taylour in his §. 3. N. 2.) words may be taken in a litterall or spirituall sense, and both these senses are subdivided; For the litterall sense is either naturall or figuratiue: And the spirituall is sometymes allegoricall, somtymes anagogicall, nay, somtymes there are divers litterall senses in the same sentence, as appeares in divers quotations in the New Testament, where the Apostles and Divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes; Seing, I say, this is so; how it is possible, that any one writing, can be so evident, both for words, and meaning, that all men by only reading the same words, must be necessitated to take them in the same sense, literall, spirituall; naturall, figuratiue; allegoricall, anagogicall; and that even of divers literall senses of the same Text, every person must see all; which if he do not, he may misse in one, though he chance to hitt right in another; since there cannor possibly be assigned any infallible Rule, (which yet is necessary for settling an Act of Faith) to know in particular, when and where, words capable of so many and so different meanings, are determinately to be vnderstood in this, or that, sense? If [Page 259]you say, God might put a remedy to this diversity of meanings, by setling the indetermination or diversity of mens vnderstandings, with perpetuall Miracles, effectually keeping them all to the same judgment of all the same places, or subtracting his concurse to all contrary assents: I answer, this would be, a strang kind of proceeding, or Miracle; neither would it make any thing to your purpose, because, as I sayd, we speake of a writing taken alone, without Miracle, or Tradition. And seing de facto God workes no such Miracle, as we see by Experience in the disagreements of Christians concerning places of Scripture, which for the words seeme very evident; it followes, that both for the divinity, and Interpretation, or true meaning of Scripture, we must depend on Tradition, or a Living Judge. And thus is answered your Argument; that no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ Iesus, could haue writ vs a Rule of Faith so plaine and perfect, as that it should haue wanted neither any part to make vp its integrity, nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible. For I grant, that our Saviour could by Miracle haue procured, that all men should frame the same Judgment of the same words; but deny that this could haue happened infallibly, by meanes of any one writing alone, which is our present Question; and your having recourse to our Saviours extraordinary Power, proves the very thing to be true which I affirme; that it cannot be done by any one writing alone. And when Charity Maintayned sayd we acknowledg Holy scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule, every one sees by the whole drift of his discovrse, and plain words, that he spoke of a writing alone, and considered according to the nature therof, and in that course which God de facto holds, without dreaming of Metaphysicall suppositions of your imagination; or of flying to such Miracles as God neither hath, nor (for ought we can vvith any shadow of reason imagine,) ever vvill worke vniversally in the vnderstandings of all men, to belieue with certainty the particular dogmaticall sense of words, for the vnderstanding wherof, they haue no certaine vniversall Rule, either evidently seene by Reason, or certainly believeed by revelation. It is also evident, that when Cha: Ma: spoke the aforesayd words, of Scripture, He compared it not with all writings, which successively [Page 260]and without end, may interpret or declare one an other, but with any one writing taken alone, which, as I haue proved, can not possibly propose, conserue, or interpret itself. For as Scripture, or the Bible, is one whole work or booke, so it ought to be compared only with one other writing or booke; as also He spoke of a writing, as it is contradistinguished from Tradition, or a perpetuall Living Judg. But if you will be supposing a multiplication, or as it were successiue addition of a latter writing to extend or declare the former, you are out of our case of a sole writing, and joyne a writing with a Living Writer and Judg, and so grant perforce the very thing which we affirme, and you pretend to deny. If the Apostles were still Living to declare their former writings by word of mouth, or new Scriptures, we needed no other Living Judg: but seing they are deceased, and no one writing is sufficient to interpret it selfe, we must haue recourse to some present, alwayes existent, and Living Judg, for determining Controversyes of Faith, and interpreting Holy Scripture. I belieue, the vnpartiall Reader will Judge, that which you call Boyes-play, to haue turned in good earnest to a greater disadvantage to yourselfe and your cause, than you imagined: And that your Arguments are of no force to proue, that any one writing can of it self be a perfect Rule of Faith.

185. We grant, that whatsoever is spoken, may be written, and affirme, that as no one writing, so no one speech, can be a compleat Rule of Faith, but both the one and the other stand in need of some other speach, or writing to declare them, as occasion shall require: neither do we pretend that the Church can set downe in any one writing all traditions, and Interpretations, or Declarations of all things belonging to Faith; but she can, and will, by severall writings declare Doubts, as they shall occurre necessary to be determined. You say: Neither is that an Interpretation, which needs againe to be interpreted; as if a word or writing, or Interpretation, might not be cleare for some part, and yet need a further Declaration in some other respect, or point, or purpose, or for such as did not fully vnderstand the first Interpretation: And as you say; it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith, another to be proved so vnto vs, so it is one thing to be a true, yea a full Interpretation in it self, another to appeare so without addition of some other declaration; as also the first interpretation [Page 261]may giue some light, yet to be further perfited by some subsequent exposition. None can deny, that the Canonicall Writers of the New Testament, alledging some passages of the Old (and by alledging them to a certaine purpose, they interpret and declare them to signify that for which they alledge them) are not alwayes so cleare in every respect as that they may not require some Interpretation or Explication, as we see performed by Holy Fathers, and Interpreters of scripture, who somtyme find difficulty, even in fynding in the Old Testament, what is cited out of it; and we have heard out of a Protestant Doctour that The Apostles and divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes; which shewes, that every interpretation doth not adequate the sense: yea since some Protestants, hold that the same Text of Scripture cannot admit severall true and different senses (as Fulk in his Confutation of Purgatory, (Pag: 151.) and Willet in his Synopsis, (Pag: 26.) they must aknowledg great difficulty in the interpretation of the same places to [...]vers purposes, as Divine Writers haue done, and will be forced to giue some interpretation or declaration of those very different interpretations, which Canonicall Writers gaue of those Texts of the Old Testament. Thus your Arguments being clearly confuted, I must put you in mynd of some Points on which I belieue you did not reflect, and which will proue, that it is not Char: Main: but yourself who giue a thing with one hand, and take it away with the other.

186. In your first Answer to an Objection which you make against yourself (Pag: 55 N. 8.) you say: God might giue a writing the attestation of perpetuall Miracles, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the word of God. This you giue heer; and yet you take it away in your Answer to your Third Motiue to be a Roman Catholike; where you say; the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and divine Meracies, which were wrought by our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles; and add; It seemes to me no strang thing, that God in his Iustice should permit sometrue Miracles to be wrought to delude them, who haue forged so many, as apparently the professours of the Roman Doctrine haue, to abuse the world. The same you expressly deliver (Pag 379. N. 69) Now, if even true Miracles may be wrought, to delude any sort of people, certainly they might haue been wrought to delude the Jewes, who despised and impugned the Miracles of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, [Page 262]and denyed Christ to be the true Messias, and forged false witnesses to put Him to death, and discredit his Doctrine. Nay, what People, or what single Person can be sure that their sinnes haue not deserved such a punishment? Every deadly sinne vnrepented, will certainly be punished with eternall torments, which is the greatest evill that can be imagined, or rather so great, that it cannot be imagined by any mortall man; and therfor much more may every such sinne be justly punished by permitting true Miracles to be wrought, to delude the sinner, if once that be granted which you affirme. How then could our Saviour say, (John 10.38.) If you will not belieue me, belieue the workes? Or doth not this open a way to affirme, that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, haue beene wrought to delude men? And finally, to come close to our purpose, how could God giue any certaine attestation by any Miracle, that Scripture is the word of God, if true Miracles may be done to delude men? And how do you say in your Answer to your sayd Third Motiue to be a Roman Catholike; The Bible de facto hath bene confirmed with those Supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles? Is not this, with one hand to giue Scripture the prerogatiue of being the word of God, and with the other to take it away? In the meane tyme; I challeng all the enemyes of the Roman Church, to shew any one Miracle-forged and approved by Her; and yourself know, that she censures with excommunication broachers of false Miracles, as Charity Maintayned (Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 9.) shewes, and you in your Answer deny it not, it being notorious to the whole world, that such forgers are most severely punished in Catholique contryes.

187. In another respect also, you giue and take away. Here you tell vs, that God might giue scripture the Attestation of perpetuall Miracles, that it is the word of God: and in your Answer to your third Motiue as I sayd even now, you say, that the scripture hath bene confirmed with those innumerous, supernaturall, and Divine Miracles, which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles. If this be so, we must inferr that as the particular contents of scripture; for example, the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurtection, and Ascension of our Saviour Christ &c: being confirmed by Miracles, became materiall Objects of our Faith; so seing you confesse this Truth (The Bible [Page 263]is the word of God) to be proved by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, it followes evidently, that it is a materiall Object of Faith, no less then the particular Truths which it contaynes. Andthis your selfe affirme in this very place, in your Second Answer, where you say; by Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed: For it can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer, that there is a God, or that the Book called Scripture, is the word of God. Is not this to say, that one of the things which cannot be proved by Scripture, and yet are to be believed, is, that Scripture is the word of God. Therfor, we are to belieue, that Scripture is the word of God: and what is this but to be a materiall Object of our Faith? This, I say, you teach here. But in other places, you affirme and take care to proue, that Scripture is not one of the materiall Objects of our Faith, as shall appeare in my next Chapter.

188. You do also overthrow what we haue heard you say, that Miracles may be wrought to delude men, by the contrary doctrine delivered (Pag: 144. N. 31.) in these words: It is impossible that God should lye and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the Confirmation of a falshood, or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therfor it was intirely true, and in no part either false or vncertaine. But how is this true, if the Apostles might haue bene permitted to worke even true Miracles to delude men; or how is not their Doctrine vncertaine, if you cannot be certaine but that their Miracles were wrought to such an end of deluding men? How many wayes are you fallen into that which you objected to your Adversary as direct Boyes-play? Giving, taking away; saying, vnsaying, and in a vvord, contradicting yourself; not in any by-point, or incident speech, (as that was which without reason you taxed in Charity M [...]tayned) but in a matter of greatest moment, as is the certainty and belief of Holy Scripture, one of the prime Objects of Christian Faith.

189. I knovv not to vvhat purpose you say in your second Ansvver, that it is one thing to be a perfect Ru [...]e of Faith, an other to be proved so vnto vs (seing your adversary expressly spoke of scripture in order to vs, affirming (Pag: 41. N. 6.) that it could not be proved vnto vs to be the word of God by its owne saying so: which you also grant) vnless it were to giue a blow to Protestants, who calumniate vs, as if [Page 264]we did subject the word of God, to the judgment of the Church, wheras we say no more, then here you acknowledg, that Scripture is in it self true, but not knowen or proved so to vs, otherwise than only by Tradition, which, say you, is a thing credible of it self; against other Protestants, who hold the Church to be only the first externall Motiue, or inducement, and direction to belieue scripture, (as Potter speakes, Pag: 193. and 141.) but not that for which we chiefly belieue it, which they hold to be either the privat Spirit, or the Majesty, or other signes found in scripture it self.

190. Object: 6. That all may vnderstand in Scripture enough for their salvation, you endeavour to proue [Pag: 93. N. 105.] out of S. Austine, whose words you cite thus: Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in Sacris Scripturis, omnta continent quae pertinent ad Fidem, mores (que) vivendi. The place you cite not, which is your ordinary custome. I conceiue, you meane de Doctrina Christiana (Lib: 2. Cap: 9.) Where S. Austine speaking of the Bookes of Holy Scripture, sayth; Illa quae in eis apertè posita sunt, vel praecepta vivendi, vel regulae credendi, solertius diligentiusque investiganda sunt. Quae tanto quisque plura invenit, quanto est intelligentiâ capacior. In iis enim quae apertè in Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent Fidem, moresque vivendi, spem scilicet, atque charitatem.

191. Answer. You know very well, that S. Austine, believed, we are obliged to belieue more then can be clearly, and certainly, and particularly proved out of scripture taken alone, without the authority and Declaration of Gods Church. Did he not belieue, and most zealously defend the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretikes, and taught it as a Point to be believed and practised by all? And yet (de vnit: Eccles: Cap. 22.) he teacheth expressly, that we must in this Point rely vpon the authority of the Church, as we haue seene by his words. This Testimony of S. Austine was alledged by Cha: Ma: (Part: 1. Ch: 2. N. 27. Pag: 74.) and you take notice of it in your Page 118.119. N. 163. and yet returne to alledg against vs the words, of the same saynt; in iis quae apertè posita sunt &c: which shewes that I was not rash in saying, you could not but know, that S. Austine held, that more points are to be believed and practised, then can be proved out of scripture. Nay, your owne Answers to this authority of S. Austine demonstrate, that you believed what I say about his judgment. For

192. You answer; First, you say to Catholiques, In many things [Page 265]you will not be tryed by S. Austines judgment (this you proue by instances which are answered by an absolute denyall that S. Austine is contrary to vs in those points) and therfor can with no reason or equity require vs to do so in this matter. 2. To S. Austine in heate of disputation against the Donatists, and ransaking all places for Arguments against them, we oppose S. Austine out of this heate, delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely, and moderately; where he sayes, In ijs que apertè posita sunt &c.

193. Answer. It is strang, or rather ridiculous; I will not say, Boyes-play, (as you thought good to speake) that you should except against our allegation of S. Austine, because, say you, in many things we will not be tryed by him, and that you in this very place alledg S. Austine against vs: you I say, who togeather with your fellow Socinians speak more contemptibly of that holy, learned, glorious Saint, than of any other Father. And no wonder, seing you find that zealous Doctour to be most direct, cleare, and efficacious for the Visibility, Splendour, Amplitude, Perpetuity, Succession, and Infallibility of Gods Church, and vnwritten Traditions, which is our present Question. This spirit you discover (Pag: 152. N. 44.) where you speake in this manner: To deale ingenuously with you and the world, I am not such an idolater of S. Austine, as to thinke a thing proved sufficiently, be cause he sayes it, nor that all his sentences are oracles; and particularly in this thing, that whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme, must needs haue come from the Apostles. But good Sr. what play is this? To bring for an Argument and proofe against vs, a saying of S. Austine, and yet to professe not to thinke a thing proved sufficiently, because he sayes it? And, which is most strang, to bring for an Argument against vs a place of S. Austine, to proue by his authority, the contrary of that which you acknowledg him to affirme, namely that (whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme, must needs come from the Apostles) as if with reason and equity, you may require vs to beleeue S. Austine when you bring him against vs, and yet yourselfe not belieue him, when in the very selfe same matter, for which you alledg him against vs, yourself acknowledg him to stand for vs, to wit, that whatsoeuer the vniversall Church holds, must be believed to come from the Apostles, and consequently to be believed, although it be not expressed in Scripture, which is directly against that for which you alledg him, even here, that all necessary Points of Faith are set downe in scripture alone. But of your little respect to B. Saint Austine, more [Page 266]may beseene through your whole Booke particularly (Pag. 258. N. 16. Pag: 259, N. 20.21. Pag: 301. N 101. &c:

194. In your second answer, you do not only slight S. Austines judgment, but wickedly taxe his will and piety, as if he had overlashed out of heate or had bene more excessiuely earnest in impugning heresyes, than zealous in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity, as you speake: out of which Book you cite his words against vs; or as if that can be called heate of disputation, which is delivered in writing, at leasure, vpon mature study, and never rétracted. But, as I sayd, you cannot endure that B. Saint, because he is so great a defender of Gods Church; and you could not haue done a service more acceptable to the Divell, and pernitious to soules, than to giue a ground for every one to despise S. Austines Writings against the Donatists, as being but exaggerations, and effects of heate in disputation; wheras of all those holy, learned, and pious volumes of his, none can be of greater profit to Gods Church, then those which he wrote against the Donatists, who were Schismatikes from, and impugners of the same Church. It is well (though this also be wickedly done on your behalfe) you confess that S. Austine did ransack all places for Arguments against the Donatists; and yet we see he finally rested vpon the Churches authority, and not vpon scripture; which directly proues for vs, that after all diligence vsed, he comes to acknowledg that more is to be believed and practised, than is contained in scripture.

195. Your third Answer is delivered in these words: We say, he speaks not of the Roman, but the Catholique Church of farr greater extent, and therfor of farr greater credit and authority than the Roman Church.

196. Answer. This your Answer hath but two faults; Falshood, and Impertinency. For S. Austine speakes of the visible vniversall Church; And that there was no true Church, which did not agree with the Roman, and the Roman with it in S. Austins tyme, Protestants themselves do grant, while they commonly giue to the purity of the Roman Church, a larger extent of yeares than from the Apostles to S. Austine. And, for consequent ages, till Luthers tyme, either you must say Christ had no true vniversall Church vpon earth, or else that it was the Roman, and such as agreed with her. Your Answer is also no less impertinent, then vntrue. For, our present Question is not; what, or which, is the true Church, (which is a Point to be disputed a part) but only in generall, whether the true Church ought to be believed in delivering [Page 267]Objects of Faith, not particularly contained in scripture, and consequently whether all divine Truths be found in scripture alone.

197. Your fourth Answer is: He speakes of a Point not expressed, but yet not contradicted by scripture, wheras the errours we charge you with, are contradicted by scripture.

198. Answer. First: I am very glad to heare you confess againe, that S. Austine speakes of a Point not expressed in scripture: and yet it is a Point believed, not only by S. Austin, but also by divers learned Protesrāts, (as in particular, by Vrban. Regius, Hoffmanus, Sarcerius, Cōfessio Augustrana, and Bilson, who are exactly cited by Bierly Tr: 3. sect 7. vnder M. at 13.) that baptisme is necessary for the salvation of Children; and consequently it were a pernicious errour to hold, that baptisme conferred by Heretikes, is valid, if indeed that Doctrine be not absolutely certaine, since it were to hazard the salvation of infants and others; besides that S. Austine confesses, that the baptizing of Children is not grounded vpon scripture, and yet he believes it as a certaine and necessary doctrine. Secondly: it is impertinent whether the errours you charge vs with, be contradicted by scripture; seing our presēt question is only whether some truth was believed by S. Austine, (yea and is also believed by Protestants, who are not wont to rebaptize the children of Catholiques, or of different Sects amongst themselves) which is not expressed in scripture. It being also very vntrue, that any doctrine of ours is contradicted by scripture, this your Answer comes, as the former, to be adorned with the two excellent qualityes I mentioned, of falshood, and Impertinency.

199. Your fift Answer saith: He (S. Austine) sayes not that Christ has recommended the Church to vs for an infallible definer of all emergent Controversyes, but for a credible witnes of Ancient Tradition. Whosoever therfor refuses to follow the practise of the Church (vnderstand, of all places, and ages) though he be thought to resist our Saviour, what is that to vs, who cast of no practises of the Church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the [...]yme of the Apostles, and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer tymes.

200. Answer. S. Austine saith not only that Ahrist hath recommended the Church as a witness of Tradition, or matter of Fact, but also what de jure ought to be done, about rebaptizing of such as were baptized by Heretiks; and therfor saith expressly: If there were any [Page 268]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 seeme to gainsay not so much him, as Christ, by whose Testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witness to his Church. Behold S. Austine speaks of the Question, or Doctrine it self, and not only of examples, or what was practised by the Church, and therfor saith, we should not doubt to performe even for tyme to come, what a wise man, of whom our Saviour had given Testimony, should advise, and not only to belieue him, that such a thing was, or was not, practised before. Now S. Austine saith that Christ beares witness to the Church, as vpon supposition he had done to some wise man; therfor we are to belieue the Church as we would belieue such a man so recommended, whom certainly we ought to belieue both for matter of Fact, and Faith, or Doctrine. Beside, if S. Austine did alledg the Church only as a witness of Tradition, his Argument were of no force to establish a Point of Faith, vnless he did suppose the Church could not erre in delivering what hath bene a perpetuall Tradition, and that the Point delivered by such a Tradition, must be true, and consequently that the Doctrine delivered by the vniversall Church cannot be false. It had bene a strang Argument to say; it is credible, but not certaine, that the Church hath alwayes delivered as a perpetuall practise, or tradition, that persons baptized by Heretiks are not to bee rebaptized; But the church may erre in that which is certaine she does practise: therfor it is certaine that persons baptized by Heretiks may not be rebaptized. And is it not a great injury to impute such an Argument to that learned and Holy Father? If the Church may practise a thing vnlawful what neerer are we by knowing the practise of the Church for our direction in order to the imbracing, or avoyding such a pactise? And therfor S. Austine proposing the practise of the Church, as a Rule and direction, what we are to follow, supposes the Church cannot erre in the Doctrine on which such a practise depends; as all practise depends vpon some dictamen of the vnderstanding. The same is evident by other sayings of S. Austine, as [Epist: 118.] Which of these things is to be done if the authority of Holy Scripture hath prescribed, we must not doubt but that we ought to doe accordingly &c: as likewise if the Church through the whole world practise any of them. For in that case to dispute whether such a thing be to be done, is a most insolent madness. How [Page 269]could the disputing against any practise of the vniversall Church, be censured so deeply, if the Church may erre in her practises; especially when the Question is, whether such a thing be to be believed as a Point of Faith, which must rely vpon certainty? And we are to obserue, that S. Austine speakes of what ought to be done, and not only of matter of Fact; which is cleare by his words, Quod horum sit faciendum, Which of those things ought be done; as also because he speakes vpon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe somthing; and you will not deny, but in that case we were obliged to belieue, not only that it was, or was not practised, but also that the thing in it self was lawfull: and then he sayth, that beside scripture, we ought to imbrace, and not to dispute against the vniversall practise of the church. The same Holy Father teaches, that the custome of baptizing childrē, cannot be proved by scriptute alone, and yet that it is to be believed, as derived from the Apostles. The custome of our Mother the Church (saith he Lib: 10. de Gen: ad Lit: Cap: 23.) in baptizing infants is in no wise to be contemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor is it at all to be believed, vnless it were an Apostolicall Tradition.

201. Ponder first, how the baptizing of infants is not to be contemned, or accounted a vaine or vnprofitable thing, and not only that we are to belieue there is such a practise. 2. That seing what the Church practises, is to be believed, and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved vnless it were an Apostolicall tradition; it followes, that what the vniversall Church practises is an Apostolicall Tradition, and consequently certaine and infallible, though it be not written in scripture. And (Serm: 14. de Verbis Apostoli. Chap 18.) speaking of the same Point of baptizing children, he sayth, This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath; against this strength, against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth, shall be crushed in peeces. Which place is so cleare for vs, that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could giue no answer, but this: Nos ab Augustine hac in parte libere dissentimus. In this we freely disagree from Augustine. But of this answer you take no notice, though you redd it in Charity Maintayned, and seeke to answer this very place of S Austine alledged by Him. And of the Quesstion of not rebaptizing &c: (Lib. 1. Cont: Crescon. Cap. 32. & 33.) He sayth, we follow indeed in this matter, even the most certaine authority of canonicall scriptures. But how? Doth he meane, that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture? In no wise. [Page 270]How then? Heare his words: Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonicall scriptures, yet even in this Point, the truth of the same scripture is held by vs, while we do that, which the authority of scriptures doth recommend; that so, because the Holy scripture cannot deceiue vs, whosoever is afrayd to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question, must haue recourse to the same church concerning it, which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to vs. Consider, that we are sayd to follow scripture, while we follow the church, even in a thing not expressed in scripture; and that he speakes not only of examples not found in scripture, but of that Question, Doctrine, and truth it selfe; affirming that the truth of scripture is held, while we follow the church; and that because the scripture cannot deceiue vs, the way not to be deceyved, is to haue recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends: which certainly were no good advise, or direction, if the church might be deceived: neither could S. Austine referr vs to the church in stead of the scripture, or as if the Question were defined by the scripture it self, vnless the church be infallible as scripture is. And, (de Baptismo cont. Donat. Lib 5. C. 23.) he hath these remarkable words: The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this (about not rebaptizing &c:) but this custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition, as are many things which the vniversall church observeth, which are therfor with good reason believed to haue bene commanded by the Apostles, although they be not written. Could any thing haue bene spoken more clearly, to shew that the vniversall church is an infallible Proposer, not only of examples, matters of fact, or practise, but also of Precepts, Commands and Doctrine. And the same glorious Saint saith vniversally (Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53.) It is safe for vs to avouch with confident and secure words, that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthned by the consent of the vniversall church.

202. By what we haue sayd in confutation of this your fift answer, the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answeres (Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44.) to these and other places alledged out of S. Austine by Charity Maintayned (Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16.) as also out of S. Chrysostome, who treating (these words (2. Thess. 2.) Stand and hold the traditions which you haue learned, whether by speach, or by our epistle) saith; (Homil. 4.) Hence it is manifest, that they delivered [Page 271]delivered not all things by letter, but many things also without writing, and these also are worthy of belief. Let vs therfor account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief. It is a Tradition, seeke no more. Which words are so plaine against Protestants, that Whitaker (de sacra scrip. Pag 678.) is as plaine with S. Chrisostome, and sayes; I Answer, that this is an inconsiderate speech, vnworthy so great a Father: These words of Whitaker were alledged in the same place by Charity Maintayned, but are dissembled by you, who (Pag. 153. N. 45.46.) giue two slight answers to the sayd words of S. Chrisostome: the first is like to that which in the first place you gaue to the words of S. Austine; that I was to proue the Church infallible, not in her Traditions, but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes: Which answer I haue confuted already; and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome, who not only sayth, that we are to belieue the church affirming such, or such a thing to haue bene delivered, but also, that the things so delivered are worthy of belief, as he sayd of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing, and to be believed in such manner, as we are to seek no more. Therfor we are to rely on the churches Tradition, as vpon a sure and certaine ground or Rule of Faith. It was not without cause, that Whitaker a man of so great note in England was so angry with S. Chrisosstome.

203. Your second Answer is; That the things Which the Apostles delivered without writing, are worthy of belief, if we know what they were: Which is not to answer, but to deride S. Chrysostome, as if he spoke of a Chimera, and not of any thing of vse, or existent, and applicable to practise, and in stead of saying as he doth: It is a Tradition, seeke no more, it is worthy of belief. He should haue sayd, There is no such thing as Tradition, seeke it not, nor belieue it. Besides, in this very conditionall grant, that we were to belieue Tradition of the Church, and the things which she delivers as true, you grant the Church to be indued with infallibility, as I may say, habitually; otherwise we could not belieue her Traditions, or that the things which she delivers, are true, though she were supposed to deliver them. Now if once it be granted, that the Church is infallible, not only as a witness of what hath bene done, but also of what ought to be done, that is of Fact and Faith, of Practise and Speculation; we haue as much as we desire, to wit, that the Church cannot erre in her Traditions, or in defining what hath bene delivered by the Apostles. And in this, [Page 272]Whitaker by rejecting S. Chrysostome, whom he could not otherwise answer, shewes more sincerity then you doe.

204. Lastly: Wheras you say, there are no vniversall Traditions of the Church for matters of Doctrine, we haue demonstrated aboue, that there are many; as for example, those which concerne the Governours and Government of the church; Forme and matter of Sacraments, and other Points of which I spoke hertofore, even out of Dr. Field and other Protestant learned Writers. And indeed seing S. Chryfostome saith, as we haue seene, that the Apostles delivered many things without writing, who will belieue without any convincing reason to the contrary, that not one of those many should be transmitted to posterity, considering how many things are not clearly expressed in Scripture, even the chief heads of Christian Doctrine, as Dr. Field confesses; and I haue demonstrated that the very Articles of our Creed, are not cleare without the Declaration of the church, and it appeares in the experience we haue before our eyes in the contentions of Protestants, concerning those principall Articles of the Creed.

205. But now let vs returne to answer your assertion out of S. Austine, which in effect is done to our hands by Dr. Field, who, (Lib: 4. Cap: 20.) summoneth divers Traditions not contayned in scripture, as the chief heads of Christian Doctrine, and distinct explication of many things, somwhat obscurly contained in Scripture. Yea Dr. Potter, though he hold all Fundamentall Points of Faith to be contained in the Creed, yet (Pag: 216.) he puts this restriction, that it must be taken in a Catholike sense, that is, as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent Heresyes) in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Athanasius. Now as Heresyes may still arise, so still there will be necessity of a new opening, or explanation: and what would such explications availe vs in order to an Act of Faith, if the whole church may erre? And therfor when S. Austine is alledged to say, that all necessary Points are manifest in scripture, he cannot be vnderstood of scripture alone without explication, or declaration of the church, even for Fundamentall Points, (and consequently necessary to salvation) contayned in the Creed. This answer you might haue gathered out of S. Austines words, if you had cited them aright, as I haue done aboue. Illa quae &c: Those things which are sett downe plainly in them (Bookes of Holy Scripture) whether they be precepts of good life. or Rules of Faith are to be sought out with [Page 273]more industry and diligence, of which, every one fynds out the more, by how much he is of a greater vnderstanding. For, in those things which are plainly sett downe in scripture, all those things are found which contayne Faith and manners. Do not these words signify, that one must vse great diligence to seeke out the meaning of scripture, and that some of greater ability, even in things belonging to Faith, fynd out more than others? which argues that every one fynds not out all poynts of belief ād life; for which therfor an authēticall interpreter, or Tradition is necessary. If it had not bene for tradition, how would so many of our moderne sectaries haue believed the Mystery of the B. Trinity, and some other Articles of Faith? But the truth is, we are often obliged to tradition, when we least think thereof.

206. In the meane tyme I must not omitt to say, that in this First answer, with falshood you joyne impertinency, to divert the Reader from the state of the Question, in saying; Whosoever refuses to follow the practise of the Church (vnderstand, of all places and ages) though he be thought to resist our Saviour, what is that to vs, who cast of no practises of the Church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the tyme of the Apostles, and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer tymes, for our Question is not (for the present) Whether you deny any vniversall practise or Doctrine of Gods church, but in generall, whether the traditions of the church be not to be followed and believed, whether they concerne Doctrine or practise, and consequently whether scripture alone contayne all Objects of Faith: and it seemes by this your answer, that you do not deny the certainty of the churches vniversall traditions nor that he who refuseth to follow them, may be thought to resist our Saviour, which is as much as we desire.

207. Your last answer, That the church once held the necessity of the Eucharist for infants, and that therfor the church may erre; is a meer vntruth; and it is strang that you should so intollerably often alledg this Point, and yet never so much as once offer to proue it; and to alledg it as the doctrine of S. Austine, without bringing one single Text out of him to make it good: wheras you cannot be ignorant, that Catholique divines alledg all that can be sayd out of S. Austine concerning this subject, and solidly demonstrate, that the actuall receyving Christs Body and Bloud in the Eucharist, was never held by that holy Father to be necessary for infants: and you presume too much if you thinke vs obliged to belieue you against greater and better [Page 274]authority than yours can be, only by your ego dico, I say it.

208. (Pag. 151. N. 42.) You Object against my Argument out of this place of S. Austine, (Epist. 118.) If the church through the whole world practise any of these things; to dispute whether that ought to be so done, is a most insolent madness: That it is a fallacy A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, because S. Austine speakes only of matters of order and decency, and from hence I inferr, if the whole Church practise any thing, to dispute whether that ought to be done, is insolent madness. As if there were no difference between any thing, and any of these things?

209. Answer: 1. I cited S. Austine, These things, not any thing: 2. If S. Austine did not suppose that the Catholique church cannot erre, he could not say, that it were a most insolēt madness to dispute against that which she practises. For, one might doubt, whether that which she practises, did not containe some errour against Faith, or deviation from manners; or whether that which you call order and decency, or circumstance, may not containe something against scripture: For example, whether according to the example of our Saviour, the Eucharist were not to be celebrated after supper, or at the tyme when we are wont to supp, as Protestants commonly call it the supper; which certainly you cannot avoyd by scripture alone, but only by authority of the Church, which practiseth the contrary. And this is so great a doubt, that Januarivs consulted S. Austine about it; and S. Austine answers, that we are to follow the custome of Churches: though yet in the same Epistle, (Cap. 7.) he saith: Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio &c. Some were moved with a probable reason, that vpon one particular day in the yeare, on which our Lord gaue the supper, the Body and Bloud of our Lord, might be offered ād receyved after meate as it were for a more remarkable commemoration. The same I say of washing the feete, and other circumstances, which, abstracting from the practise of the Church, you can haue no certainty, but that we are obliged to follow our Saviours example in them all: And in particular, for washing of feet, our Saviour (Joan. 13. V. 8.) said to S. Peter, If I wash thee not, thou shalt haue no part with me; And (V. 14.) you also ought to wash one anothers feet. Mark the word ought, which may seeme to sound a commād, and was spoken not only to S. Peter, but to all the rest. Therfor vnless we rely on the churches practise, Declaration, and infallibility, we must say that there is a command to wash feete, either before we receyve the Eucharist, or els absolutely without relation to that [Page 275]Sacrament, because our Saviour sayd absolutely, you ought to wash one an others feet. Morover; How will you assure vs, that bread for the Matter of Consecration, must not of necessity be vnleavened; and the wine only of that kind which our Saviour vsed at that tyme? Or if you may cōsecrate in any kind of wine, why not in any kind of bread? Which are things belonging not only to decency, or circumstance, but also to the substance of the Sacrament; and though they belonged only to circumstance, yet if they were forbidden or commanded in scripture, the doing, or omission of thē were damnable: therfor S. Austine must suppose that the vniversall church cānot erre. Neither cā he be thought to say: these things are not vnlawfull, but indifferent, therfor it is madness to dispute against them, if they be practised by the whole church; but contrarily he must say, the whole church practises them; therfore they are lawfull, ād it is madness to dispute against them; which were not so, if the whole church might erre: neither had he sayd any more of the vniversall than of any particular church, which ought not to be disturbed for things indifferent: as you ibid: (Pag. 151. N. 42.) deny not but it might be esteemēd pride and folly, to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order, partaining to the tyme and place and other circomstāces of Gods worship: And yet S. Austine in that Epistle, (Cap. 2.) having first mentioned things contayned in scripture, adds these words: But those things which we keep not as written, but by tradition, if they be observed through the whole world, are vnderstood to be kept as recōmended and ordayned either by the Apostles themselves, or by generall Councells, whose authority is most wholsome in the Church: and having given examples of things which are differētly observed in different places and countryes, saith: this kind of things is freely observed: neither is there any better order for a grave and prudent Christian, then that he doe as he sees done in that church to which he chances to come: ād afterward he disallowes their proceeding, who are cause of disturbance for things which can be decided neither by the authority of holy scripture, nor by tradition of the vniversall church. Therfor according to S. Austine, if ōce we haue a tradition of the vniversall church, we may ād ought to defend it without further dispute, ād to impugne ād reject whatsoever practise, or doctrine of any particular church, or countrey, though it may seeme to be occasion of trouble; which we could not doe without pride ād folly, vnless we were assured that the vniversall church cannot approue any vnlawfull practise, or deliver any thing against faith: ād therfor he saith Cap. 4. [Page 276] that he who alledges only the custome of his particular country, will not speake out of scripture, neither will he take his proofes frō the voice of the vniversall church dilated through the world: Where we see S. Austine makes a difference between a particular and vniversall church, and constantly ioynes togeather the Holy Scripture, and the voice of the vniversall church, either of which whosoever can alledg, he may confidently stand for what they deliver. And for this cause (cap. 5.) he saith that Januarius to whom he wrote, was to consider whether that of which there was Question, be contayned in scripture, or be vnanimously practised by the whole church, or of the third kind which is different in divers places and countryes; of which third kind he saith, let every one doe what he findes in that church where he fynds himself. But of the two first kinds he speakes, as I noted aboue, in another manner, that there is no doubt but that we are to doe what the Holy Scripture prescribes, as also whatsoever the vniversall church doth practise, and that to dispute against any such thing, is most insolent madness. What could haue bene spoken more cleare? to shew that we are not to follow the vniversall church, because we judg aforehand that what she practises, is lawfull, but because we learne by her practise, that it is lawfull, and so ought not to doubt quin ita faciendum sit, that is ought to be so done; and so we must learne of her both the practise, and the lawfulness therof: And consequently whatsoever is against scripture, or the practise of the vniversall Church, must not be ranked among the third kind of things, of which he sayd, none of those things are against Faith or Manners; and contrarily, whatsoever is of the two first kinds, that is, against scripture, or the vniversall Church, must be esteemed to be of a different nature, and contrary to Faith or Manners; and therfor, saith he, velemendari opportet quod perperam fiebat, vel institui quod non fiebat. Either that must be mended which was done amisse, or that is to be ordayned which was omitted. And therfor your saying here, that it is not to be accounted pride or folly, to goe about to reforme some errours which the Church hath suffered to come in, and to vitiate therby the substance of Gods Worship; is directly against S Austine: and you cannot avoyd the crime of schisme, by parting from the Church vpon such false pretenses; nor of Heresy, even by this most pernicious Doctrine, that the vniversall Church may erre.

210. From these places of S. Austine, and what we haue sayd in [Page 277]this whole chapter, it is easy to answer a kind of Objection which you make (Pag 134. N. 13.) against those words of Charity Maintayned (Part. 1. Ch. 3. N. 19.) I deliver a catalogue, wherin are comprised all Points y vs taught to be necessary to salvation, in these words: We are obliged vnder paine of damnation, to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible church of Christ proposeth as revealed by God. Against this you say, that in reason Charity Maintayned might thinke it enough for Protestants also to say in generall, that it is sufficient for any mans salvation; to believe, that the scripture is true and contaynes all things necessary for salvatiō; and to doe his best endeavour to find and belieue the true sense of it, without delivering any particular catalogue of the fundamentalls of Faith.

211. This Objection, I say is easily answered out of the grounds we haue layed and proved. For, First, we deny that scripture containes all things necessary for salvation; and so one might belieue all the contents therof, and yet want the belief of some necessary Points. But whosoever believes scripture, with the Traditions and Definitions of Gods Church, is sure to belieue all; and so hath a sufficient catalogue of all. 2. Whosoever believes the church, hath an evident and certaine Meanes to know the true Meaning of scripture, in all necessary Points: Not so, they, who belieue only scripture which needs an infallible Interpreter. 3. We are sure, that the church which is assisted by the holy Ghost, will not faile to propose in all occasions every particular Object of Faith, as necessity shall require: Which, as I haue often sayd, scripture cannot doe, taken alone. And therfor our chiefest care must be, to belieue the true church, which we know will propose, in due tyme, all necessary Points of Faith, whether or no we know what Points in particular are fundamentall: and so this belief of the church, brings with it the explicite belief of all necessary Objects, as need shall be: But you cannot tell whether you belieue all fundamentall Points, vnless first you know what Points in particular be such, and therfor Protestants hitherto haue endeavoured to assigne a particular Catalogue of them: and after all, you come to tell vs, that it is impossible to make any such Catalogue.

212. But enough of this Objection, and whole Question, wherin much more might haue beene sayd, out of scripture, Fathers, and Reason; which may be seene at large in Catholique VVriters. My purpose was to answer Mr. Chillingworths Arguments; and yet some will thinke I haue beene to long; to whose judgment I would subscribe as soone [Page 278]as any other, if I had not found, that perpetually he gives so many advantages, as I must either haue bene long, or wholy dissembled them; and by occasion given by him, some things not vnprofitable in themselves, haue bene declared.

213. And even now, I must not omitt to add a new Argument to all my former: and it is this; that although it were granted, that scripture alone did containe evidently and expresly, all particular Truths, that we are bound to belieue, yet this were not enough for Protestants, if they will belieue this mans doctrine, which is such, as overthrowes the authority of scripture it self; and therfor they must either renounce his Assertions, or els be content to alter their pretended most common ground, that scripture alone contaynes evidently, and in particular, all Points of Faith; and so returne to belieue the authority, and infallibility of Gods Church.

214. The Reader, I confess, may well expect now, that having proved Christian Faith to be infallibly true, and that this infallibility cannot be setled vpon scripture alone, I should according to good order, declare what is that, on which it must be grounded: yet for perfiting this Question about the sufficiency of scripture alone, I must of necessity shew out of this mans particular Tenets, that if his doctrine were true, scripture cannot be any Rule at all, and much less a perfect Rule for matters of Faith. This I will endeavour to peforme in the next Chapter.

[Page 279]

CHAP: III. A CONFVTATION OF M ^R. CHILLINGVVORTHS ERROVRS AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTVRE.

IT is a singular Providence of God, to permit you, who pretend that Scripture is a totall, and not only a partiall Rule of Faith, as you speake [Pag 55. N. 8.] to publish so gross errours against the Authority therof, that if they were true, it could not be so much as any Rule at all, much less a totall and perfect Rule of Faith.

2. First then, you teach and endeavour to proue, that Scripture is none of the materiall Objects of Faith, but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs, as you expressly say (Pag: 65. N. 32.) And yet in this you are still like yourself, so confused, that you may be alledged for both parts of contradictory Assertions. For, in the same place, you deliver these words: All the divine verityes which Christ revealed to his Apostles, and the Apostles taught the Churches, are contayned in Scripture. That is, all the materiall Objects of our Faith; wherof the Scripture is none, but only the meanes of conveying them vnto vs: Which we belieue not finally, and for it self, but for the matter contained in it. So that if men did belieue the doctrine contayned in Scripture, it should no way hinder their salvation, not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speakes of, were in this case, and yet no doubt but they might be saved. The end that God aymes at, is the belief of the Gospell, the Covenant between God and man; the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end, and this also we are to belieue, but not as the last Object of our Faith, but as the instrument of it. When therfor we subscribe to the 6. Article (of the 39. of the English Protestant Church) you must vnderstand, that by Articles of Faith, they meane, the finall and vltimate Objects of it, and not the meanes and instrumentall Objects.

[Page 280]

3. what confusion and obscurity is here? First, scripture is none of the materiall objects of our Faith, but only the meanes of the conveying them to vs. Which words put an antithesis between the materiall objects of our Faith, and the meanes of conveying them to vs, that is scripture. Then; which (Scripture) we belieue not finally, and for it self, but for the matter contayned in it; or as you say afterward; this (Scripture) also we are to belieue, but not as the last object of our Faith, but as the instrument of it. Which words seeme to signify, that we are to belieue scripture (though not finally, and for it self) and consequently that it is a materiall object of our Faith. For, what is a materiall object of Faith, except that which is believed by Faith? And then how is scripture none of the materiall objects of Faith, if it be one that is believed, though not for it self? If a thing cannot be sayd, to be a materiall object of Faith, vnless we belieue it finally and for itself, divers verityes contained in scripture, shall not be materiall objects of our Faith; and in particular, all those of which S. John speakes (Cap 20. V. 30.31.) Many other signes also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this Booke; And these are written, that you may belieue, that Jesus is Christ the Son of God: and that belieuing, you may haue life in his name. Those Miracles then were written not for themselves, but as a meanes to attayne the knowledg of this Truth; Jesus is Christ, the Son of God: and even the belief of this Truth, is referred to a further end; that believing, you may haue life in his name. And (1. Pet. 1.9.) we read more vniversally, that the end of our Faith, is the salvation of our soules. Besides this, (Pag: 217. and 218. N. 49.) you say; Is it not manifest to all the world, that Christians of all Professions, do agree with one consent, in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture, which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church without danger of damnation? Nay, is it not apparent, that no man at this tyme. can without hypocrisy, pretend to belieue in Christ, but of necessity he must doe so? Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ, but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture.

4. Sir: Are you a Christian of any profession? If you be, then it must be manifest to all the world, that you must agree with others in the belief of scripture. Therfor scripture, is one part or Object of your belief; and this as you profess, vnder paine of damnation, and consequently it is not only an object, but a necessary object to be believed: and you cannot without hypocrisy pretend to belieue in Christ, but of necessity you must doe so (that is, belieue scripture) seing you can haue no reason to [Page 281]in Christ, but you must haue the same to believe the Scripture. If then you teach, as you doe, that one is not bound to belieue Scripture, but may reject it, you must grant, that by the same reason he may not belieue, yea, may reject Christ himself. And now heare what you say; (Pag: 116. N. 159.) If a man should belieue Chistian Religion wholly and entirely, and liue according to it, such a man, though he should not know or not belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, no nor to be the word of God, my opinyon is, he may be saved; and my reason is, because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant, which is, that we belieue 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 vnderstanding; and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine, as requisite to the well being of it. Irenaeus tells vs 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: Therfor 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 beene proposed to them by the other parts of the Church, where they had bene before receyved, and had bene doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations, but still by the bare belief and practise of Christianity, they might be saved: God requiring of vs vnder paine of damnation, only to belieue the verityes therin contayned, and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherin they are contayned. In some of these words, you may perhaps seeme to speake ambiguously, That the Scriptures are not so much the Objects of our Faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our vndersting. For, (not so much) seemes to signify, that they are the objects of our Faith in some degree: but this very mincing of things, shewes the absurdity of that wherin you are afrayd to declare your mynd plainly, or if you belieue as your words seeme most to signify, we must say, that you hold scripture not to be a materiall Object of our Faith which must consist in indivisibili. For, if this truth (scripture is the word of God) be revealed, it is no lesse absolutely and rigorously a materiall object of Faith, then the verityes contayned in it. If it be not revealed, it is not only not so much, but not at all an object of Faith. But your other words: (neither doubt I, but if the Books of Scripture had bene proposed to those barbarous people, by the other parts of the church, where they had bene before [Page 282]receyved, and had bene doubted of, or even rejected by them, but still by bet bare belief and practise of Christanity they might be saved) do either directly signify, that scripture is absolutely no materiall Object of our faith, nor a thing revealed by God; or els cōtaine a most wicked doctrine, or rather blasphemy, that a truth revealed by God, may be rejected, which you cōfess, is to giue God the ly. And that finally this is your opinion (scripture is not a materiall object of Faith) appeares by your next N. 160 Pag. 117.) Where you say; This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no, I submitt to better judgment▪ For you speake of the discourse which I haue now sett downe out of your (N. 159.) Neither can you avoide this absurdity, by saying; one may reject scripture, if it be not sufficiently propounded. For, you put the very case, that it should be proposed by the other parts of the church, where they had bene before receyved: As also you expressly put a difference between the verityes contained in scripture ād scripture which contaynes them, saying; God requires of vs vnderpayne of damnation, only to belieue the verityes therin contained, and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherin they are contayned; and yet it is a thing granted by all, and evident of it self, that none cā be obliged to belieue the verityes contayned in scripture, or any other verityes, vnless they be sufficiently proposed: and therfor if you will make good, the difference you put between scripture and the contents therof, and not contradict yourself, you must confess, that one is not obliged to belieue scripture or the divine Authority therof, but may reject it, although it be sufficiently proposed: yea it will also follow, that the contents therof may be rejected, the first, and last, and totall knowledge wherof Protestants pretend to receyue only from the written word. For, they cannot possibly conceaue any obligation to belieue the contents of scripture, if first they be perswaded, that they haue no obligation to belieue scripture it self, from which alone they can come to know any such obligation. And so protestant ministers in England, subscribing to the 6, of their 39 Articles (That scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation) in effect subscribe to nothing, but may reject all those Articles whensoever they please. But of the absurdity of this your doctrine herafter.

5. For the present, I must obserue some things delivered by you in the places which I haue cited. First, (Pag. 66. N. 33.) where you teach, that scripture is an instrumentall Object of our Faith: which is a strang kind of speach. Philosophers tell vs of a materiall, and formall Object, of a totall, and Partiall, of an Adequate, and Inadequate, and some [Page 283]other Divisions of Objects; but of an instrumentall Object I never heard. Nothing can be stiled an Object of any act of our vnderstanding, vnless it be apprehended by that act; and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith, vnless it be believed by an act of Faith; and if it be believed by an act of Faith, as a thing revealed, it is a materiall Object of Faith, and so your phrase of an instrumentall Object, serves only to confute your owne doctrine, and proue that scripture is a materiall Object of Faith. Besides, who ever dreamed, that either the divine Revelation, which is the formall Object of Faith, or the things revealed, which are the Materiall Objects therof, can be called according to Philosophy, the Instruments of an act of Faith? Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formall and Materiall Instrument?

6. 2. You say in the same place All the divine Verityes which Christ revealed to the Apostles, and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in scripture. Against which words I haue these just exceptions: That they are against yourself, who expressly teach that the Apostles declared diverse things to the Church of their tyme, which declarations are not extant: as also that they are against this doctrine of yours, that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith. For I aske, whether, or no, the Apostles taught the Churches, that the Bookes or Epistles, or Prophecyes, written by Canonicall Authors, were the word of God? If they did; then the divine authority of scripture is a materiall object of our Faith, as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance: which is the reason why we belieue, that other mysteryes delivered by them, are to be believed by an Act of Faith. If the Apostles did not teach the Churches this Truth; by what authority do you now belieue it to be the word of God? Yourself, speaking of the Cāonicalness of some scriptures, say, (142. N. 28.) If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to the Church, then can it be no Revelation: as on the other side, you teach in the same place, that if the Apostles delivered it, it was to be believed as an article of Faith?

7. 3. In your (Pag: 217. and 218. N. 49.) which I cited aboue, you say, Is it not manifest to all the world, that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent, in the belief of all those Bookes of scripture, which were not doubted of in the Ancient Church, without danger of damnation? And how then say you (Pag. 116. N. 159.) that men might reject the scripture; God requiring of vs vnder payne of damnation, only to belieue the verityes therin contained, and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherin they are [Page 284]con [...]ayned? Will you make vs belieue, that not to be damnable, which yourself acknowledg Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to haue bene damnable, namely, not to belieue all those Bookes which were not doubted of in the ancient Church? Or how are not those bookes an Object of our Faith, and belief, in the Belief wherof, Christians of all professions agree with one consent? Or how can you say in the same (Pag. 218. N. 49.) Is it not apparent, that no man at this tyme, can without hypocrisy, pretend to belieue in Christ, but of necessity he must do so? That is he must belieue all those Bookes of Scripture, which were not doubted of in the Church, seing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ, but he must haue the same to belieue the scripture. And Pag. 116. N. 159.) you say; It were now very strange and vnreasonable, if a man should belieue the matter of the Bookes, (of Scripture) and not the Authority of the Bookes: and therfor if a man should profess the not believing of these, I should hane reason to feare he did not believe that: How, I say, can you write in this manner, who teach, that scripture is not a materiall object of faith, which we are bound to belieue vnder payne of damnation, and yet that we are bound to belieue the verityes contained therin, of which, Christ is one? Is there the same reason to belieue a thing revealed, ād another acknowledged not to be revealed? I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable, not to belieue the authority of scripture, ād yet that it is resonable, for the authority therof to belieue the matter of it: which were not only vnreasonable, but impossible also; as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in vertue of Premises which he believes not to be true.

8. But in this last place (Pag: 116. N. 159.) you haue a subtilty expressed in these words: There is not alwayes an equall necessity of the belief of those things, for the belief wherof there is an equall reason. We haue I belieue, as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eigh [...] King of England, as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate: yet this is necessary to be believed, and that is not so. So that if any man should doubt or disbelieue that, it were most vnreasonably done of him, yet it were no mortall sin, nor no s [...]ne at all: God having no where commanded men vnder payne of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to belieue. Therfor as an Executor, that should performe the will of the dead, should fully satisfy the law, though he did not belieuo that parchment to be his Written will, which indeed is so: so I belieue, that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity, and lives according, to them, should be [Page 285]saved, though he neither believed, nor knew that the Gospell were written by the Evangelists, or the Epistles by the Apostles. This is your discourse; which deserves detestation rather then confutation. Yet I must not omitt to make some reflexions on it.

9. First then: wheras you say, There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief wherof there is an equall reason: I answer, that you speake very confusedly, and imperfectly; and either vntruly, if your words be so vnderstood, as they may make any thing to our present Question: or impertinently, if they belong nothing to it. I say therfor: if the belief of one thing, be necessary for the belief of another, which I am bound to belieue, the belief of both is necessary: the one, for it selfe, the other for that other, which is supposed to be necessary of it self, as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents. Secondly; if the reason for which I belieue a thing, be not only true, but also by the nature therof necessarily obliges me to belieue that thing which it proves; in that event, whersoever I find that reason, I shall remaine obliged to belieue that Object which it proves. This is our case. For, no Christian, yea no man indued with reason, can deny, but that if I belieue an Object, as testifyed by God, I am obliged to belieue all other Truths so testifyed. Now I pray you tell vs the reason for which at this tyme you hold yourself obliged to belieue the contents of scripture. You must answer: because they are revealed by God testifying the truth of them by many and great miracles. Then I aske, for what reason do you belieue Scripture to be the word of God? If you answer, because God hath testifyed it to be such, by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to proue their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost: then I inferr, that as you are bound to belieue the contents of Scripture, so you are also obliged to belieue Scripture it self; seing you haue the same reason to belieue that God hath testifyed both the Scripture, and the contents therof. If you belieue Scripture to be the word of God, not for the Divine Testimony, for which you belieue the contents, but for some other Reason; then your saying (There is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief wherof there is an equall Reason) was impertinent, because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you belieue the verityes therin contained and your other saying (Pag. 218. N. 49) must be false (that no man at this tyme can haue reason to belieue in Christ, but he must haue the same to belieue the [Page 286]Scripture,) if it be true that you belieue not scripture for the same reason for which you belieue Christ, and other mysteryes contained in it. But let vs know indeed, for what reasō you belieue Scripture to be the word of God. It seemes, one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motiue, where you teach, that the Bible hath bene confirmed with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles, which were wrought by our Saviour Christ, and the Apostles; And (Pag. 379. N. 69.) you say, following the Scripture I shall belieue that which vniversall never-failing Tradition assures me, that it was by the admirable supernaturall worke of God, confirmed to be the word of God. If this be true; how are not men obliged to belieue that which hath bene so confirmed? Or for what other reason do you belieue the Truths contayned in Scripture; as our Saviour; His Incarnation; Life; Death; Resurrection, and other Mysteryes of Christian Faith, but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernaturall workes of God, wherby you expressly grant Scripture to haue bene confirmed to be the word of God? You must therfor either grant, that there is a necessity to belieue Scripture to be the word of God, or deny that there is a necessity to belieue the contents therof. And then further, for our present Question; you must either grant, that Scripture is a materiall Object of Faith, or deny that the verityes therin contayned, are such an Object; vnless you will confess yourself to be a very strang and vnreasonable man, to belieue the matter of the bookes, (of Scripture) and not the Authority of the bookes; and therfor since you profess not to be obliged to belieue, these, may not one haue reason (to vse your owne words) to feare, that you do not thinke yourself obliged to belieue, that? Nay, is it not apparent (still I vse your owne words) that you at this tyme cannot without hypocrisy, pretend an obligation to belieue in Christ, but of necessity you must acknowledg an obligation to belieue the Bookes of scripture; seing you can haue no reason to thinke you are obliged to belieue in Christ, but must haue the same to belieue the scripture: and if your belief of the contents of scripture, or of obligation to belieue them, be vnreasonable, it cannot proceed from the particular motion of the Holy Ghost, nor be an Act of divine Faith. And I beseech you reflect, that here there is not only the same reason for the truth of things in themselves, but also for our obligation to belieue them, namely, the divine Testimony: which Point if you obserue, you cannot but see, how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry, (which you say, [Page 287]one is not bound to belieue) and that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, which is a Truth set downe in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God, and consequently to deny the Mysteryes contained in that booke, were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God. And is not a man obliged to belieue whatsoever he knowes to be witnessed by God? I sayd, your example is impertinent; but I must add, that it is also false, vnchristian, and blasphemous, to say, as you doe, We haue I belieue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight, King of England, as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilate. Haue you as great reason to belieue the Chronicles of England, and the Testimony of men, as to belieue the word of God?

10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question, whether or no you speake true, in saying; there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief wherof there is an equall reason; yet perhaps you will not easily make it good, if there be perfectly and entirely the same reason, and of the same kind, for both of them. For if I conceaue the same reason for both, if I belieue the one I may belieue the other; nay, I haue a necessity to belieue it, so far, as I cannot belieue the contrary; as it is impossible from the same premises, belieued to be the same, to inferr contrary or contradictory conclusions. If perhaps you answer, that when one believes a thing for a reason, which he sees to be the self same for another, he cannot dissent from that other, yet he may suspend his vnderstanding, from any positiue assent to it; which he cannot doe when there is a command to belieue it: This answer will not serue your turne; but first, it is against your self, who (Pag. 195. N. 11.) say to Cha: Ma: your distinction between Points necessary to be believed, and necessary not to be disbelieved, is a distinction without a difference, there being no point to any man, at any tyme, in any circumstances necessary not to be d [...]sbelieved but it is to the same man, at the same tyme, in th [...] same circumstances, necessary to be belieyed. Out of which words it followeth, that seing, one can at no tyme disbelieue, or dissent from that for which he hath the same reason, in vertue wherof he belieues another thing, he must necessarily belieue it, according to your doctrine. Secondly: If we belieue a thing meerly for some humane or naturall Reason, you will not, I belieue, be able to shew that we are obliged to belieue any one thing, and are not obliged to belieue another, for which we haue the same reason. For, if the command be only this; that reason obliges vs to belieue that which in reason deserves [Page 288]belief the reasons being equall, the necessity of believing must be equall. But if the command of believing be supernaturall, or some Positiue Divine Precept, then this must be notifyed to vs by revelation, and so there will not be the same reason for both, but as different as is between humane reason and divine revelation; and therfore, Thirdly; If I haue the same reason of divine revelation to belieue both, there is alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief wherof there is that equall reason of divine reuelation: and so your subtilty, That there is not alwayes an equall necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief wherof &c: is against reason, against yourself, ād against all divinity.

11. I haue no tyme to loose in examining your saying: If any man should doubt or disbelieue, that there was such a man as Henry the eight, king of England, it were most vnreasonably done of him, yet it were no mortall sin, nor sin at all; God having no where commanded men vnderpayne of damnation to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue. Yet perhaps some wold aske, whether you suppose, that he who in the example you giue, so doubts or disbelieves, doth it vincibly, or invincibly? If invincibly; then in him it is not vnreasonable: because he, in such circumstances could judg no otherwise, and so in him it is reasonable. For, it falls out often, that a true judgment may be imprudent, and vnreasonable, if it be framed lightly, and for insufficient reasons; and contrarily, one may judge amisse for the materiall truth in it self, and yet judg prudently, if he be moved by probable reasons; and so a true judgment may be rash, and a false one prudent. But if he who so doubts, be supposed to erre vincibly; you will not easily excuse him from all fault: for example, of pertinacy, and obstinacy of judgment against all wise men; or precipitation; or imprudency, or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant, vnreasonable, false, and foolish belief, which surely can be of no solid profit for himself or others, or for the glory of God: and you know, our B. Saviour hath revealed, that every idle word is a sin. But whatsoever be sayd of your Doctrine taken in generall, that God hath no where commanded men to belieue all which reason induceth them to belieue; yet I leaue it to be considered, whethert he particular example which you giue may not seeme in it self to imply somthing of the dangerous; for if it be no sin at all, to belieue that there was never any such man as Henry the eight, (and I suppose you will say the same of other like examples, of Kings, Princes, Commonwealths, and Magistrats) some perhaps will infer, That if your Doctrine were true, it [Page 289]could be no sin at all to belieue that they had no lawfull Successours, seing no body can succeed to a Chimera, or to a No-Body, or a Non-Entity, as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to haue bene.

12, But at least your frends will thinke you haue spoken subtilly, and to the purpose in your other reason, or example: That as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead, should fully satisfy the law, though he did not belieue that Parchment to be his written will, which indeed is so: So I belieue, that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity, ād lives according to thē, should be saved, though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists, nor the Epistles by the Apostles, Yet in this also, you either erre against truth, or overthrow your owne maine cause. For, if such an Executor did not belieue that Parchment to be the dead mans written will, and had no other sufficient ground to belieue the contents to be his will, he should neither satisfy the law, (which gives him no power, but in vertue of the dead mans will) nor his owne conscience, but should vsurpe the office without any Authority, and expose himself to danger of committing great injustice by disposing the goods of the dead against his meaning, and depriving of their right those, to whom, for ought he knowes, they were bequeathed by the true will of the party deceased. Now apply this your case to our present Question, and the result will be; that seing according to Protestants, de facto we know the contents of Scripture, and the Will and Commands of God delivered therin, only by Scripture it selfe, ād by no other meanes of Tradition or declaration of the Church; if one be not obliged to belieue the Scripture, he cannot be obliged to belieue all, or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity, nor can judge himself obliged to liue according to them; nor can any man without injury depriue men of the liberty which they possess, by imposing vpon their consciences such an obligation.

13. And here I must not omitt your saying; that a man may be saued, though he should not know or not bel [...]ue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, no nor to be the word of God: Where you distinguish between being a Rule of Faith, and being the word of God, wheras it is cleare, that nothing cā be a Rule of Christiā Faith, except it be the word of God; because Christian Faith, as I sayd, hath for its Formall Object, the Divine Revelatiō, or word of God, ād nothing which is not such, cā be a Rule of our Faith. D. Potter (Pag: 143.) saith; The chief Principle or ground on which faith rests, and for which it formally assents vnto those truths which the Church propounds, is [Page 290]Divine Revelation made in the Scripture. Nothing less then this; nothing but th [...]s cā erect or qualify an act of supernaturall faith, which must be absolutely vndoubted and certaine. In which words, although he erre against truth, in saying, that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest, must be made in scripture, (seing Gods word or Revelation is the same whether it be written, or vnwritten) yet even in that errour he shewes himself to be against your errour, that one may belieue or reject scripture, in which alone divine revelation is made according to him: ād so take away scriptures, or the belief of them, all Revelations and Faith must be taken away; and he declares that nothing but Gods word or Revelation can erect or qualify an Act of Faith, and consequently only Gods infallible Word can be a Rule of Faith.

14. But it is tyme that we come to the matter it self, ād cōfute this errour, which in effect I haue done already, by occasion of examining some sayings of yours.

15 First then, I oppose yourself to yourself. And beside the places which I haue alledged aboue out of your Answer to your Third Motiue, where you confess scripture to haue bene confirmed, with those supernaturall and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles; and out of your (Pag: 55. N. 8.) That, By Scriptures not all things absolutely may be proued which are to be believed. For it can never be proved by Scripture to againsayer, that there is a God, or that the Booke called Scripture, is the word of God &c: In which words you ranke scriptures among those things which are to be believed, which is to be a materiall Object of Faith, as the existence of God is such an object; besides, I say, the places which I haue produced already, I must not omit what you say (Pag: 141. N. 28.) where you suppose that the Apostles revealed what Books are Canonicall, and that what they delivered in that kind, is an Article of Faith, and if an Article of Faith, then it is a materiall object of Faith: and (Pag: 142. N. 29.) where you expressly say of some Bookes, that if they were appro [...]ed by the Apostles, this [...] hope was a sufficient definition: and I hope that the definition of the Apostles is sufficient to make a thing an Object of Faith, and induce an obligation for vs to belieue it. Also (Pag: 90. N. 101.) speaking in the person of an English Protestant, you say, Scripture evidently containeth, or rather is our Religion, and the sole, and adequate object of our Faith. If scripture be the sole and adequate object of Faith, certainly it is an object of Faith or a thing believed by Faith. How then do you teach, that it is not an object of Faith? Besides, into what [Page 291]extremes do you fall, teaching on the one syde, that scripture is not a materiall object of Faith, and yet affirme that it, ād it only, is the Object of Faith, by being the sole ād adequate object therof? And thus, as somtyme you teach, that not scripture it self, but only the contents therof are the object of Faith; so now you must say, that not the contents, but only scripture it self is the object thereof; because having begun to say, that scripture containeth the objects of Faith; by way of correcting that speach, you say it is rather the sole ād adequate object of it; giving to vnderstād, that at least rather scripture, then the contents therof are the object of Faith, and that you had spoken more truly, or more exactly, if you had sayd, scripture is the sole and adequate object of Faith, thē in saying, it containeth the objects of Faith. To this I add, what you write (Pag: 115. N. 156.) Nothing can challeng our belief, but what hath descēded to vs from Christ by originall and vniversall Tradition: now nothing but Scripture hath thus d [...]scē ded to vs, therfore nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief. Doth not this clearly declare, that scripture challenges our belief? You say also (Pag: 377. N. 58.) All Christians in the world (those I meane, that in truth deserue this name) do now, ād alwayes haue believed the Scripture to be the word of God. Therfor, say, I the belief of all Christians that in truth deserue that name, is, that scripture is the word of God, or an object of their belief; which since you deny, how, will men say, do you deserue the name of Christian? Also if mē may be saved by believing the mysteryes of Christiā religion, though they be ignorāt of scripture, yea and deny it; how can you say, they deserue not the name of Christians? Or if they do not deserue that name, surely they cānot be saved. And, how cā you say, all Christians in the world do now, and a [...]w [...]yes haue believed Scripture to be the word of God, since (P. 116. N. 159.) you affirme out of S. Irenaeus, that some barbarous nations believed the doct [...]in [...] of Christ, and yet belieued not the Scripture, and you say expresly these barbarous people might be saved. How thē is it true, that all Christians haue alwayes believed scripture to be the word of God? Lastly: you speake home whē (P. 337. N. 19.) you say: The Church may yet mo [...]e truly be said to perish when she Apostates from Christ absolutely, or rejects even those Truths out of which her heresies may be reformed; as if she should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ, or the Scripture to be the word of God. If the Church must perish by denying Scripture to be the word of God, you must grant that the contrary Truth, Scripture is the word of God, must be a matter of Faith, as it is a matter of Faith, that Jesus is the Christ. But because it is no newes for you to cotradict your self, I cōfute your doctrine by other argumēts.

[Page 292]

16. Secondly; it is impossible to belieue the matters contayned in Scripture to be revealed by God, vpon the Authority of Scripture, vnless we belieue the Authority of Scripture it self to be revealed. For how can I belieue, a thing, because such a man affirmes it, vnless I belieue, both that he affirmes it, and that his word deserves credit? But Protestants belieue the contents of scripture for the Authority of scripture, or, as we haue heard Potter speaking (Pag. 143.) For divine revelation made in scripture: Therfor they must belieue the Authority of scripture: and so scripture it self is no less a materiall Object of Faith, than the contents of it which are confessed to be a materiall object of Faith, because they are believed,

17. Thirdly. If Trismegistus, Plato, or any other of fallible Authority, had casvally delivered the same Mysteryes, which Christians belieue he who should haue taken them only vpon such Authority, could not haue believed by a firme, infallible, Divine Faith; Therfor it is not sufficient to belieue the Matters contayned in scripture, vnless they be believed for some firme and infallible Authority: Therfor if we belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith, for scripture, we must beliue scripture itself to be of infallible Authority: And Protestants in particular can haue no Faith at all, who pretend to belieue all the Mysteryes of our Faith for the Authority of scripture alone, if scriptur be not believed to be infallible.

18. Fourtly. I take an Argument from your reason to the contrary. For those people of whom S. Irenaeus speakes, had not bene obliged to belieue the Mysteryes of Christian Faith, vnless they had bene confirmed ād made credible by Arguments, which proved them to proceed from God: but you grāt that the scripture is proved to proceed frō God, by those very Miracles which were wrought by Christ ād his Apostles: therfor if these people were thē obliged to belieue the cōtēts of scripture; christiās now are for the same reasō obliged to belieue scripture it self

19. Fiftly. Not vnlike to this Reason is that which I tooke from your owne words; (Pag: 115. N. 156.) where you teach, that nothing can chalenge our belief, but what hath descended to vs by originall and vniversall Tradition: and that scripture alone is such: therfor scripture doth chaleng our belief, and is an object of Christian Faith.

20 From these two last Arguments, I deduce, that this Truth, (Sctipture is the word of God) is an object to be believed by Faith, though we should suppose, that it were proposed to one, whom God [Page 293]would not oblige to know the particular Mysteryes contained therin: because independently of any such obligation, it is sufficiētly proposed as a thing revealed by God, and consequently as an Article of Faith, abstracting from any relation to a further end. Which consideration overthrowes the ground of your assertion, that the belief of scripture is referred to the end of believing the contents of it, and therfore itself is not an object of Faith.

21. Sixtly. If we be not obliged to belieue the scripture, Protestants are not bound to belieue the contents therof, as I haue often sayd vpon severall occasions; because they haue no notice of the contents, but by scripture it self. Neither can you answer, that we are obliged to belieue scripture as a meanes to lead vs to the verityes contayned in it. For, this answer supposes, that I haue some notice and belief of being obliged to belieue the matter of scripture, before I belieue the scripture; wheras Protestants must say the direct contrary, to wit, that all their belief or any apprehension of the particular Truth of scripture proceeds, from, and is grounded, in scripture, which therfor must be believed before, we can be obliged to the belief of those particular Truths. So that if we haue no antecedent obligation to belieue scripture; we cannot possibly, in the grounds of Protestants, be obliged to belieue, the contents therof. Besides, this Answer overthrowes your owne Assertion, and grants that we are obliged to belieue the scripture, at least as a meanes de facto necessary to attayne the belief of the contents therof; it being cleare, that if I be obliged to attayne an End, I am necessarily obliged to vse the Meanes which is necessary to attaine that End, and consequently this Answer doth not excuse you, but strongly proves that you haue a strict obligation to belieue scripture, since you are obliged to compasse that End of the belief of those Divine Truths which it containes. Neither is our Question, whether scripture be a materiall Object believed for itself alone, as I sayd aboue, but whether it be an Object, which I am obliged to belieue; which this very Answer is forced to grant. This discourse is clearly confirmed by your words (Pag. 86. N. 93.) It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserve the scripture from any vndiscernable corruption in those things which he would haue knowen; otherwise it is apparent it had not bene his will that these things should be knowen, the only meanes of cōtinuing the knowledg of thē, heing perished. Much more you must say; it is apparēt it had not bene Gods will that the contēts of scripture should be knowne, if we need not knowe, yea if we may reject the only meanes [Page 294]of begetting or continuing the knowledg of them, which you in this very particular acknowledg to be scripture, and thence you inferr that God could not but preserue it from any vndiscernable corruption.

22. Seventhly. They who believed these Articles of Christian Faith, because the Apostles and Apostolicall men did preach them, believed not only the Mysteryes or Matters which they preached, but also the Authority of those Preachers, as of persons worthy of credit, so that it was a materiall object of Faith, that the Apostles spoke in the name of God, and inspired by him; yea the matters proposed were believed for the Authority of the proposers, which therfor must be believed at least as much as the things believed: yourself saying (Pag: 377. N. 59.) VVe must be surer of the proofe, then of the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof [...]. Therfor as their words, so their writings must be believed as an object of faith, at least as much as the truths which they spoke or wrote, neither doth speaking or writing make any difference at all in this point. And as you say their writings were referred to the belief of the things which they wrote, or were taken as Meanes for that End, so their speaking, or preaching was ordained to beget a belief of the things which they spoke; and so there is a most exact parity; neither cā you exclude the authority of scripture from being a materiall Object of Faith, but you must likewise say, that mē were not bound to belieue the Authority of the Apostles when they preached; and consequently that they were not obliged to belieue the Truths which they preached, and which they could belieue only in vertue of the belief of such an authority. And further: although it were supposed, that some one or more believed the Articles of Christian Faith, by an extraordinary Motion and light of the Holy Ghost, without the Preaching or writing of the Apostles, and lived according to their belief and were saved: In that case, although those men could not be obliged to belieue the preaching or writing of the Apostles precisely as a meanes for attaining the belief of those Articles, which they believed already; yet they would remayne obliged to belieue the authority of the Apostles, if at any tyme it came to be sufficiētly propounded, and proved by miracles, or other argumēts of credibility, and could no more reject it, thē they could disbelieue the articles of Christian Faith sufficiently proposed: Therfor the authority of the Apostles, and the infallibility of their preaching ād writing, is sufficient to terminate an act of faith, that is, to be a materiall object therof even of it self, or takē alone, because so taken, it may be proved to be revealed by God, which is the formall motiue for which we belieue all [Page 295]the materiall object of faith. Since therfor you teach, as I haue often put you in mynd, that scripture had bene confirmed by Miracles, you cānot deny it to be a materiall object of Faith. And this argument is stronger against you, thē the case I put, doth declare; wherin it was supposed, that the articles of our faith were knowne by some other meanes, then by the preaching or writing of the Apostles; wheras de facto you profess to know those articles only by scripture; which therfor you are obliged to belieue vpō a double title or account, that is, both as it is credible in itself by divine argumēts, abstracting frō any further end; ād also as a meanes to attaine the sayd end of believing the articles therin contayned.

23. Eightly. You confess, that we are obliged to belieue the contents or verityes contained in scripture: but one of those is, that scripture it self is the word of God, and inspired by Him; therfor we are obliged to belieue scripture to be the word of God. The minor is proved out of (S. Paul 2. Timoth: 3.16.) All scripture divinely inspired, is profitable to teach, &c. that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good worke. Which words, Protestants and yourself in part, alledg to proue, that scripture is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith. And if it be a perfect Rule, certainly it must be a Rule; therfor that scripture is a Rule of Faith, is a truth contayned in scripture, and consequently a materiall Object of our Faith. Or if you will needs say, that we do not belieue as an Object of Faith, scripture to be a totall Rule of faith, you overthrow the cause of Protestants, and yourself, by confessing, it cannot be proved out of scripture, that scripture is such a totall Rule, which is the thing I haue mainly vrged against you in my last Chapter; and if this cannot be done, why do you goe about to doe it, by alledging texts of scripture for that purpose? Or out of what ground can you possibly pretend to proue, that scripture alone is the Rule of Faith if you grāt it cannot be proved out of scripture, on which you profess all matters of Faith to be grounded? Yourself (P. 143. N. 30.) note, it is saied in scripture All scripture is divinely inspired. Shew but as much for the Church: shew where it is written, that all the decr [...]es of the Church are divinely inspired; and the controversy will b [...]at an end, that is, you will belieue as a matter of Faith, that the decrees of the Church are infallible; seing then scripture saith that itself is divinely inspired, you must belieue as a matter of faith, that it is infallible, or the word of God. The like argument I take from the doctrine of Protestants, and their endeavour to proue out of scripture, that it is a Rule evident for all necessary Points, for which they are wont to alledg the words of the (Psalme 18. V. 9.) The precept of [Page 296]our Lord lightsome; illuminating the eyes, and (Psalm: 118. V. 105.) Thy word is a lampe to my feete. and (2. Pet: 1. V. 19.) which you doe well attending vnto, as to a candel shining in a darke place. Therfor according to them; this Proposition, scripture is an evident Rule for all necessary Points, is a truth contayned in scripture, and a materiall Object of Faith; vnless they will grant what we vrge against them, that it cannot be proved out of scripture that it is an evident Rule for such Poynts. Besides, (Pag: 143. N. 30.) you bring the said words of S. Paul, All scripture is divinely inspired, expresly and immediately to proue, that the Apostles were infallible in their writings: Therfor it is a truth contayned in scripture, and consequently by your owne confession, a materiall Object of Faith. Morover, we read (2. Pet. 1.20.21) vnderstanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For not by mans will was prophesy brought at any tyme: but the Holy men of God spake, inspired with the holy Ghost. Therfor we are obliged to belieue, as a truth contayned in scripture, that the writers therof spoke and wrote inspired by God. And what is oftner repeated in the Prophets, then, the word of our Lord was made to me, or the like? Therfor one truth contained in scripture is, that they wrote by divine inspiration. Doth not S. John begin his Apocalyps with these words: The Apocalyps of Jesus Christ, which God gaue him, &c: blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy? Which words declare that he wrote a Prophecy, which God gaue him, or inspired into his mynd: and so it is contained in scripture, and a materiall Object of our Faith, and his Apocalyps is the word of God; Which Truth being declared by S. John, men are bound to belieue it as a matter of Faith, though they were supposed to know all the contents of the Apocalyps by other meanes, for example, by immediate Revelation or Inspiration, as S. John himself came to know them; vnless you will say, that men may reject what an Apostle hath set downe in writing. Doth not S. Peter also (2. Epist: Cap. 3.15.16.) teach, that S. Paul wrote his Epistles by wisdom and inspiration from God? Therfor it is a materiall object of Faith, that S. Paules Epistles are the word of God, even although one were not bound to know the particular contents of them, or had knowne them by some other meanes: Therfor your Doctrine, that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the contēts of scripture, though we deny scripture itself, is clearly against scripture, and repugnant to a truth contayned therin.

[Page 297]

24. Ninthly and lastly; in stead of an argument, I may express a just admiration, how such a Doctrine as this could appeare in a Book printed in England, and approved as agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England! Fulke a chief man amongst English Protestants, saith plainly (in his Confutation of Purgatory, Pag. 214.) Whosoever denyeth the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, therby be wrayeth himself to be an heretike: And hitherto all English, and other Protestants, haue pretended to oppose themselves against the Swenckfeldians, who rejected all the Scripture, as you say one may doe, and yet be saved. And certainly if men be not obliged to belieue Scripture as a matter of Faith, it imports nothing, whether they accept, or reject it: if also they do not belieue it to be the word of God, what certaine credit can they giue to it? and if Christians did not belieue it to be such, they would account it very great foolishnesse, to belieue Mysteryes, which seeme repugnant to all Philosophy and naturall Reason, and depriue men of those things, to which nature is most inclined, vpon any Testimony or Authority, less then Divine. And this your Doctrine is less tolerable, because you are not able to bring in favour therof, any one argument deserving answer.

25. You say indeed (Pag: 116. N. 159.) that without knowing or believing scripture, one may performe the entire condition of the new Covenant, which is, that we belieue the matter of the Gospel, and not that it is contayned in these or these Bookes.

26. But this is a plaine begging the Question, to suppose or affirme without proofe, that one condition of the new Covenant is not, to belieue scripture to be the word of God. Yourself (Pag: 134. N. 13.) expressly teach, that among the conditions which Christ requires, one is, that we belieue what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared to hane beene revealed by him. Now that scripture hath bene revealed by God, is proved with the many Miracles which the Apostles wrought to confirme that they were messengers of God, and Infallible in all matters, which they delivered by word or writing, and therfor cannot without damnation be rejected by any to whom it is sufficiently propounded for such; which sufficiency of proposition, is required in all articles of Faith, fundamentall, or not fundamentall, before one can be obliged to belieue them.

27, Since then according to your Doctrine, we are not obliged to belieue Scripture to be the word of God, yea and may reject it: It remaines [Page 298]true, then, as I sayd in the last Chapter, Scripture cannot be a perfect Rule, nor any Rule at all of Faith, although we should falsly suppose, that it containes evidently all things necessary to be believed. For, what can it availe me in order to the exercising an act of Faith, to read any Point in that Booke, which I conceiue my self not obliged to belieue? Let vs now come to another errour of yours.

28. Your second errour I find (Pag. 144. N. 31.) where you write thus. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were, shew it as the Apostles did; They went forth (saith S. Marke) and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming their words with signes following. It is impossible that God should lye, and that the eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood, or of such Doctrine as is partly true, and partly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therfor it was intirely true and in no part either false or vncertaine. I say, in no part of that which they d [...]livered constantly as a certaine divine Truth, and which had the Attestation of Divine Miracles. For, that the Apostles themselves, even after the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and through inadvertence or prejudice, continued for a tyme in errour repugnant to a revealed Truth, it is vnanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles. For notwithstāding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations, yet vntill S. Peter was better informed by a vision from Heaven, and by the conversion of Cornelius, both h ^o, and the rest of the Church held is vnlawfull for them to goe or preach the Gospell to any but the Iewes. And (Pag. 145. N. 33.) you say, the Apostles could not be the Churches Foundations without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly, as certaine revealed Truths. Do not these words overthrow Christian Religion, and Authority of Scriptures?

29. These conditions you require that the Doctrine of the Apostles be to vs certaine, and receyved as Divine Truth. 1. It must be delivered constantly. 2 It must be delivered as a Divine Truth. 3. It must haue the Artestation of Divine Miracles; and these conditions you require for every part therof. For you say, the Doctrine of the Apostles was false or vncertaine in no part, and then you add expressly this limitation, I say, in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certaine Divine Truth, and which had the Artestation of Divine Maracies You cannot deny but that the Apostles, if they conceyved that the Gospell was not to be preached to the Gentills, did frame that opinyon [Page 299]out of some apprehended Revelation (for example, In viam gentium ne abieritis (Matth: 10.5.) Into the way of the Gentiles goe ye not, or (Matth: 15.24.) I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel, or some other) and so delivered a thing conceyved by them to be a Divine Truth, yet they were deceyved in that Poynt, because it wanted the other conditions of constancy, and Attestation of Divine Miracles; and consequently your doctrine must be, that every Point of Faith must haue all the sayd three conditions, and that the Apostles after the sending of the Holy Ghost, might faile in some of them, and might teach an errour in delivering matters concerning Faith and Religion.

30. If this be so; what certainty can we now haue, that they on whom Christians are builded as vpon their Foundation (Ephes. 2.20) haue not erred in writing, as then they erred in speaking? And in particular, whether they did not erre in setting downe that very command which (Pag: 137. N. 21.) You cite out of S. Matth: (29.19.) Goe and teach all Nations: And so at this present, we cannot be certaine, whether the Apostles erred in their first thoughts of not preaching, or in their second, of preaching the Gospell to Gentils. If they were vniversally assisted by the Holy Ghost, they could erre in neither; without it, in both: and if once you deny such an vniversall assistance, we cannot possibly know when they are to be trusted; and how can you be certaine, that S. Luke hath not erred in declaring this very Story, out of which you would proue that S. Peter and the other Apostles did erre? You grant (Pag: 35. N. 7.) That the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion, must be indued with an vniversall infallibility, in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth. For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, in any thing which God requires men to belieue, we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing. Seing therfor you teach, that the Apostles were deceaved in a thing, which God required them to belieue, and commanded them to practise; according to your owne saying, we can yield vnto them but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing. What the Apostles spoke or preached, they might haue written (it is your owne saying (Pag: 54. N. 7.) Whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth, may also be written:) neither had it bene more or less true or false, by being committed to writing, than if it had bene only spoken or preached: and so if they could erre in speaking, we cannot be sure but that their writings may containe [Page 300]some errour, proceeding from inadvertence or prejudice, or some other cause, as you speake (Pag: 137. N. 21.) This I may confirme by what you say to Ch: Ma: (Pag: 84.86.) D. Fields words, I confess, are somwhat more pressing, and if he had bene infallible, and the words had not slipt vnadvisedly from him, they were the best Argument in your Booke. In which words, I note, that although D. Field had bene infallible, yet words might haue slipt from him vnadvisedly even in writing (for you speake of what he hath written in his Book) and therfor much more if the Apostles were supposed to haue bene fallible, and actually to haue erred, (as you say they did) why might not their errour haue vnadvisedly slipt from them into their writings?

31. If you answer, that it belongs to Gods providence, not to permit an errour to be set downe in writing, and conveyed to posterity: I reply; by this very Reason it is cleare, that God could not permitt the Apostles to erre against any revealed Truth, and yet oblige vs to belieue with certainty their writings, which we can belieue only for the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers; especially, since you pretend, that this errour of theirs is also transmitted to posterity, by being recorded by S. Luke whom you alledg: and so if your false assertion were true, we are as sure that they held an errour, as that they delivered any truth, because we belieue both by the same Authority of scripture; yea according to your doctrine related aboue, we are not obliged to belieue, that scripture it self is the word of God, and yet are bound to belieue the truths delivered therin, one of which you affirme to be, that the Apostles did erre, and therfor we must belieue that they erred, and yet may deny the Authority of scripture, which relates that errour. God, I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself, and oblige vs to belieue with certainty, the writing of those whom we belieue to haue erred, and yet for whose Infallibility we belieue those very writings to be infallible. For, the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture; but we belieue Scripture to be infallible, because it was written by the Apostles, who by Divine Meanes (even before they wrote any Scripture) immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit, and so mediate those same Meanes, proved their writings to be Divine and infallible. We could not belieue any Booke to be Canonicall, if we did thinke it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture; and how can we certainly belieue the Apostles in other Matters of [Page 301]Faith, if we once yeld them to haue erred and contradicted truth, in any one?

32. The second condition required by you, for assuring vs, that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false, nor vncertaine, is, that it be delivered by them as a certaine Divine Truth. This also is a source of vncertaintyes. For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly, or as I may say, in actu signato, whether the Writers therof intended to deliver this, or that, as a certaine Divine Truth; and though they had done so, yet if their infallibility be not Vniversall, we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration: And if their infallibility be Vniversall, we must belieue them, though they vse no such expression, of a certaine Divine Truth. Hitherto it hath bene believed, that Scripture is the word of God, and that all the Verityes contained in it, though otherwise they be but naturall truths, are revealed or testifyed by God, and by that Meanes growe to be both certaine and Divine, as invested with the supernaturall Divine Testimony. Now if some things be delivered in Scripture, as certaine Divine Truths, others not; you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths, without being able to giue any infallible, certaine, generall Rule (and not only some probable conjecture of your owne) to know positively, and certainly, when the Scripture speakes of one kind, and when of another; which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving vs assurance, whether the Doctrine of the Apostles, be entirely true and in no part false or vncertaine. For if that condition of delivering a certaine Divine Truth, do not subsist, we haue not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Diuine Faith, and so we cannot be obliged to believe the contents of Scripture.

33. The third condition which you require for our assurance, that the Doctrine of the Apostles be entirely true, is, that it haue the attestation of Divine Miracles; which either discredits the writings of the Apostles, and most of the Uerityes contayned in them; or els confutes your onwe. Doctrine that the Apostles might erre in Matters belonging to Religion For if you meane, that every particular Truth which they preached, must be confirmed by Miracles, you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture, for which we haue no proofe, that they were so particularly confirmed; yea we haue no proofe from Scripture, that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirme by Miracles, that it is the word of God; and yet vpon this ground [Page 302]all the pretended Religion of Protestants, that is, the whole Bible, and Truths conteyned therin, depends. If your meaning be only, that it was sufficient for the belief of every particular Truth, which the Apostles spoke, or wrote, that by Miracles, Sanctity of life, and other vndoubted arguments, they approoved themselves as it were in generall, that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion; then you cannot maintayne, that S. Peter, who wrought many Miracles to proue himself a man sent from, ād approved, by God, did erre in that particular mayne article about preaching the Gospell to Gentils; or if he could erre in that, we cannot believe his words or writing in many other Points not confirmed in particular by Miracles. The same I say of the other Apostles, Preachers, and Canonicall Writers. Lastly; I confute these your errours by your owne words (Pag. 290. N. 88.) To speak properly, not any set knowne company of men is secured, that, though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error, yet certainly they shall not erre, which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of Faith. But you say (Pag. 114. N. 155.) The Apostles persons while they were living were the only Iudges of controversies; And (Pag. 60. N. 17.) That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible: Therfore according to you, we must inferr, that the Apostles were secured not to erre, though they were supposed to neglect the meanes of avoiding error, and consequently they neither did, nor could erre by inadvertence or prejudice, or by any neglect of the meanes to avoide error. Beside (Pag. 146. N. 34.) you say, The Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit, efficaciter: The Church is led also into all truths by the Apostles writings, sufficienter. How then could the Apostles actually fall into any error, seing they were efficaciter led into all truths? And yet againe, you contradict yourself, and say (Pag 177. N. 77.) Ye are the salt of the earth, said our Saviour to his Disciples: not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons, but because it was theyr office to be so. For if they must haue been so of necessity, and could not haue been otherwise, in vain had he put them in feare of that which followes, if the salt haue lost his Savour, &c. If this be so, what certainty can we haue that de facto the Apostles did not erre, seing they may erre?

34. Your Objection is easily answered. S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospell were to be preached to the Gentils. Neither can any such thing be proved out of the (11. and 12.) of the acts as you pretend. (Pag. 137. N. 21.) The Vision recorded in those Chapters, [Page 303]as exhibited to S. Peter, was ordayned to the satisfaction, not of all Christians, but of converted Jewes, who were offended with him for conversing with Gentiles, as is evident (Chap. 11. V. 2.3.) They that were of the Circumcision (that is, Jewes made Christians) reasoned against him, saying, why didst thou enter into men vncircumcised, and didst eate with them? And accordingly S. Chrysostome (Hom. 24. in Act. Cap. 11.) saith; Those who were of the circumcision, not the Apostles, did contend. They were offended (saith the scripture) not a litle, and marke vpon what pretense. They sayd not, why hast thou preacht? But why hast thou eaten? Neither did they object that, (of preaching) for they knew that it was the gift of God. According to which saying, even the converted Jewes were not offended with S. Peter for preaching to, but for eating, with, Gentils. That before the conversion of Cornelius, other Gentils were become Christians, Cornel. a Lapide (in Act. Cap. 10. post versum 48.) affirmes and proves by divers arguments: and therfor S. Peter was not ignorant, that he and the other Apostles were to preach to the Gentils, but he did abstaine from preaching publikly, and as it were solemnly, to avoide the offence of Jewes converted to Christ till by this heavenly vision he might sweetly ād effectually perswade them that such was the will of God. Thus S. John Chrys: (Hom: 22. in Act: Cap: 10) saith; Because it was so to fall out, that they would all accuse Peter as a breaker of the law, which was very common with them, he sayd necessarily and opportunely, I haue never eaten. Did he himself feare? God forbid. But Gods spirit did so direct him, that he might haue in readynes, a defense against those who would reprehend him, &c: (Not ô Lord, because I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing) And a voyce came to him; That which God hath purifyed, do not thou call common. This seemed to be spoken to him, but indeed it was wholy directed to the Jewes; for if the maister (S. Peter) be blamed, much more they: that is the Jewes for thinking that it was vnlawfull to eate with Gentils. It appeares then, that neither S. Peter nor the other Apostles, did feare to deale and preach to the Gentils, but the Holy Ghost spiritus moderabatur, (as S. Chrysostome speakes,) and ordained all for the satisfaction of others.

35. But for better vnderstanding this whole matter, we are to reflect on three things. For, we may consider; first, the eating of Jewes with Gentils: 2. Eating meates forbidden to the Jewes. 3. preaching [Page 304]to them. Now, S. Chrysostome, as we haue seene, observes, that the Jewes were offended with S. Peter for eating with Gentils, and if we consider, as I may say, the letter, or the most immediate literall sense of the vision made to S. Peter, it had respect to the Law of the Jewes, to whom certaine meates were forbidden, and esteemed vncleane, as appeares (Chap: 10. V. 12.) Where in were all fourfooted beasts and that creepe on the earth, and foules of the aire; and accordingly S. Peter sayd (V. 14.) I haue never eaten any common or vncleane thing. And there is not any thing sayd directly and precisely of preaching to Gentils, but at most by consequence, because the Apostles could not commonly and constantly preach to them, but that they should haue occasion to eate with them: or els by way of signification, or that vncleane meates in generall, did also signify Gentils, whom the Jewes esteemed as it were vncleane and irreligious persons: Yet preaching and Eating are of their nature, different: as, we may deale with an excommunicate person for his conversion, though ordinarily we may not eate with him. This being so; you cannot affirme, that the Apostles did thinke it vnlawfull to preach to the Gentils, vnless you do also belieue that they judged Christians converted from Judaisme, to be obliged to obserue the whole Law of the Jewes, in conformity to the vision presented to S. Peter, of all sorts of beasts or meates which the Jewes could not lawfully eate. Will you grant this? Will you ranke the Apostles with that faction of Pharisees converted to Christ, which troubled the most primitiue Church, by preaching that the Jewish Law was necessary to salvation, even for converted Gentils? S. Paul sayth, If you be circumfised, Christ shall profit you nothing (Gal: 5. N. 2.) And do you thinke, that the Apostles were in an errour, which must draw vpon them so heauy a doome? A Councell was gathered about this matter, not that the Apostles could doubt therof, but for satisfaction and quiet of Christians: and in like manner, that vision was shewed to S. Peter, not for rectifying any errour of his owne about preaching to Gentils, but for pacifying and setling the mynds of Jewes converted to Christianity. Haue we not heard you say (Pag. 101. N. 127.) That it is cleare in Scripture, that the observation of the Mosaicall Law is not necessary? And therfor it cannot be imagined that the Apostles, for whose authority we belieue the scripture, could doubt therof. Or if you thinke the Apostles might erre about the necessity of observing the Mosaicall Law, what certainty can we haue, notwithstanding the Definition [Page 305]of that first Councell, but that still we may thinke the keeping of Moyses his Law to be necessary? you see how much you did exaggerate in saying; that the Apostles them selves, for a tyme continued in an errour repugnant to a revealed Truth, is vnanswerably evident from the story of the acts of the Apostles; seing this Story, as you will needs vnderstand it, doth either proue nothing for your purpose, or more than you will grant, or is true in itself, and so by proving too much you come to proue nothing at all: and this only remaynes true; That although scripture did containe all necessary truths. yet we could not belieue them, for such a scripture as you offer vs, which certainly could be no Rule of Faith at all.

36. Your Third errour (for I am willing to reduce them to as small a number as I can, though in those which I haue layd togeather in gross, many particulars, distinct from one another, are involved, as for example, every one of the conditions which you require for infallibility of the writings of the Apostles, be so many severall errours) Your third errour, I say, is set downe in the same (Pag: 144. in the next Number 32.) in these words: For those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence, and not as Divine Revelations, why we should take them to be Divine Revelations, I see no reason; nor how we can do so, and not contradict the Apostles, and God himself. Therfor when S. Paul sayes (1. Epist: to the Cor: 7.12.) To the rest speake I, not the Lord; And againe, concerning Virgins I haue no commandment of the Lord, but I deliver my judgment: If we w [...]ll pretend, that the Lord did certainly speake, what S. Paul spake, and that his judgment was Gods commandment, shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul, and that Spirit by which he wrote? Which moved him to write, as in other places Divine Revelations, which he certainly knew to be such, so in this place his owne judgment, touching some things which God had not particularly revealed vnto him.

37. This your doctrine I confute as I haue done your other errours. For, if the Apostles somtyme deliver things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence, we cannot belieue with certainty any thing they deliver, vnless you con giue vs a certaine Rule, how to discerne when they vtter such things, and when they deliver Divine Revelations. Yea, according to your Principles, who must proue all by Scripture alone, you must giue vs such a certaine Rule, out of some evident Text of Scripture. As you teach, that God may permit true Miracles [Page 306]to be wrought to delude men, much more may you say, that he may permit the Apostles to write their owne dictamen and judgment, without declaring whether they write only such dictamens, or els deliver divine Revelations.

38. S. Paul in this seaventh Chapter which you cite (V. 39 40.) even according to the Protestant English Translation (Anni. 1622.) sayth, the wife is bound by the Law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be marryed to whom she will, only in the Lord. But she i [...] happyer if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I haue the spirit of God. Now consider, I pray you, that S. Paul in these words advises a thing for widdowes, which God hath not commanded, and so might haue sayd in this place, I speake, not our Lord, and then when he adds; I thinke also, that I haue the spirit of God; I aske whether he speake these words out of humane prudence, or by divine Revelation and inspiration? If he speake by divine Revelation, you haue no reason to say, that he delivers not a divine Revelation, whē 12.) he sayes, To the rest speake I, not our Lord. But if S. Paul in these words, I think also that I haue the spirit of God, speake not out of divine inspiration, but only out of a probable hope or perswasion that he had the spirit of God, how can we belieue by divine infallible Faith that his writings are true in any Point? Especially if you consider that he teaches, widdowes would be more blessed if they remayned so, for this very Reason that he advises it, and that he thinks himself to haue the spirit of God: which proofe supposes that he was indued with an vniversall infallibility, and that therfor his counsell in this particular matter was best. And this word (I thinke) might with greater shew of reason, make men belieue that S. Paul was not certaine, that he had the spirit of God, then the reason which you alledg that he spoke out of humane prudence. For, what consequence is this? Our Lord hath commanded nothing in this particular, but I giue this advise or Counsell as the best; Therfor S. Paul speakes not by divine inspiration: Or thus: by inspiration I say God hath not commanded: therfore I speake not by inspiration in that which I Counsell: as if God could not inspire both parts of this speach, that is, both his saying, that God did command, and yet, that the thing not commanded was better than the contrary, seing both those Propositions are true, and so one excluds not the other, but both may be inspired by the author of Truth. Nay, if you say he spoke by inspiration for one part, (that there [Page 307]was no command) it is very inconsequent to affirme that be spoke not by the like inspiration in the other (I judge it the better:) and if he spoke by inspiration in both, he spoke only out of humane prudence, in neither. In those words, I haue not a Command of our Lord for Virgins, but I giue Counsell, doth S. Paul say any more, than that virginity is not commanded, or necessary to salvation, [which I hope you will say is a revealed Truth but only I counsell it? And by what art can you persvvade men that he spoke the first] I haue not a command of our Lord by Revelation, and not the second, considering that S. Paul makes no such difference in his act of belief, or as I may say, ex parte subjecti, but only in the Object, for not being commanded, but only counselled; both vvhich, as I sayd, being true, both might be vtterd by divine inspiration, as indeed they vvere. And those other vvords, speake I, not our Lord, shevv only, that our B. Saviour left povver to the Apostles and their Successours to advise, Counsell, ordaine, or command some things, as severall occasions might require vvhich he himself had not commanded in particular. Which is a most certaine Truth and the ground of Obedience and subordination to Lavvfull Pastors in Gods Church, and cannot be denyed by protestants themselves; and therfor it is not only a dictate of humane prudence.

39. All this will appeare more manifest; if we ponder S. Paules words as they lye. He sayth (V. 5.) Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a tyme, that you may giue yourselves to prayer: and returne againe togeather, least Satan tempt you for your incontinency. Where we may consider how in the first part of this Verse, there is a command of God; (defraud not one another) except perhaps by consent for a tyme, that you may giue yourselves to prayer, (in the greeke, and to fasting) which is not a command, but a counsell: ād thirdly, returne againe togeather, which is neither a command nor a counsell, but a permissiō, or indulgēce to avoyd ā evill, ād not as a thing which he judged to be best; which he declares in the next (Uerse 6.) But I say this by indulgence, not by commandement; and then (V. 7.) declaring what he judged to be the best, he sayth; For I would all men to be as my self: and (V. 8.) But I say to the vnmarryed, and to widdowes; it is good for them if they so abide, even as I also. Behold then a Command, a Counsell, a Permission! Now I aske, whether in all these S. Paul spoke by Revelation, or only out of humane prudence? [Page 308]Or how can you (without any least reason) imagine, that in some of them he spoke one way, in others, another? And if you say so, you will only clearly confirme what I sayd, that we can haue no certainty, when he vtters things revealed or only his owne judgment. For, although in the words rehearsed, he say not expressly, not I, but, our Lord, nor, not our Lord, but I; yet he might haue sayd so, seing he declared both a Commandement of God, and so might haue saied, (not I but our Lord) and a Conunsell, and might haue saied (not our Lord, but I) And therfor when he sayth (V. 10. and 11.) But to them that be joyned in matrimony, not I giue commandment, but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband: and if she depart, to remayne vnmarryed, or to be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife; And (V. 12.) For to the rest, I say, and not our Lord, you cannot infer, that he speakes by another spirit or motion then in the precedent verses where he might haue vsed the same words, not our Lord, but I and, not I, but our Lord, and therfor he must be vnderstood to speak by divine inspiration in all, or none.

40 But I pray you, in any part of this Chapter, or in any part of all S. Paules Writings, doth he ever say; in this God inspires me to speake, and I speak not of my self: in this other, God doth not inspire me to speak, but I speak of my self? Is it all one to say; God commands, not I; and to say, God inspires, and I speak not of my self; Or I command, not God; that is I advise of my self, not inspired by God? Command or counsell, are words of verie different significations from inspired or not inspired; neither can any man precisely infer one from another, as you would make vs belieue, that S. Paul was inspired, when he sayd, God commands; and not inspired when he sayd, I Counsell. And if you say, S. Paul spoke not by inspiration when he sayd, I giue Counsell; with what certainty can you say, that even his setting downe in writing the Command of God, and his owne counsell, proceeded from inspiration? And so we can haue no certainty of S. Paules writings, vnless we belieue that he spoke by inspiration as well when he gaue advise, and Counsell, as when he declared a Divine Command. And therfor after he had sayd (V. 40.) of widdowes; more blessed shall she be, if she so remaine according to my counsell, he adds presently, and I thinke that I also haue the spirit of God; least any should thinke he spoke and advised, only out of humane prudence, and not by Divine inspiration, as if the Holy Ghost had forseene, that there [Page 309]would not want such blasphemers, as you are. S. Chrysostome (Hom. 19. in Cap. 7.1. Cor.) speaking of the words of S. Paul, Ego & non ego, I and not I: sayth; that they signify the Precept of God, and the judgment of S. Paul, as I sayd; and then adds, Least you should thinke those things to be humane, therfore he added, and I think that I haue also the spirit of God. And the same Holy Father (apud Salmeronem Tom. 14. Disp. 12. Pag 94.) sayth; For that cause, he, S. Paul, sayd; not our Lord, but I; not meaning to signify therby, that that was a humane saying; for how can that be? But that Christ had not delivered that precept to his Disciples while he was vpon earth, but doth now deliver it by him. And afterward: feare not: for I sayd so, because that I haue Christ speaking in me, neither do thou suspect, that that speach is in any part humane. And Theodoret. (ap. Salm: ib.) writes vpon these words, in this manner; this I say; which signifyes, I haue not found this Law written in the Gospells, but now I ordaine it. And that the Lawes of the Apostle are the Lawes of God is manifest to those who are instructed in Divine Matters. For it is his voyce: seeke you an experiment of him that speaketh in me, Christ? And S. Austine (Tract. 37. in Joan.) hath these words; Somtyme men, of those things of which they are certaine, seeme by way of reprehension to doubt; that is, they vse a word of doubting, when indeed in their hart they doubt not: as if thou be angry with thy servant, and say; thou contemnests me, consider, perhaps I am thy master. Hence it is that the Apostle sayth to some who did despise him; (just as you doe) and I think that I also haue the spirit of God. He that sayes I thinke, seemes to doubt: but he did reprehend, and not doubt. And Christ our Lord reprehending the future infidelity of mankind, saith, (Luc: 18. V. 8.) The sonne of man comming shall he find think you, Faith in the earth? Thus S. Austine. If then S Paul did speak with certainty in a thing not commanded by our Saviour, who dare deny but that he did it by inspiration? and it is cleare S. Paul speaks this (And I think, that I also haue the spirit of God) not of any command of God, but of a Counsell, which he gaue for widdowes to abstaine from marriage: in which therfor those his words, not our Lord but I, haue place. And indeed, as S. Paul, if he had spoken only the dictates of humane reason and bene subject to errour, when he sayd (V. 10.11.) To them that be joyned in matrimony, not I giue commandment, but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, and let not the [Page 301]husband put away his wife) had put a great command vpon Christians, for which he had no certainty or warrant; so also counselling perpetuall chastity as the best, if it be not so indeed (as he might erre if he spoke only by humane prudence) he had much diminished the naturall freedom, which people haue to marry, or perpetually liue chast. For though he did not command it, yet to persons of timorous consciences, and desirous to do what they are taught to be most perfect, such a counsell from such a person, could not but much moue, and as I may say, more than e [...]cline them, therto. For, the Corinthians, in those Questions which they proposed, and S. Paul answers in this Chapter, had recourse to Him not as to a wise man only, or as a private person, for dictates of humane reason, but as to an Apostle, from whom they expected vndoubted answers, by Revelation from God, vpon which they might securely build their Christian Faith, in matters of so great moment: and as they believed him speaking of our Saviours command against divorce, so they believed him advising chastity, and supposed they might doe it as safely in both, as in one for, Point of S. Paules being inspired. And this consideration vrges so much the more, as the Corinthians were like to fynd greater difficulty in those Points, for Virgins to remaine alwayes such, and for widdowes to abstaine from a second marriage; in regard they were much given to sensuall delights, as Writers haue observed, and appeares out of S. Paul in divers places; and therfor to exhort them in those beginnings to perpetuall chastity, had bene both burthen some and dangerous to them, and not safe for S. Paul himselfe, if he had done it without certainty, communicated by divine inspiration.

41. Thus we see, that he having (V. 35.) counselled virginity, presētly (V. 36) addes; ād this I speak to your profit: not to cast a snare vppon you; as like wise having sayd (V. 27.) Art thou loose from a wife? Seeke not a wife: he adds, (V. 18.) but if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned: and is it not a very preposterous conceipt, to say, that in the first part, seeke not a wife, which is a counsell, he vtters only a dictate of prudence; and in the second, if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned which implyes a matter of Faith, he speakes by inspiration? What is this but to bring all the writings of S. Paul to an vncertainty? And, as I sayd aboue by the like occasion, to make holy scripture a confused aggregatum per accidens, of truths different in nature and kind; and, as I may say, to incorporate with Gods word [Page 311]Apocryphall Writings, which are so called, not because they may not be true, but because they are not Divine, as the dictates of humane prudence are not: and do you not cosen people, who belieue that all is scripture which is contayned in S. Paules Epistles? You say, the Bible hath bene confirmed, by Miracles. I aske whether all truths cōtayned in it haue beene so cōfirmed or no: If they haue, seing you say here, (N. 31.) it is impossible God should set his hand and sea [...]e to the confirmation of a falshood, at least now all the words of S. Paul are attested by God, and growne to be matters of Faith, though we should falfly suppose, they were not such, in vertue of his teaching thē, as our Saviour sayd, If yee will not belieue me beleeue the workes (Joa: 10.38.) If you say, all Truths in scripture were not confirmed by Miracles; it is as good, in order to vs, as if none had bene so confirmed; since the Miracles themselves do not specify, what in particular they confirme, and what not: and so we can only belieue in generall, that some Points contayned in the Bible, are Truths; but this is not enough to belieue with certainty any one in particular. Besides all this, S. Paul in counselling virginity, counsells the same which our B. Saviour had done before, as is recorded (Matth: 12.12.) and therfor he delivers a Divine Revelation which he knew to be such, and spoke not out of humane prudence, as you would haue him. If it be objected; how then doth he say: I speak not, but our Lord? Ianswer. It cannot be sayd, I speak not by inspiration, but our Lord: (for what an incongruous speach were that?) But, I speak signifyes, I counsell, advise, command, or permit, by antithesis to those other words (V 10.) Not I giue command, but our Lord. You know, Catholiques are wont to alledg this Chapter of S. Paul, to proue as a Point of Faith, the counsell of perperuall virginity; and yet never any of our Adversaryes, haue excepted against this Argument by saying; S. Paul professes to deliver that matter, only as a dictate of humane reason, and not as a Divine Revelation; which had been a cleare and vnanswerable reply, that we could not proue by that place perpetuall virginity to be more perfect, as a Point of Faith, if they had bene of your mynd; and they might easily haue told vs, that we could not proue an Article of Faith, by words which the Apostle himself professes to containe but a humane dictamen. But so it is. They who once forsake Gods Church, learne only, and practise, and teach others this lesson; Evill men and seduce [...]s shall prosper to the worse; erring and driving into errours. (2, [...]noth: 3. V. 32.)

[Page 312]

42. I would gladly make an end of this matter. But first, I must aske, how you can say, (N. 32.) If we will pretend, that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul speakes, and that his judgment was Gods commandment, shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul, and that spirit by which he wrote? For, who ever pretended, that S. Paules judgment was Gods command? Contrarily, when his judgment is, that such a thing is no command of God, we do most firmely belieue, that it is no command; because we are sure, that he was no less assisted by Inspiration in saying, (V. 12.) it was no command, speake I, not our Lord, than when (V. 10.) he declared a command, not I, but our Lord.

43. Now vpon the whole matter; it followes out of this your Errour: that although all things necessary to be believed, were contayned in scripture; yet that were not enough to make it a sufficient Rule, or any Rule at all, for Christian Faith: seing we cannot be absolutely certaine, when the writers therof set downe divine Revelations, or only dictates of humane reason: yea and as you say S. Paul was not inspired by God, when he Counselled virginity, and consequently might haue erred therin; so we cannot be sure, that indeed he gaue any such judgment or counsell, but that as in counselling, so in writing and setting downe that counsell, he was no more assisted by Inspiration, thā in giving it. And I will end with these words of Christanity Maintayned (about the sayd Texts of S. Paul) (Chap: 4. N. 9. Pag: 44.) Certainly if the Apostles did sometymes write out of their owne private judgment or spirit; though it were granted that themselves could discerne the diversity of those motions or spirits, (which one may easily deny, if their vniversall infallibility be once impeached) yet it is cleare that others, to whom they spake or wrote, could not discerne the diversity of those spirits in the Apostles. For which cause, learned Protestants acknowledge, that although each mans private spirit were admitted for direction of himself, yet it were not vse full for teaching others. Thus you say (P. [...]41. N. 27) A supernaturall assurance of the incorruption of scriptures may be an assurance to ones selfe, but no argument to another. And as you affirme (Pag. 62. N. 25) that Bookes that are not Canonicall may say they are, and those that are so, may say nothing of it: so we cannot be assured, that the Apostles deliver Divine Revelations, though they should say, they doe; nor that they deliver not such Revelations though they say nothing therof, if once we deny their vniversall infallibility.

[Page 313]

A fourth Errour is set downe in your (Pag: 62. N. 24. and Pag: 141. N. 27.) where you profess to know no other meanes to be assured of the scriptures incorruption, then you haue that any other Booke is incorrupted, and that your assurance of both, is of the same kind and condition (though this for scripture be farre greater for the degree) both Morall assurances, and neither physicall or Matematicall.

44. If this Doctrine may pass for true, it will necessarily follow, that the assurance which we haue of scripture, must not only be of the same kind, but be farr less for the degree of it; seing the bookes of prophane Authors, haue a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men, Atheists, Pagans, Jewes, Turkes, and Christians; wheras the Bible was either vnknowen, or impugned, or not much regarded by all, except Christians, and by some also who pretended to the name of Christian. Tymes stood so with the Jewes, that the Old scripture was once lost, as some say, or at least lay hid; and Christians had not those commodityes, to transcribe faithfully Copyes of the new Testament, which pagans had for publishing their Bookes: Whence it comes to pass, that we find not so many divers readings, in Cicero, Virgill, and other prophane bookes, as vve find in scripture. To which, if we add the many vulgar Translations, and Editions, to what vncertainty shall we be brought, if we proceed only by humane morall assurance of scripture, without any living visible Guide (the Church) so directed by the holy Ghost, as we may be most certainly assured, that she will either neuer permit such corruptions to happen, or will never make vse of them: As we were assured, the Apostles could never approue any corruption in scripture, though in their tymes it could not be avoyded, but that Errours might be committed, by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of yeares before Printing was in vse. And in vaine do you [Pag. 62. N. 24.] alledg, that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked vp, or made invisible; which no man denyes; but seing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself, and disposes of all things sweetly, by Meanes proportionable to his Ends, we must even from hence gather, that he hath left Meanes to beget a true divine supernaturall Faith, more firme than we yield to humane storyes: which cannot be done by scripture alone, if we neither be certaine that it is not corrupted, nor haue any other infallible Guide to rely on, besides the bare written word; and so this your Assertion proves that which you seeke most to avoyd, that scripture [Page 314]alone, even though it were falsly supposed to contayne all things necessary to be believed, cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of Faith, for want of strength of an infallible authority, because still we remayne vncertaine and vnsatisfyed, whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part vpon which we build our assent.

54. Your sift Errour, not vnlike to this, I touched aboue out of your (Pag. 116. N. 159.) where you say; We haue, I belieue, as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England, as that Iesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate. You should haue sayd; we haue farr greater reason to belieue that there was such a man, as Henry the eight, or Alexander, Caesar, Pompey, &c: if your false Assertion were true, that Christian Faith rihes no higser than humane Tradition, and story can raise it. For we haue a more full and vniversall Tradition, and Consent of all sorts of Persons, that there were such men as Caesar, &c: and that they fought such battailes, obtained such victoryes, and the like, than that there was one called Jesus Christ, that he had Disciples &c: And what Christian can heare this without detestation? Your saying, that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight, as that Jesus Christ suffered &c: seemes to signify, that we haue as great reason to belieue what is delivered by humane History or Tradition, as that which is testifyed or revealed by God, since you pretend to belieue that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus, is the word of God, and yet affirme that we haue as great reason to belieue, there was such a man as Henry the eight (which we know only by humane tradition) as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate, which we learne from scripture. If you grant this, as it seemes you expressly doe; I suppose your ground must be, that which you express (Pag: 36. N. 8.) that the Conclusion alwayes followes the worser part: as if a message be brought me from a man of absolute credit with me; but by a messenger that is not so, my considence of the truth of the relation, cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour: and therfor because we know only by morall certainty (as you speake in the same place) that scripture is the word of God, and that the contents therof were revealed by God, and confirmed by Miracles, our belief can be proportionable only to those morall inducements or humane tradition; which being as great that there was such a man as Henry the eight, as that Jesus Christ suffered &c: we haue as great reason to belieue that, as this. If this be your meaning, [Page 315]ād vpō this ground; thē I inferr, which hither to I haue not so absolutely done, that Christian Faith, with you, is not only fallible, and not absolutely certaine, but also is no more, yea (as I haue proved,) less certaine, though it be testifyed by God, than if it had bene testifyed, or affirmed to be true by men only; because all must depend on, and be exactly measured, not by the difference of Humane and divine testimony, but wholy and only by the meanes or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our vnderstanding. And this must be the cause which moves you to say, that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight, as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate: because the Motives are a like, though the testimony of God and of men be different. Or if you say, that when we haue the same motiues to belieue that God testifyes a thing, and that man doth testify it, we haue greater reason to belieue what is testifyed by God, than what is testifyed by man; then you contradict what yourself say, that we haue as great reason to belieue there was such a man as Henry the eight, as that Jesus Christ suffered Vnder Pontius Pilate. Howsoever; I must still conclude, that seing, according to your Principles, and express words, we haue as great, yea, as I haue proved, greater reason to belieue there was a Caesar, Pompey &c: than Jesus Christ, what will it availe vs, in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith, that all Points necessary to be believed, are contayned in Scripture, if in the meane tyme we haue as great reason to belieue what is related in prophane Storyes, as what is revealed in scripture?

46. A sixt Errour you teach (Pag. 67. N. 38.) I may beli [...]ue even those questioned Bookes to haue been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall; but I cannot in reason belieue this of them so vndoubtedly, as [...]f those Books which were never qu [...]stioned. At least, I haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them, or deny them now: having the examples of Saints in Heaven, either to justify, or excise such their doubting or denyall. And (Pag. 69. N. 45.) The Canon of Scripture, as we r [...]eyue it, is builded vpon Vniversall Tradition. For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and vndoubtedly certaine, neither do we vrge others to be so, of those Books, which haue been doubted, as of those that never haue. But this is not all. For to the words of Cha. Ma. (Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9.) That according to the sixt Article of the English Protestants, which sayth; In the name of Holy Scripture, we do vnderstand those Canonicall [Page 316]Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church, the whole Booke of Esther must quit the Canon, and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those, of which some Ancients haue doubted, and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied. You answer (Pag. 68. N. 43.) When they say, Of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church, they meane not, those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all, by any man in the Church; But such as were not at any tyme doubted of by the whole Church, or by all Churches, but had attestation, though not vn [...]versall, yet at least, sufficient to make considering men receaue them for Canonicall. In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose number and Authority was not so great, as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages.

47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing, that Gods Church, from which we receaue Holy Scripture, is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, than these your Assertions, and pernicious Errours, which yet do naturally result from the Opinyons of those Protestants, who deservedly laughing at the pretended private spirit of rigid Calvinists, and yet denying the infallibility of the Church, are driven to such Conclusions, as you publish, and for which, those others had disposed the Premises. For if the Scripture be receaved vpon the Authority of the Church, considered only as a company of men subject to errour, and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost, who can blame one for inferring, that if those men once doubted of some Bookes of Scripture, such books cannot chalenge so firme a belief, as others in which all haue alwayes agreed? Though even these in which all haue agreed, can never arriue to be believed by an infallible assent of Divine Faith, while these men, though never so many, are believed to be fallible.

48. But to come to your Errour: If it be granted, that we belieue some bookes of Scripture more vndoubtedly then other, by reason of a greater or less consent, and so giue way to more or less in the belief of Gods word, we shall soone come to end in nothing. For why may not those bookes of which somtyme there was doubt, and were afterward receyved for Canonicall, in tyme loose some voices or sussrages, and by that meanes come to be discanonized? You teach that we haue not infallible certainty, but only a probability for any part of Scripture; how farr then shall we be removed from certainty, for those bookes [Page 317]which participate of that probability in a less and less degree? The common Doctrine of Protestants, is, that Scripture became a totall Rule of Faith, when the Canon was perfited, because they cannot determine with certainty, in what particular bookes necessary Points are contayned. If then some parts of Canonicall Scripture be more vndoubted than others; in case some fundamentall points chance to be set downe only in these others, it followes, not only that they cannot be so certaine of the Truth of those necessary Points, as of other truths not fundamentall, or of no necessity at all, being considered in themselves; but also that they cannot be certaine at all; since it is supposed that they do not belieue those bookes with absolute certainty, but with a lower degree even of a probable assent. Your pretended Bishop of London, D. King, in the beginning of his first Lecture vpon Jonas sayes: comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture, are both odious, and dangerous: The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy Fundation. With an vnpartiall respect haue the children of Christs family from tyme to tyme, receyved, reverenced, and embraced the whole volume of scriptures. Marke that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture, and that the children of Christs family with an vnpartiall respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures. Yourself (Pag 68. N. 42.) say, that the controversy about scripture, is not to be tryed by most Voyces; and what is the greater number, of which we haue heard you speake in the next (N. 43.) that it was sufficient to prevaile against the contrary suffrages, but only most voyces, or consent in one judgment, seing you attribute infallibility, or the certaine direction of the Holy Ghost, to no number, great, or small? And as for the greater authority which in the same (N. 43.) you ascribe to one part more than to another, what can it be, in your Principles, except greater learning, or some such kind of Quality, nothing proportionable to that authority, on which Christian Faith must rely? Take away the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost, and few for number, even one single person, may for waight haue as good reason for what he sayes, as a great multitude for the contrary. There is scarcely any part of scripture, which hath not bene Questioned by so many as would haue made men doubt of the works of Cicero, Livie, &c: as we see men doubt of some workes, which haue gone vnder the name of Old Authours, because, for example, Erasmus, or others, haue called them in Question, vpon meere conjecturall reasons, as seeming difference [Page 318]of Stile, or the like. If then men haue not presumed to doubt of scripture, as they would haue done of other Writings, it is because they belieue Gods church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds, though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition, or Definition. I haue proved, that in your grounds we haue greater certainty for what is related in humane storyes, then for the contents of the most vndoubted Bookes of scripture. What strength then can those Books of scripture haue which you receaue with a less degree of belief?

49. You Object (Pag: 67. N. 36. and 38.) Some Saints did once doubt of some parts of scripture; therfor we haue no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them, or deny them now, having the example of Saints in Heaven, either to justify, or excuse their doubting or deniall.

50. Answer: This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judg, as will appeare after I haue first told you, that by this forme of arguing, we may now be saved, though we belieue no part of the whole Bible; because the tyme was when no part of it was written; We may now adhere to many old Heresyes, condemned by the whole Church, which before such a condemnation or definition. Saints might haue held without damnation, or sinne: We may now reject the Faith of Christ, because many were Saints and saved, in the Law of Nature, and Moyses, without it. Yourself (Pag: 280. N. 66.) affirme, That what may be enough for men in ignorance, may be to knowing men not enough. That the same errour may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth, and capitall to others who haue meanes, and neglect to vse them. Howsoever, we Catholikes are safe by your owne words, since we haue the example of Saints in Heaven, and holy Fathers, (as is confessed even by Protestants) for those Practises, and Doctrines, which you will needs call Errours, beside S. Bernard, S. Bonaverture, and others, whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven; and therfor by your owne rule you haue no warrant to damne vs having such examples either to justify, or excuse vs. If then you will stand to your owne doctrine, you cannot deny, but at one tyme that may consist with salvation, which at another tyme is not compatible therwith. The Church of God hath defined what Bookes be Canonicall; and this Definition all are obliged vnder payne of damnation to belieue, and obey. And even by this, we may learne the necessity of acknowledging a Living Judg. All Books which are truly Canonicall, were proposed and receyved by Crihstians. After [Page 319]ward the knovvledg of some Bookes, and some truths, began to be obscured, or doubted of, or denyed by some, and perhaps not by a few, and those of great authority, if we respect either learning, or other endowments, qualityes, and abilityes, vnder the degree of infallibility; as we see there wanted not in the Apostles tyme some who were zealous for the observation of the Mosaicall Law: and as these could not haue bene confuted, convinced, and quieted, but by the infallibility of the first Councell, held in Jerusalem; so, after some Bookes of scripture come once to be Questioned, it is impossible to bring men backe to an vnanimous, or any well grounded reception and certainty of them, except by some authority acknowledged to be infallible; which if we deny, those Books which are receyved by many or most, may, as I sayd, be doubted of even by those many, and they which were receyved by few, may in tyme gaine number and authority: and so all things concerning scripture, must be still ebbing, and flowing, and sloating in irremediable and endless vncertainty, of admitting and rejecting the Canonicall Books. And what connection, or tye, or threed, can we haue, to find out the Antiquity and truth of scripture, except by such a Guide?

51. And here I may answer an Objection, which you make against some words of Cha: Ma: (Part: 1. Chap: 3. N. 12.) which you relate (Pag: 141.142. N. 28.29.) Some Bookes, which were not alwayes knowen to be Canonicall, haue b [...]ne afterward receyved for such; but never any one Booke or syllable defined for Canonicall, was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall. A signe that Gods Church is infallib [...]y assisted by the Holy Ghost, never to propose as D [...]vine Truths any thing not revealed by God! These words, that you may with more ease impugne, you thinke fit to cite imperfectly. For, where Cha: Ma: sayd; never any one Booke or syllable desined by the Church, was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphall, you leaue out (by the Church) which words yield a plaine Answer to your Objection, or any that can be made▪ Thus then you say: Tone [...]ing the first s [...]rt; if they were not commended to the Church by the Apo [...]es as Canonicall, seeing after the Apostles, the Church pretends to no new Revelation, how can it be [...]n Article of Faith to belicue 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 commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall, low then is the [Page 320]Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture, which hath suffered some Books of Canonicall Scripture to be lost? And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall, at least, the necessity of being so esteemed, and afterward as it were by the Law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalbiess vnto them? If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church, the Poynt was sufficiently discussed, and therfore 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.

52. Answer: All Canonicall Bookes were commēded to the Church by the Apostles for such (though not necessarily to all Churches at the same instant) and we pretend to no new Revelations. And for your demand, how then is the Church an infallible keeper of Scripture, if some Bookes haue bene lost, and others lost for a long tyme their being Canonicall, or at least the necessity of being so esteemed? I answer: Your Argument is of no force against vs Catholiques, who belieue an alwayes Living Guide, the Church of God, by which we shall infallibly be directed in all Points belonging to Faith and Religion to the worldes end, as occasion shall require; yea we bring this for a Demonstration, that the Church must be infallible, and Judg of Controversyes. There was no scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses: And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord, holy scripture was only among the people of Israēl: and yet there were Gentils in those dayes indued with Divine Faith, as appeareth in Job, and his friends. The Church also of our Saviour Christ, was before the scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one tyme, but successively, and vpon 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 as men could be saved in those tymes without scripture, so afterward also, vpon condition, that we haue a Living Guide, and be ready to receiue scripture, when it shall be proposed to vs by that Guide But your Objection vrges most against your brethren and yourself, who acknowledg no other Rule of Faith but scripture alone, and yet teach, that the duty of the Church is to keepe scripture, which being now your only Rule and necessary for Faith and salvation, how doth she discharge her duty, if she hath suffered some Bookes to be lost? And others to loose for a long tyme their being Canonicall, at least, the necessity of [Page 321]being so esteemed? Especially seing you teach against other Protestants, that we receyue scripture from the Authority of the Church alone, and therfor if she may faile either by proposing false scriptures, or in conserving the true ones, Protestants want all meanes of salvation. Neither can you answer, that it belongs to Gods Providence, not to permit scripture to be wholly lost, since it is necessary to salvation. For you must remeber your owne Doctrinem; that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought, to delude men, in punishment of their sins; and then why may he not permit, either true scriptures to be lost, or false ones to be obtruded for true, in punishment of sin, and particularly of the excessiue pride of those, who preferr their judgment before the Decrees of Gods church, deny her Authority, allow no Rule but scripture, interpreted by themselves alone; that so their pride against the Church, and the abuse of true scripture may be justly punished by subtraction of true, or obtrusion of false Bookes? Beside, God in his holy Providence works by second causes or Meanes. If then he permit some scriptures to be lost, and yet his Will be, that there remaine a way open to Heaven, he will not faile to do it by other Meanes, which is, by the Magistery of other men, (Faith comes by hearing) that is, by his Church, which he hath commanded vs to heare; vnless you will haue all men pretend with Svvinckfeldians to be guided by enthusiasmes, or extraordinary lights, motions, or rapts. And so this very Providence of God, in permitting some scripture to be lost, or questioned for a tyme, proves the necessity of a Living Guide, and the no-necessity, or no sole-sufficiency of scripture, and that God hath permitted such a loss or doubting, to teach vs the necessity and sufficiency of a visible Living Guide.

53. But then, say you, How is the Church an infallible keeper of s [...]ripture, which hath suffered some bookes to be lost? It is easy for vs to answer; that the Church shall alwayes be infallibly directed to performe whatsoever is necessary for salvation of men; and if any bookes of scripture haue bene lost, we are sure the Church can, and will, supply that defect, by the assistance which God hath promised Her: as your Volkelius (de vera Relig: L. 6. C. 19.) affirmes, and endeavours to prove, that by scripture alone the Church may be restored, though she were supposed, totally to haue fayled▪ which conceit of his, though it be but a meere chimera, since it appeares by experience, that scripture alone is not sufficient to produce vnity in faith, nor can instruct vs in all Points necessary to [Page 322]be believed; yet it demonstrates, that if the Church be acknowledged to be infallible she may supply all want or loss of scripture, by the perpetuall Direction of the Holy Ghost, as she did for yeares and Ages before scripture was written. But this answer cannot serue Protestants, who on the one side cannot be assured, that in those scriptures which were lost, there were not contayned some fundamentall or necessary Points of Faith; and on the other, are resolved not to make vse of the inestimable benefit, which they might receyue by submitting to Gods Church, and commit a grievous sin by rejecting her Authority: and so God giving most sufficient and certaine meanes, you remayne inexcusable for not making vse of them. Thus then the infallibility of Gods Church in being a keeper of scripture, consists not in this, that no scripture be lost which God in his holy Providence supplyes by another Meanes, but that she be so directed, as no scripture, or other Meanes be lost, if indeed they be necessary for salvation.

54. What you say of the Churches restoring to some books of scripture their authority, and Canonicallness, must be answered by Protestants, who receyue for Canonicall some books, of which once there was some doubt; neither will they pretend, to restore to them authority or Canonicallness, which in themselves they could never loose (for, what is once written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is for ever truly sayd to haue bene so written) but only we may come to know that which we did not know, or to be assured of that wherof some doubted. Which yet you must not so vnderstand, as if the whole Church did ever doubt of those bookes, and much less that she did deny, or ever could make any Declaration or Definition that they were not Canonicall, but only that they having been once commended to the Church by the Apostles, some particular persons afterward fell into some doubt concerning thē; as many haue questioned or denyed divers Articles of Faith delivered to Christians by the Apostles; and the Church, in due tyme, even by occasion of such doubt or denyall, declared, the Truths contrary to those Heresyes, to be arricles of Faith, and those books of which some doubted, to be Canonicall. Thus Potter (Pag: 216.) teaches, that the Ap [...]es Creed as it was further opened, and explayned in some parts, (by occasion if emergent Heresyes) in the other Catholique Creeds of Nice, Conseantmople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Athanasius, contains all fundamentall Points of Faith. And therfor you are injuriours to Gods Church in saying; her omission to teach for some ages as an Article of Faith that such books were [Page 323]Canonicall, nay, degrading them from the number of articles of Faith, ād putting thē among disputable problemes was surely not very laudable For, the church did not omit to declare in due tyme, and vpon fit or necessary occasiō, that they were Canonicall, as the anciēt Councell of Nice (of whose Creed your Church of England (Art. 8.) saieth it ought throughly to be receaved, ād believed) by occasiō of the dānable heresy of Arius, with whom you and your Sociniās agree, declared that Christ was Consubstantiall to his Father. Neither did the Church ever degrade from an article of Faith, or put among disputable problemes, āy Part of true Canonicall scripture, ād therfor Cha: Ma: sayd truly, that never āy booke or syllable defined by the church for Canonicall, was questiōed or rejected for apocriphall, either by the church, or any Catholique to whom such a Definitiō was sufficiently notifyed; though Heretiks will still be doing what pride ād obstinacie may suggest. In the meane tyme, you will find, that I haue already āswered what you object P. 142. N. 29 against the sayd affirmation of Cha: Ma: that never any book or syllable once defined &c: and of which you are pleased to say; certainly it is a bold assertion, but extremely false, ād say; Hee ( Cha: Ma:) were best ru [...]b his forhead hard, and say, &c: But our answer is very obvious, that the booke of Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdome, the Epistle of S. James, and to the Heb: (which you mention) were approved by the Apostles for Canonicall: yet that did not hinder, but afterward some might be ignorant, or doubt of them, as many did of divers principall articles delivered by the Apostles, and then the church had reason and authority to declare the matter. You cite S. Gregory (L 9. Morall: C. 13.) calling the books of Machabees not Canonicall. S. Gregory hath no such thing in the chapter which you cite but (L. 19. C. 17.) which you might haue learned out of Potter, who (P. 259.) cites the same authority as I haue set it downe. This I would not haue noted, if you had not taxed your adversary for missing a citation in one place, wheras he citeth the same thing right in another as I note herafter. Potter, I say, makes the same objection out of S. Gregory, and Cha: Ma: (Part. 2. Chap. 7. N. 18.) answers it at large, and you cannot be excused in taking no notice therof, and yet make still the same Objection which Potter did. These then be the words of Charity Maintayned: what you alledg out of S. Gergory, is easily answered for he doth not call the Machabees, not Canonicall, as if he would exclude them from the number of true, and divine scriptures, but because they were not in the canon of the Jewes, or in that which he had at hand [Page 324]when he wrote his first draught of his commentaryes vpon Job. For he was at that tyme the Popes Nuncius, or Legat at Constantinople, and the Greek Rapsody. of African Canons had vntruly put out of the Canon the two Bookes of the Machabees, though they were receyved in Africa as Canonicall, by the Decree of the African Councell. And therfor you were ill advised, vnder colour of commending Pope Gregory, (but indeed the more to impugne vs by his authority) to write Greg: M: or Magnus, the great, wheras he was no Pope, but only Deacon, when he first wrote those commentaryes vpon Job. Thus farr Cha: Ma:

55. As for your demand: whether before Sixtus Quintus his tyme our Church had a defined canon of scripture, or not?

I Answer: We had the same Canon then, which we haue novv, and vvhich the sacred councell of Trent hath set dovvne, (Sess: 4. decreto de Canonicis scripturis.) The church had alvvayes the same Canon, that is, she never declared by any decree, any bookes to be Apocryphall at one tyme, vvhich she admitted for Canonicall at another. One Councell may omitt or not mention some booke vvhich another specifyes, but can never declare it to be Apocryphall, or not canonicall; to vvhich contrariety, only private persons are obnoxious. But yet although our church had not set do vvne the canō of scripture, it is very improper for you to object; then was your Church surely a most vigilant keeper of scripture, that for (1500) yeares had not defined what was scripture, and what was not. For, do not Protestāts till this day disagree about the canon of scripture, and so are not able to define vvhat is scripture, and what is not▪ yea they positively deny some books to be scripture, vvhich others of them affirme to be Canonicall. It is true, I cannot properly say, that, for (1500) yeares they haue not defined any canon, because they haue no such ancient being. But I must say; although they should last (1500) millions of yeares, they vvould never be able to set dovvne any certaine canon, as not having any assured ground, for vvhich one part should yield to another. And still I must be putting you in mynd of the difference betvveen Catholiks and Protestants, that vve vvho believe the church to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, are sure that she cannot deceaue vs, vvith false or Apocryphall scriptures, nor obtrude any false canon; vvheras you, vvho rely vpon scripture alone, and yet can haue no certainty vvhat is the true canon, (as appeares both by your mutuall disagreements, and because you haue no certaine [Page 325]infallible meanes to knovv vvhat is true scripture) can haue no security for your faith, in regard you haue no certainty concerning the totall rule therof.

56. Your other Demand, (Whether our Canon of scripture vvas that vvhich vvas set forth by Sixtus, or that set forth by Clement, or a third, different from both?) If it be vvell considered, is, to speake truth, exoticall; for to the demand vvhat books be Canonicall, the direct and right Ansvver is, that such or such books belong to the Canon of scripture; for example, Genesis, Exodus, Psalmes, foure Gospells, &c: vvhich Demand and Ansvver abstract from that other question, about different Translations, and Editions. And vvho vvill aske, vvhether the Septuagint, or Aquila, or Luther, Calvin, Beza, Castalio, set out a different Canon of scripture, I meane, for those bookes in which they agree that they are Canonicall, and yet it is notorious that their Translations of the same canon, or books of scripture, are most different? Or, if you will haue these demands to be all one, seing both the Hebrew and Greeke books are corrupted, as Calvin confesses, your answer to your owne Demand must be, that no true canon of scripture can be found; and then woe be to Protestants, whose Faith and salvation depends vpon the true canon of scripture. If your Demand be about the Edition of Sixtus and Clement; I Answer, They sett forth no different canon, but the selfsame; to wit, those books which before their tyme made vp the canon of scripture. And, as for the edition of Sixtus, it is no good dealing in you to doe in this, as you did concerning the words of S. Gregory, concealing the large and cleare Answer which Cha: Ma: gaue to the same objection (made by Potter) (Part. 2. Chap. 6. N. 3.) where by the Authenticall Testimonyes of Persons aboue all exceptiō he shewed that the Decree of Sixtus about, his edition, was never promulgated; that he himself had declared diverse things to haue crept in, which needed a second review; and that the whole work should be re-examined, which he could never do, being prevented by death.

57. But good Sr. Reflect I beseech you, that in this, and the like Demands, you give deadly wounds to Protestants, who profess to rely vpon scripture alone, and yet cannot possibly haue any certainty what scripture is true or corrupted, by the Hebrew or Greek Texts, which they acknowledg to be corrupted, and much less by Translations of Protestants, who bitterly accuse one another of most grievous errours [Page 326]in their Translations, as Cha: Ma: hath shewed (Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 16.) which I wish the Reader, for the Eternall good of his soule, to peruse, and reflect, that if scripture be the only Rule of his Faith, and yet he either is sure that some Texts therof are corrupted, or at least not sure but that they are so, he cannot be obliged to belieue any one Text, nor can in Matters of Eternity rely theron: as in case divers meates were set before me, wherof I know some to be poysonous, and I haue no meanes to discerne them from the other, I cannot safely touch any one of them. But the matter passes in a far different manner with vs Catholiks, as I haue often sayd, and must often repeate: We being sure that the church can neither approue any least corruption, nor ground vpon it any Point of Faith: and so a corruption in a true booke of Scripture, can no more hurt vs, then false Scriptures or Gospells which were vented in the primitive church, could prejudice those Christians. Nevertheless, although, as I sayd, the church cannot approue any false translation, yet she is not obliged at all tymes to declare one for Authenticall, till all circumstances considered, there appeare some necessity therof; as the sacred Councell of Trent did, by occasion of a multitude of pernicious Translations, published by moderne Heretiks in favour of theyr heresies; and for other just causes. Luther himself Lib: contra Zwing: de verit Corporis Christi in Euchar:) was at length foroed to confess, that, If the world last longer, it will be againe necessary to receiue the Decrees of Councells, and to haue recourse to them, by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now raigne.

58. To that which you say in the same (N. 29.) suppose it had bene true, that never any Booke after reteyving had bene Questioned, how had this bene a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost? In what moode or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premises? Certainly your flying to such poore signes, as these are, is to me a great signe, that you labour with penury of better Arguments: and that, thus to catch at shaddowes and bulrushes, is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause.

59. Answer What greater signe of particular Assistance, and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause, than consent and constancy of many therin, while we see others change, alter, and contradict one another (and even the same man become contrary to himself) who yet in all other humane respects haue the [Page 327]same occasion, ability, and reason, of such consent and constancy? Tertullian, (Praescript: Chap: 28.) saith truly: Among many events there is not one issue, the errour of the churches must needs haue varied. But that which among many is found to be one, is not mistaken, but delivered. And the experience we haue of the many, great, and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture, and interpretation therof, is a very great argument, that the church, which never alters nor disagrees from herself, is guided by a superiour, infallible, Divine Spirit; as Christians among other inducements, to belieue that scripture is the word of God, alledg the perfect coherence of one part therof with another.

60. Before I passe to your next Errour; I must aske a Question about what you deliver (Pag: 141. N. 28.) where, speaking of some Bookes of scripture, you say; Seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations, how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canoncall? And (Pag: 142. N. 29.) If they (some certaine bookes of scripture) were approved by the Apostles, this I hope was a sufficient definition; How, I say, you who hold that, Scripture is not a Point of Faith, nor revealed by God, can say, that to propose bookes of scripture, though they had bene proposed before, is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles: But, as I sayd hertofore, it is no newes for you to vtter contradictions.

61. A seventh Errour plainly destructiue both of scripture, and all Christianity, is taken out of your Doctrine (of which I haue spoken hertofore) that the Bible was proved to be Divine, by those Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, and yet that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men. Which Assertions put togeather, may giue occasion to doubt, whether those Miracles, wherby the Scriptute was confirmed, were not to delude men; and so we can haue no certainty that Scripture is the word of God.

62. To this I will add a Doctrine of yours delivered (Pag: 69. N. 47.) which overthrowes all proof that can be takē from Miracles, for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God, or that other articles of Christian Faith are true. Thus you write: For my part I profess, if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good, and as sit to come from the fountaine of goodness, as the Miracles by which it was confirmed, were great, I should [Page 328]want one maine pillar for my Faith, and for want of it, I feare should be much staggered in it. Doth not this assertion declare, that true Miracles are in sufficient of themselves, to convince that a thing confirmed by them, is true, or good, vnless men do also interpose their owne judgment, that the things in themselves are such? which is not to belieue the Miracles, or God speaking and testifying by them, but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgment of men? wheras, contrarily, we ought to judge such things to be good, because they are so testifyed, and not belieue, that Testimony to be true, because in our judgment, independently of that Testimony, the things are good in themselves; which were to vary our belief of Gods Testimony, according as we may chance to alter our judgment at different tymes, and vpon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstāding. Do not you in divers places pretend, that this reason is aboue all other? God sayes so, therfor it is true: and further do you not say? (Pag. 144. N. 31.) If you be so infallible, as the Apostles were, shew it as the Apostles did. They went forth (sayes S. Mark) and preached every where, the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signes following. It is impossible, that God should ly: and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood, or of such Doctrine, as is partly true and partly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therfor it was intirely true, and in no part either false or vncertaine. If the testimony of God be with you aboue all reason, and that by signes or Miracles the Eternall Truth sets his hand and seale to the confirmation of what is so confirmed; how comes it, that your Faith could be staggered (notwithstanding the working of such Miracles) if in your judgment the doctrine of the scripture were not as good, as the Miracles by which it was confirmed, were great? Or what could it availe vs to proue our doctrine by Miracles, as the Apostles did, if the belief of those Points so proved, must stand to the mercy of your judgment, which as I saied, may vary vpon divers occasions: and yet this diversity of judgment you must, according to this your doctrine, follow, even against any point, though confirmed by Miracle. It is therfor cleare; That in your Principles, you can haue no certainty of the truth of scripture, nor of the contents threrof, although it were supposed, that it alone did expressly and inparticular containe all Points necessary to be believed.

63. Your 8. Errour consists in this: that, beside what I haue sayd already in your second and third Errour (that you impeach the certainty [Page 329]of scripture, by taking away vniversall infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it, and for whose Authority we belieue it.) I find you do the same in other places. You say (P. 144. N. 30.) The infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles, and besides, this dependance is voluntary, for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule, being nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which every one has free will, and is subject to passions and errour. Change the tearmes, and say: The infallibility of the Apostles depended [...]pon the infallibility of our Saviour, and this dependance was voluntary; for it was in the power of the Apostles to deviate from this Rule, being nothing but a number of men, of whom every one has freewill, and is subject to passion and errour; and that we way be sure of this last, in the very next (N. 31.) you teach, That the Apostles themselves, even after the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and through inadvertence or prejudice (ād P. 137. N. 21.) to tinadvertence or prejudice, you add, or some other cause, (which gives scope, enough to censure the Apostles) continued for a tyme in an errour repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding our Saviours express warrant and injunction to goe and preach to all Nations. Christ then, according to you, did not depriue the Apostles of freewill, though he proposed externally the Object, and gaue them sufficient Grace to performe his will. For if he had mooved them to Truth by way of necessity, they could not haue erred: If you grant this, what will follow, but that as the Church, so the Apostles might deviate from that which God declared and commanded, and consequently either belieue amiss, or not set downe faithfully in writing, what they believed? Which is also confirmed by what you write (P. 86. N. 93.) If it were true that God had promised to assist you, for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him, or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himself, to teach you, not only sufficiently, but effectually, and irresistibly the true sense of scripture? And a little after; God is not lavish in superfluityes, and therfor having given vs meanes sufficient for our direction, and power sufficient to make, vse of these meanes, he will not constraine or necessitate vs to make vs of these meanes. For, that were to crosse the end of our Creation, which was to be glorifyed by our free Obedience: Wheras necessity and freedom connot stand togeather. And afterward: If God should worke in vs by an absolute irresistible necessity (the Obedience of Faith &c:) he could no more require it of vs, as our duty, than he can of the sun to shine, of the Sea to ebb and flow, and of all other creatures to do those things which by meere necessity [Page 330]they must do, and cannot choose (And Pag: 88. N. 96.) you say expressly, That God cannot necessitate men to belieue aright, without taking away their free will in believing and in professing their belief. It seemes by these words, you hold the Apostles to haue had freewill in believing, preaching, and writing, and that therfor it was in their power to deviate from Gods will and motion: and then, according to your grounds, as the church, so also the Apostles might erre. Which deduction is also proved by your words (Pag: 172. N. 71.) The spirit of truth may be with a man or Church for ever, and teach him all Truth, and yet he may fall into some errour; even contrary to the truth, which is taught him only sufficiently, and not irresistibly, so that he may learne it, if he will, not so that he must and shall, whether he will or no. Now, who can assertaine me, that the spirits teaching is not of this nature? Or how can you possibly reconcile it, with your Doctrine of freewill in believing, if it be not of this nature? Now, if you do not depriue the Apostles of freewill, because otherwise God could no more require of them as their duty to belieue, preach, and write such truths as were inspired by Him, than he can of the sun to shine, of the sea to ebb and flow, &c: this discourse of yours takes away their infallibility, and proves that they might fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which was taught or revealed to them, and the contrary assertion cannot possibly be reconciled with their freewill. And Pag: 87. N. 95. you say; If the Holy Ghosts moving the Church be resistible, then the Holy Ghost may moue, and the Church may not be moved. And why do you not say, if the Holy Ghosts moving the Apostles to belieue, preach, and write Scripture be resistible, it must in the same manner follow, that the Holy Ghost may move, and the Apostles may not be moved, and so may belieue, preach, and write errours.

64. But this is not all the bitterness you Vent against the church, in such manner, as it wounds the Apostles, no less than the church. You say (P. 86. N, 93. and P. 87. N. 94.) If you Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture, why do not your Doctours follow her infallible direction? why doth she thus put her cand [...]e vnder a bushell, and keepe her Talent of interpreting Scripture infall [...]bly, thus long wrapt vp in napkins? why sets sheenot forth Infallible Commentaryes or Fxpositions vpon all the Bible? Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians, that Scripture should be interpreted? It is blasphemous to say so. The scripture itself tells vs, all scripture is profitable. And the scripture is not so much the words [Page 331]as the sense.

65. In answer to this your weake and irreligious discourse, I returne the like Demands, whether the Apostles were infallibly directed concerning the true meaning or interpretatiō of scripture, as they were for writing it? I suppose you will say, they were so directed. Why then did they put their candle vnder a bushell, and keepe their Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly, wrapt vp in napkins? Why did they not set forth infallible commentaryes, or expositions vpon all the bible? Was it because this would not haue bene profitable for Christians, that scripture should be interpreted? It is blasphemous to say so. The Scripture itself tells vs, all scripture is profitable. And scripture is not so much the words, as the sence. And when you haue made these Demands against the Apostles, you may in like manner ascend higher, and aske, why divers parts of scripture were so written, as they not only need expositions, but that no mortall man can vnderstand them? When you haue given a satisfactory answer to these Demands, the same will answer your Questions concerning the church, which being directed by the Holy Ghost, will not faile to interpret, declare, and performe all that is necessary in order to the Eternall salvation of soules, and in particular will supply by Tradition, or other Meanes, what is obscure, or is not contayned in Scripture. But then you aske againe (N. 95.) Whether this Direction of the Holy Ghost be resistible by the Church, or irresistible? I still answer by demanding, whether the Motion of the Holy Ghost was resistible by the Apostles, or irresistible? If irresistible; why may we not say the same of the church for those particular Actions of Interpreting Scripture, and Deciding controversyes in Religion? If resistible; then either we are not sure that the Apostles did not deviate from the Motion of the holy Ghost, as you infer [...] against the infallibility of the church; or els we learne by this example of the Apostles, that God may moue resistibly, and yet infallibly for attainng that End, which by meanes of such a Motion he intends. This if you be resolved to deny, we must conclude, that the Apostles were not infallible in their writings, and that we can haue no certainty, that Scripture doth not containe errours. But whatsoever you thinke, the truth is, that God wants not power to moue men resistibly, and yet infallibly, by divers wayes knowen to his infinite Wisdome. I would gladly know, whether you belieue, that God can possibly be sure to make any one a Saint, or a repentant sinner, or can promise perseverance to the [Page 332]end. I suppose you will not deny but that he can: and then seing one cannot be a Saint, or a converted sinner, or persever to the end, except by free Actions of the will, proceeding from Grace, you must grant, that the congruous and efficacious Grace of God, may consist both with freedome of our will, ād infallibility in Gods fore-sight. I sayd, that if freewill in the Church cannot stand with infallibility, neither could it consist with infallibility in the Apostles. Now I add: your Arguments proue not only against the fallibility of the Church and Apostles, but also of Christ our Lord, in your wicked doctrine, that he is not God, nor Consubstantiall to his Father, but only man; and then your demands enter; whether he were moved by his Father resistibly, or irresistibly? And the same answer you giue for Him, must be given for his Apostles, and his Church. You say (Pag: 86. N. 63.) God gaue the W [...]semen a starr to lead them to Christ, but he did not necessitate them, to follow the guidance of this starr: that was left to their liberty. But this instance makes against your self; for no man dare deny but that God so moved those Wisemen as he was sure they would follow the starr, and performe that for which he presēted it to their eyes, and gaue light to their vnderstandings, and efficacy to their wills; that so our Saviour Christ might be preached to the Gentils, by their meanes, as S. Leo (serm: 1. de Epiphan.) saith; Dedit aspicientibus intellectum, qui praestitit signum: & quod fecit intelligi, fecit inquiri. He who gaue the signe, gaue them also light to vnderstand it, and what he made to be vnderstood, he made to be sought after: where the word fecit, signifyes, that God did moue them effectually, and yet we haue no necessity, to say that they were necessitated.

66. By what we haue sayd, is answered a wild discourse, which you make (Pag. 87. N. 95.) about the Popes calling the Councell of Trent; which I haue shewed might be done both freely, and yet proceed from the infallible fore-knowledg and Motion of the Holy Ghost. And what you say of the Pope, may be applyed against the Apostles and other Canonicall Writters, why they did delay so long to write Scripture, and whether they were moved to it resistibly, or irresistibly &c.?

67. I conclude, that togeather with the Church, you impugne the infallibility of Christ and the Apostles, and consequently of their Writings, which forces me to repeat, that, according to your Doctrine scripture cannot be any Rule of Divine Faith, and much less a [Page 333]sufficient Rule, though it were supposed to contayne all necessary Points of Faith.

68. Your 9. and most capitall Errour remaynes; wherby you depriue scripture of certainty and infallibility, and make both it and the contents of it, lesse credible, than the Books of prophane Authours, and things related in them: I meane your Assertion, that we know Scripture to be the word of God, not by an infallible private Spirit, or by vndoubted criteria, or signes appearing in Scripture it self, as some other Protestants teach; nor by the Church as infallibly assisted by the Direction of the Holy Ghost, according to the Doctrine of Catholikes: but from the Tradition of all Churches, meerly as they are an Aggregation of men subject to Errour, and as their consent is derived to vs by History and humane Tradition. The private Spirit (which must be tryed by Scripture, and not Scripture by it) and those pretended manifest signes found in Scripture it self, are meere fopperyes, confuted, by the experience of so many learned men, who hertofore haue differed, and of Protestants, who at this day differ about the Canon of Scripture; and this forceth you to say to your Adversary (Pag: 69. N. 46.) That the divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from it self alone, but by some extrinsecall Authority, you need not pro [...]e, for no wise man d [...]nyes it. And therfor wheras Protestants teach, that the Church is only an inducement, and not the certaine ground, for which we belieue Scripture, you in opposition to them, affirme that those criteria or signes are only Inducements; but that the ground to receyve Scripture, is the Church, in the manner I haue declared. Out of these considerations, you choose rather to be sacrilegious, then seeme to be simple, or no wise man; and therfor teach that Christian Faith is not infallibly true, but only probable: Which being a doctrine detested by other Protestants, and by all, respectiyely, who profess any Religion, and Worshipp of God, it followes that we must receyue Scripture from the Church of God, acknowledged to be infallible. This being once granted, we must further say, that Her infallibility is vniversall in all things concering matters of Faith and Religion: neither is it possible to bring some other infallible Authority, to proue the Church infallible in this Point alone. For, to omitt other Reasons, you must proue that Authority, by some other, and so without end. In the meane tyme, we haue reasō to bless our good God, who hath forced Protestāts, at [Page 334]length to see the foolery of a private spirit, and the vanity of manifest signes pretended to be found evidently in scripture; and so come either to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods church, or with Atheists and enemyes of Christian Religion, to deny the infallibility of Christian Faith, by setling the truth therof vpon humane fallible tradition, which say you (Pag. 72. N. 51.) is a principle not in Christianity but in Reason, nor proper to Christians, but common to all men. And (Pag 53. N. 3.) you teach, that scripture may be judge of all controversyes, those only excepted, wherin the Scripture itself is the subject of the Question, which cannot be determined but by naturall Reason, the only Principle beside scripture, which is common to Christians. Behold the Analysis or Resolution of Christian Faith into humane fallible, naturall Reason! But now let vs shew the falshood of this your Errour.

69. First, it is an argument of no small waight, that both in this devise itself you contradict all Catholikes and Protestants, and in the consequence which inavoidably followes it, namely, that the assent of Christian Faith is fallible; wherin, as I sayd, you contradict all Christians, and all men who profess any Religion.

70. 2. Christian Faith is infallible as I haue proved; which it could not be, if the ground on which it relyes were fallible.

71. 3. It hath bene proved that Christian Faith is the Gift of God, and in all occasions requires the supernaturall influence of the Holy Ghost, which yet could not be necessary, if Faith were but a fallible conclusion, evidently deduced from a Principle not in Christianity, but in naturall reason, as we haue heard you profess, and vpon that ground affirme, that Christian Faith is only probable, not raysing our Vnderstanding aboue the probability of humane inducements: wherin it differs frō the judicium credibilitatis of which Catholike Divines speake, and by which practicè and effectually we judg the Articles of Christian Faith, to deserue, and require of vs, vnder payne of damnation, a most certaine infallible belief, beyond all precedent Motives of credibility, which judgment being the beginning of supernaturall Faith, and of it self an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason, requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace.

72. 4. If we receyue Scripture vpon this your fallible Tradition, we shall haue greater certainty of the Bookes of prophane Authours, that they were written by such men, than that the Books of Scripture, were written by those whom we belieue to haue written them; because [Page 335]the Tradition is more full for those, than for these, as I sayd aboue; as also there are many works of those men, which never any Christian or other called in question, wheras scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not bene questioned, even by Christians; as they are despised and denyed by all the enemyes of Christian Religion. It will also follow, for the like reason, that we are more certaine that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England, Coesar, Pompey &c. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ, as I haue shewed already: and yet what Christian can heare such blasphemyes, without just indignation, and horrour?

73. 5. Protestants are wont to object, that we giue greater credit to men, than to the word of God; because we belieue the scripture for the authority of Gods church. This is of no force against vs, who belieue the church to be infallibly assisted, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, and that God speakes by the church, and consequently that the voyce of the church is the voice of God; and so we belieue the word of God, for the authority and Testimony of God; as all must acknowledg the Primitiue of Christians, to haue receyved and believed the Scriptures, vpon the authority of the Apostles, who yet were men, but men inspired and infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost. But the Objection turned against you, is vnanswerable; because you ground the belief of scripture, and all the contents therof, vpon men, expressly as they are fallible, and subject to Errour, whose words you must belieue more than the word of God, according to your owne Rule, (Pag. 377. N. 59.) we must be surerof the Proofe, than of the thing proved, otherwise it is no Proofe.

74. This Argument I confirme by your words (Pag. 143. N. 30.) There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility, as for the Apostles and Scriptures. For, if the church fall into Errour, it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles Doctrine and scripture. But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we haue recourse, for the discovering and correcting their errour? Againe, there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation: and if but wise men haue the ordering of the building, they will make it much a surer thing, that the Foundation shall not fail the building, then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation. Now the Apostles and Prophets, and Canonicall writers are the foundation of the Church; therfor their stability in Reason ought to be greater then the [Page 336]Churches, which is built vpon them. Again, a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine as that on which it depends: But the infallibility of the Church depends vpon the infallibility of the Apostles, as the streightness of the thing regulated, vpon the streigness of the Rule. Therfor the Churches infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Apostles. This is your discourse, which I pray you apply to our present purpose, in this manner. There is not the same reason for the Scriptures infallibility, as for Tradition. For, if some Apocryphall Scripture be obtruded for Canonicall, it may be reformed by comparing it with vniversall Tradition; But if vniversall Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture, to whom or to what, shall we haue recourse for the discovering, and correcting that errour of proposing Apocryphall Scripture? Againe, if but wise men haue the ordering of a building, they will make it a much surer thing, that the Foundation shall not faile the building, then that the building shall not fall from the foundation. Now, vniversall Tradition of men subject to errour, is to you the Foundation of Scripture; therfor their authority in (your) reason ought to be greater then the Scripture which is built vpon them. Againe a dependent infallibility cannot be so certaine, as that on which it depends; But the infallibility of Scripture, depends vpon the infallibility of vniversall Tradition of men: Therfor the Scriptures infallibility is not so certaine as that of the Tradition of men; that is, neither the one, nor the other is certaine. What say you to this application, and to your Doctrine which forces vs to make it? But this application rests not here. For, as you haue told vs, that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater then that of the Church; so for the same reasons, the infallibility of the Church must be, to vs, greater then that of the Apostles, yea of Christ himself, seing you belieue the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to haue bene infallible, and to haue proved their infallibility with Miracles, only by your vniversall Tradition of the Church, which therfor is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour, depends; and consequently their infallibility is not so certaine to you, as the fallible Tradition of men. For, we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and workes of the Apostles, and our Saviour, by Tradition, and not Tradition by them, because Tradition to you is a Principle in nature, and precedent to our belief of Christ; the Apostles; and Scripture, which depend on it as the streightness of the thing regulated, vpon the streightness of the Rule.

[Page 337]

75. 6. Before we belieue Scripture, in your way, there is no Principle but Reason, placed between Motives (which you confess make it only probable, that Scripture is the Word of God) and Arguments, which seeme very strong and convincing, that the Mysteries contained in Scripture, are contrary to the sayd only Principle, Reason; besides the difficultyes, which to the same Reason seeme great and insuperable, in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to it self; which are so many, and so intricate, as certainly they will appeare to any judicious Man, vnanswerable, without submission to some infallible Authority, as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them; as appeares by the great paynes taken by learned men, and the difference of wayes in satisfying such difficultyes; and finally by a true confession, that when they haue done their vttermost, the last and best refuge is to captivate their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith; and one thing is most certaine and evident, that Protestants reject divers Bookes of Scripture receyved by Catholikes for Canonicall, vpon incomparably less seeming difficultyes, or contradictions, and falshoods, then are found in those Bookes of Scripture, which both Catholikes and Protestants admit: Now (say I) in this case, what shall Reason doe, being left to itself, without any Authority beside itself? The Motives and humane Testimonyes of your tradition produced in favour of Christianity, are only probable, as you affirme; Arguments to the contrary, seeme convincing, and such as haue bene held for Principles, among the best Philosophers, as I shewed vpon another occasion; and therfor Christian Religion is accounted foolishness to the Gentils; (and we treate of the tyme before one is a Christian) who thē will oblige such a Man, being in possession of his Liberty, to accept vnder paine of damnation, an obligation positively to belieue, and to liue according to the Rules of Christian Faith, only vpon fallible inducements, in opposition to so great seeming evidence to the contrary?

76. Neither can you, in your grounds, say, that Miracles wrought in confirmation of Christian Religion, ought to be prevalent against all seeming evidence of reason. For, you teach, that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men; for avoyding of which delusion, it may seeme wisdome, and safest, to sticke close to the Principles of Reason, wherby though he may chance to be deceyved, yet he cannot be accounted rash, imprudent, or inexcusable. 2. you must [Page 338]suppose, that Miracles and all other Motives end in probability alone (for, if they surpass probability, you grant Christian Faith to be infallible) and then the difficulty still remaynes; how one can be obliged to imbrace meere probabilityes, and such, as you confess are not able to rayse our mynd to a higher and more firme assent than they themselves are, against, and as I may say, in despight of seeming evidence of Reason opposed only by such probabilityes. 3. This Answer is not pertinent to our present Question, which is not to treate, how farr one may be obliged by Miracles, either evident by sense, to those who see them wrought, or asserted and delivered, by an authority, believed to be infallible, as we Catholikes belieue Gods church to be: but we speak of Miracles, wrought in great distance of tyme and place from vs, commended and believed only by your fallible tradition, which therfor leaves this doubt, whether one can be obliged to preferr fallible humane tradition, confessedly insufficient to cause a certaine assent, before seeming evidence and certainty of naturall Reason. And it seemes easy to demonstrate that Protestants, if they will be constant to their owne assertions and proceedings, must yield to that seeming evidence of Reason. For, it cannot be denyed without great obstinacy and impudency, that in all ages there haue bene wrought frequent, great, and evident Miracles, by the professours of the Catholique Religion; recorded by men, eminent for learning, wisdome, and Sanctity, who would be credited in whatsoever case or cause of highest concernment, and testifyed not by one, or a few, or many single persons, but by whole Communityes, Cittyes, and Countryes: by meanes of which Miracles, Infidels haue beene, and are at this day converted from the worship of Idols, to know the true God, and whom he hath sent, Jesus Christ: and yet notwithstanding all these Miracles, which are able to convert Pagans, Protestants will not conceiue themselves obliged to belieue, that such Miracles were wrought, or that those Articles of our Faith, in confirmation wherof they were wrought, are true. And why? Because they seeme contrary to naturall Reason; as the Reall Presence, Transubstantiation &c: Seing thē they reject Catholique Doctrines, confirmed by Miracles, in regard of that seeming contrariety to Reason, how can they pretend Reason, to receaue Scripture, and the contents therof; for example the Misteryes of the B. Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Creation of all things out of nothing, the Resurrection of the Dead, and other such Articles which [Page 339]they make shew to belieue, and are no less, yea much more seeming contrary to reason then those doctrines of Catholikes which they reject? Wherfor, our finall Conclusion must be, that to deny an infallible Authority both to propose Scripture and deliver infallible Traditions, is to vndermine and ouerthrow Christian Religion.

77. 7. Since Scripture may be corrupted, (as some haue bene lost) and in particular Protestants affirme, even the Vulgate Translation, which anciently was vsed in the Church, to be corrupted, as also the Greek and Hebrew, your Tradition cannot secure vs, what in particular is, or is not corruted, because it delivers only as it were in gross, such or such Bookes, but cannot with certainty informe vs of all corruptions,, additions, varietyes, and alterations, as occasion shall require. Thus, some, both Catholikes and Protestanis teach, that Additions haue been made even to Pentateuch; others assirme the same of the Bookes of Josue, Kings, and Hieremy; and the like Additions might, and perhaps haue been made to other Bookes, at least we cannot be sure of the contrary, if we consult only your fallible Tradition; neither can we know by it, that such Additions proceeded from the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And as Protestants are wont to say, that a very great number of Catholique Doctrines (which they vntruly call errours) crept in by little and little (as you also say Pag: 91. N. 101.) so what certainty can they haue, that corruptions in Scriptures, yea whole Apocriphall Bookes, may not in tyme haue gained the repute of being Canonicall? As for corruptions in Scripture, you speak dangerously in saying (Pag: 141. N. 27.) As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farr from being a proof of the Scriptures incorruption, that no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of Scripture: which yet are as subject to corruption as any other, and more likly to haue bene corrupted (if it had bene possible) then any other, and made to speake as they do, for the advantage of those mē, whose ambitiō it hath bene a long tyme, to bring all vnder their authority. And afterward: I would aske, how shall I be assured, that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these pla [...]es (which arealledged to proue the infallibility of the Church?) seing it is possible, and not altogeather improbable, that these men, which desire to be thought infallible, whē they had the government of all things in their owne hands, may haue altered them for their purpose. Do not these words giue scope for the enemyes of Christian Religion, to object that we cannot be certaine of any Text of Scripture, whether or no it be incorrupted? For, as you say, it is not altogeather improbable, that we haue altered [Page 340]some places for our purpose, of proving the infallibility of the Church; so you may say, we haue done the same in other places to prove other Points of our belief: and the like may be sayd of all others, who teach different Doctrines; that they will incline to corrupt Scripture, in favour of their severall Sects. Neither can we haue any certainty, whether this which may be done, hath not bene practised, and so all comes to be vncertaine, vnless we admit some infallible Living guide.

78. But here I must reflect how apt you are in every occasion to write contradictoryes. You say of the places of Scripture, wherby we proue the in fallibility of the Church, that they are as subject to corruption as any other, and more likly to haue bene corrupted (if it had bene possible) then any other, a [...]d made to speak as they do, for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath bene a long tyme, to bring all vnder their authority. You say, that those places are more likly to haue bene corrupted if it had bene possible; which signifyes, that it was not possible: and yet a few lines after, you affirme that it is possible, and not altogeather improbable, that we haue done it. Is the same thing not possible, ād possible, or, not possible ād yet not improbable? Beside, you say, it is more likly those places which we alledg for the infallibility of the Church, haue bene corrupted (if it had been possible) than any other, ād made to speake as they do for our advantage: Wherin you confess that actually some places of Scripture speake for our advantage; and then who are you, to controwle Gods Word, and speak against those, for whose advantage it speakes? Morover you say, no proof can be pretended for the infallibility of the Church, but incorrupted places of Scripture; where you signify, that nothing can be proved, vnless we know certainly what places be incorrupted. Now I aske: whether it was possible for vs to corrupt those places which we bring to proue the infallibility of the Church, or it was not possible? If it were not possible; then you wrong vs, in saying, that it is both possible, and not altogeather improbable, that we haue done it. If it be possible then as I sayd, what certainty haue you, that we haue not done it, seing you say, it is both possible, and not improbable that we haue done so? Or what certainty can you haue, that others haue not done the like in other Texts for defence of their severall Doctrines?

79. Lastly. You still go vpon a false ground; that we cannot proue the Church, otherwise then by Scripture; wheras we must first proue Scripture, by the Church.

80. 8. How vncertaine your kind of Tradition is, appeares by [Page 341]your owne words, which are such, as no enemy of Christian Religion could haue vttered more to the prejudice therof, than you doe (Pag: 90. N. 101.) Where in the Person of a member of the Protestāt Church of England: you speake to Catholiks in this manner: You haue wronged so exceedingly his (Christs) Miracles and his Doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the confirmation of your new Doctrine; which might giue vs just occasion, had we no other assurance of them but your Authority, to suspect the true ones. (what Authority haue you but that of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her?) Who with forging so many false Storyes, and false Authors, haue taken a faire way to make the Faith of all Storyes Questionable; if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority; who haue brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which, you confess to be the word of Christ (ô portentuous vntruth!) and which, for the most part, make either for the honour or profit of the Teachers of them: which (if there were no difference between the Christian and the Roman Church) would be very apt to make suspt [...]ious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention, taught by some cunning Impostors, only to make themselves rich and powerfull; (I pray you, what good Christians were there before Luther, except Roman Catholiques, and such as agreed with them? And therefore what difference can you put between good Christians and Roman Catholicks?) Who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remay ne vncorrupted. For if you take this Authority vpon you, vpon the six Ages last past; how shall we know, that the Church of that tyme, did not vsurpe the same Authority vpon the Authors of the six last Ages before them; and so vpwards till we come to Chrict himself? Whose questioned Doctrines, none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition, but haue insinuated themselves into the streames, by little and little, some in one Age, and some in another, some more Anciently, some more lately, and some yet are Embryos, yet hatching, and in the shell. Thus you; and then conclude; Seeing therefore the Roman Church is so farr from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ, that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it; why should I not much rather conclude, seeing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome, neither from her must we take his Doctrine, or the Interpretation of Scripture.

81. Now let the Reader consider. 1. If the Roman Church, and all [Page 342]those Churches which agreed with Her before Luther, that is, all true Churches of Christ, be such a thing as he describes, what can they contribute to make vp any part of his vniversall Tradition? Yea she must needs make it suspected for false, fallacious, fraudulent. And then what Tradition will remayne creditable, or even considerable? The Greeke Church agreed, and at this day agrees with Catholiques against Protestants, as is manifest and confessed by learned Protestants, for which cause they did directly refuse to joyne with Luther and his Associates. The Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Aethiopians, or Abissines, either hold the Doctrine of Eutyches, which even Protestants detest as a damnable Heresy, or vse Circumcision, or for the rest agree with the Greek and Roman Church, and they can contribute little to your Tradition. I desire the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned C 5. from N. 48. to 54. were he will find clearly demonstrated what I haue now sayd of the Greek, and other Churches. Since then you blast the credit of the Roman Church, and such as agreed with Her against Protestants, there will remayne no Tradition at all.

82. 2. You say: That we by forging Miracles Might giue just occasion, had you no assurance of them but our Authority, to suspect the true ones, of Christ; and by forging so many false storyes, and false Authors, haue taken a faire way to make the faith of all Storyes questionable, if you had no other ground for your belief of them, but our Authority. This is your Assertion or Major Proposition: to which if an enemy of Christian Religion will subsume, and add this Minor which is evidently true: But you can haue no assurance of Miracles, and ground for belief of Storyes, but by our Testimony or Tradition, as I haue clearly proved; What will be the Conclusion, but this; That there is just occasion to suspect true Miracles of Christ, and Question all Storyes? Behold the effect of your Tradition! This I confirme out of what you say in your Answer to the Direction, where having first set downe your nynth Motive to be a Catholique, in these words: Because the Protestant cause is now, and hath been from the beginning, mayntayned with grosse falsifications, and calumnyes: wherof their prime controversy Writers, are notoriously, and in high degree guilty: Your answer is this (N. 43.) To the 9. Iliacos intra muros peccatur & extra. Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants. Which though it be very false, as it touches vs, and not so much as offered to be proved by you, yet it clearly destroyes your owne kind of Tradition. For if both Protestants and Catholiks be notoriously, and in high degree guilty of gross [Page 343]falsifications in these tymes, why may not the same be sayd to Heretiks in former Ages according to your deduction from the six Ages last past, to the six last Ages before them, and vpward till we come to Christ himself? And so neither Catholikes, nor Protestants need now, corrupt Authors or Historyes, but will find it done to their hands; vnless your meaning be that Protestants maintayne their cause with more gross falsifications and Calumnyes, and are more notoriously, and in a higher degree guilty therof than any Heretiks before them. But why do I speak by Inferences, and argue by parity of reason? Since you also expressly, directly, and immediatly assirme what I inferred, while you say to vs: If you take this Authority vpon you, vpon the six Ages last; how shall we know, that the Church of that tyme, did not vsurpe the same Authority vpō the Authors of the six last Ages before thē; and so vpwards till we come to Christ himself? In which words you say much more then I inferrd, that by your reasō we could not be sure but that as Protestāts are, by your owne confession, notoriously guilty of gross falsifications in a high degree, so former heretiks haue bene. For you speake even of the Church, and aske, how shall we know, that the Church of that tyme did not Vsurpe the same Authority (of corrupting) vpon the Authors of the last six Ages before them, and so vpwards till &c: And this will appeare more easy to haue bene done in the tymes nearest our Saviour and the Apostles, when fewer Authors did write, in so much as some Protestants affirme S. Justine to be the first whose Writings are not spurious, and that helived A ^o 140. And if the first writings and storyes be once corrupted, what certainty can we haue of the rest? And then, Good Sr. If we cannot know, but that the Church hath done this, what is become of your tradition, which, for ought you proofess to know, will deliver only fained Authors, corrupted Storyes, forged Miracles, Apocriphall Scriptures? But in this lyes a mystery not knowen to every one, vnless he haue some acquaintance with Socinian Writers, who press Protestants with this Argument: If the Church might erre, and is belieued by you to haue erred in the Ages next precedent to Luther, and so vpwards from Age to Age, till the first six hundred yeares after Christ, (which you say were pure) what certainty or solid Reason can you alledg, why the Church might not also erre in those yeares, since you do not hold Her to haue bene Infallible? An Argument vnanswerable by Protestants, who ther for must either admit the Church in all Ages to be infallible, or els [Page 344]can haue no certainty, that she did not erre, or corrupt, or permitted the corruption of Authors and Storyes, and Scriptures, and forging of Miracles in any Age farr from, or neere to the Apostles.

83. 3. If the motives of Honour and profit which you Object against the Roman Church, Would be very apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion was a humane invention, taught by some cunning Impostors to make themselves rich and powerfull, if there were no difference between the Christian and Roman Church: I beseech you, either informe vs, what Christian Church distinct from the Roman, or such as agreed with Her against Protestants, was there before Luther, to wipe away this your cause of suspition? Or els giue vs leaue to inferr, that you grant there was indeed cause of that suspotion. You say (Pag: 14. N. 14.) I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to proue a perpetuall visible Church distinct from yours. If this be not necessary, it remaynes, either, that it is not necessary to free Christian Religion, from being esteemed a humane invention taught by some cunning Impostors, or that you are highly and even ridiculously injurious against the Roman Church, as if she a one, though not distinct from the Protestant Church, could give occasion of any such wicked suspicion: and finally that if still you will say, there is any thing which would be apt to make suspicious men belieue that Christian Religion is a humane invētion, it must be the Christian church herself, which is a blasphemy fit for such as you are, who reduce our belief of Scripture and the assent of Christian Faith, to Probability, Opinion; and meere humane Tradition, and such as being (according to your Principles) for ought you know, corrupted, is no better than a humane invention.

84. 4. What you say of vs, (Whose questioned Doctrines, none of them came from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition, but haue insinuated themselselves into the streames, by litle, and litle, some in one Age, and some in another, some more Anciently, and some more lately) makes, as I touched aboue, a faire way to say the same of some Bookes, or parcells, or clauses of Scripture, and of any Point of Christian Faith; which some insidel, or Heretike, or other enemy of Christian Religion will say, came not from the fountaine of Truth, but haue insinuated themselves, into the streames, by litle, and litle, &c: which being once granted, as possible to happen, (and we are not sure but in fact that happened, if we deny a Living watchfull Guide, assisted infallibly by the Direction of the Holy Ghost) Your Tradition will also loose all credit, as being subject to the [Page 345]like danger of not coming from the fountaine of Apostolike Tradition, but of being corrupted, forged, and having insinuated itself by litle, and litle &c: For if this may happen so easily to Authors, Historyes, Tradition, and Doctrine, your Tradition being confessedly no other but humane Historye, is manifestly subject to the same exception, and totall vncertainty.

85. 5. You say of vs: who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable, whether any remaine incorrupted. I beseech you where, or when made we profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors? Yourself know this to be a vast vntruth. But if it were true, and were a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remaine incorrupted, it seemes (by this your owne saying) you cānot haue your Traditiō frō any sort of Authors, which may not be justly questioned, whether or no they remaine vncorrupted, And is not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture, and all Christian Religion? May not the enemyes of Christian Religion, triumph, and say we can alledg no Authors which may not justly be questioned, whether they be not corrupted? Which in effect is all one for erecting an Act of Faith, as if we were sure, they were corrupted.

86. 6. You say: Seing the Roman church is so farr from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ, that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it; why should I not much rather Conclude: Seing we receiue not the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome, neither from her must we take his Doctrine, or interpretation of Scripture? But still I must aske, from what true Christian church could England, or any member of any church in England, receyue the Scripture and knowledg of Christ, except from the Church of Rome, and such as agreed with Her? You confess it is not necessary to proue any church distinct from ours before Luther, and yet you will not deny, but it is necessary to receiue the Scripture from some church, seing you profess to belieue the Scripture (which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ) vpon the sole Authority of the church, and therfor you must take the direct negatiue of your conclusion, and say: seing we receiue the knowledg of Christ and Scriptures from the church of Rome, from her we must take his Doctrine and the interpretation of Scripture. Having thus pondered your sayings, and proved that they overthrow Christian Religion, we may now goe forward to impugne this your Tradition. And therfor

[Page 346]

87. 9. We haue shewed, how vncertaine and dangerous your Tradition must needs be, by reason of corruption to which all writings haue bene subject, if your Assertions were true. But besides this, I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of it self, ād much more if you add the sayd danger of corruption. (Pag: 273. N. 56.) You alledg Charity Maintayned saying (Part. 1. Chap: 5. N. 17.) VVhen Luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true Churches, one pure, the other corrupted. For, to faine this diversity of two Churches, cannot stand with record of Historyes, which are silent of any such matter; and then you reply, in these words: The ground of this is no way certaine, nor here sufficiently proved. For, wheras you say, Historyes are silent of any such matter, I answer, there is no necessity, that you or I should haue redd all Historyes that may be extant of this matter, nor that all should be extant that were written, much less extant vncorrupted: especially considering your Church, which had lately all power in her hands, hath bene so perniciously industrious, in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her; nor that all records should remayne which were written; nor that all should be recorded which was done. Nothing could haue bene spoken more effectually, to proue the necessity of a Living Judge; who being once vpon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible, (as the Apostles proved their owne infallibility) takes away all doubt, or possibility of feare, least the want, or corruption, or alteration, or contrariety of any writings, or records, may weaken our Belief of whatsoever such an Authority proposes. For, till one be setled in the strength of such an Authority, one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition, whether there may not be extant some Storyes, Records, or Tradition, contrary to that which he followes, there being no necessity that he should haue redd all Storyes, nor that all Historyes or Records should be extant that were written; which if they had bene extant, and had come to his knowledg, perhaps might haue moved him to relinquish the Tradition, which now he embraceth; nor that all should be recorded which was done; and therfor he cannot tell whether somthing may not haue bene done, repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to belieue; nor finally, whether the Tradition on which he relyes, hath not bene corrupted, and therfor sit only to lead him into, and keepe him, in errour. Which yet is further confirmed by your words (Pag: 266. N. 35.) Why may not you mistake in thinking that in former Ages, in some country or other, there were not [Page 347]alwayes some good Christians, which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal? And then Sr: why may not you mistake, in thinking, that in former ages there were not alwayes some good Christians, who did not agree with those from whom you take your Vniversall Tradition, which therfor will indeed cease to be Vniversall? Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself? And yet my next Reason will affoard more in this kind.

88. 10. I take an Argument from what you deliver (Pag: 130. N. 6.) where, impugning some who as you say, Hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councells by the Vniversall Church, to be the only way to decide Controversyes; You haue these words: VVhat way of ending controversyes can this be, when either part may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and they receaue not the decree, therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it? I beseech you, apply your owne words thus: what way of ending Controversyes about the Canon of Scripture, can this be, when either part may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and they receiue it not, therfor the whole Church hath not receyved it? By this doctrine of yours, those Heretiks who (as you confess Pag: 361. N 40. out of S. Irenaeus) did accuse the Scriptures, as if they were not right, and came not from good Authority, might haue defended themselves, by saying, the whole Church had not receyved them, because they themselves were part of the Church, and did not receiue them. According to this account, your vniversall Tradition comes to be nothing; because whosoever dissent from the rest, will be ready to say, that they also are part of the whole, and so no Tradition contrary to them, can be vniversall; just as you say, that Luther and his fellowes departed not from the whole Church, because they did not depart from themselves, and they were part of the Church. Also (Pag: 362. N. 41.) You overthrow your owne Tradition, while you write thus: Though the constant and vniversall delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolike Churches ever since the Apostles, be a very great Argument of the truth of it. Yet there is no certainty but that truth, even Divine truth, may through mens wickedness, be contracted from its vniversality, and interrupted in its perpetuity; and so loose this Argumēt, and yet not want others to justify and support itself. For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all mens harts, or a conclusion evidently arising from them: It may be either contayned in Scripture in express termes, or deducible from it by apparēt consequēce. But good Sr. seing that the Canō of Scripture, or what Books be Cāonicall, is not one of those principles, [Page 348]which God hath written in mens harts, nor a conclusion evidently arising from them▪ nor is contained in Scripture in express termes, or deducible from it by apparent consequence, it being your owne Assertion (Pag: 69. N. 46.) that it need not to be proved, that the Divinity of a writing cannot be knowne from itself alone, but by some extrinsecall Authority; for no wise man denyes it; it followes, that according to your Principles it can be knowne only by the constant and Vniversall delivery of all Churches ever since the Apostles. Now, as you say, there is no certainty but that a Doctrine or truth, even a Divine truth, constantly and vniversally delivered by the Apostolique Churches, may through mens wickedness be contracted from its vniversality and interrupted in its perpetuity; So also may the Canon, or Bookes of Scripture (which can haue no other argumēt to justify and support them beside Tradition) run the some hazard by the wickednenss of mē, and so come to loose vniversality ād perpetuity, ād so cannot justify ād support any Divine truth. And as true Books may come to loose, so false ones may, by the wickedness of mē, come to gaine authority, vnless we be assured of the contrary, by the belief of an infallible Guide, which can never admit of Apocryphall, of false Scripture.

89. 11. I goe forward to impugne your Tradition out of your owne words (Pag: 14. N. 14.) were you say: Though you say, that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetuall visible Church; Yet you yourselves doe not pretend, that he hath promised there shallbe Historyes and Records alwayes extant of the professours of it in all ages: nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them. Out of these words I argue thus: It is not sufficient for your vniversall Tradition of all Ages, that the whole Church of this age, for example, accept a Booke for Canonicall, vnless it can be proved to haue bene receyved by all Churches of all ages, as (Pag: 152. N. 44.) You openly profess to dissent from S. Austine in this: that whatsoever was practised or [...]eld by the vniversall Church of his tyme; must needs haue come from the Apostles; and therfor it is necessary for you to affirme, that there alwayes must be Historyes and records, which one Age is to receyve from another, to proue that Scripture was delivered for the word of God by the Apostles; But You do not pretend that God hath promised that there shall be Historyes or Records alwayes extant; nor that he hath any where enjoyned vs to reade these Historyes that we may be able to shew them, and by them know the true Books of Scripture. Therfor you must grant out of your owne assertion, that you haue no sufficient meanes to know and rely vpon your Tradition: especially if [Page 349]we consider, that vnlearned men cannot possibly know, whether there be such sufficient ground, and Historyes, as are necessary to make it Vniversall; and yet all sorts of people, must haue necessary and sufficient meanes for the knowledg of all things necessary to salvation: which meanes Protestants affirme to be the Scripture alone. But with vs the case is farr different, who belieue a Perpetuall Visible Church. For, we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age, as well as in another, are not obliged to seeke after historyes or Records of tymes past (as you are for your humane fallible Tradition,) in regard the Church being alwayes existent and Visible, is perpetually indued whith such Notes, Prerogatives, and Evident Signes, as make her manifest in every age, and worthy of credit in matters belonging to Religion; and among other Points, for this in particular, that herself must alwayes be Visible, as shall be declared herafter more at large; though it be also true, that it may be evidently shewed, for every age, by all kind of Witnesses, as well friends as Adversaryes, that our Church hath alwayes had a visible Being, and Prosessours of her Doctrine, with a perpetuall Succession of Pastours; and this so manifestly, that it can no more be denyed, than that there haue bene Christians ever since the tyme of the Apostles; yea or that there have bene Emperours, Kings, Writers, Warrs, or such publike things, as no man can deny. But you (who ground. your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity vpon a fallible Tradition, knowne by Humane Historyes and Records of all ages) and every one of your sect, must either despayre of salvation, or els procure to be learned, and versed in all Historyes: though yet even this will not preserue them from cause of despaire, considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself, as I haue proved out of your owne words; and to the rest, I will add your saying (Pag: 361. N. 40.) The Fathers did vrge the joynt Trad [...] all the Apostelique Churcher, with one mouth and one voyce, teaching the same Doctrine, not at a demonstration, but only as a very probable▪ Argument. If this be so; seing your vniversall Tradition can, I hope, be no better than the joynt Tradition of all the Apostolique Churches, surely you can Vrge it only for a very probable, and no demonstratiue Argument: especially, if we reflect, that you profess the whole vniversall Church before Luthers tyme, to haue fallen into many, great, and gross errours, even concerning the Canon of Scripture, and consequently, that the first vniversall Tradition, from the Apostles, came to be altered and corrupted; and that your forsayd very [Page 350]probable Argument de facto hath fayled, if your Heresy were true, that the whole Church hath fallen into errour.

90. 12. (Pag: 149. N. 38.) You say: I must learne of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall. For how can I come to know, that there was such a Man as Christ, that he taught such Doctrines, that he and his Apostles did such Miracles in confirmation of it, that the Scripture is Gods Word, vnless I be taught it? So then the church is, though not a certaine foundation and proof of my Faith, yet a necessary introduction to it. I confess I haue studyed to find what sense you can haue in these words; and can find nothing but contradictions: and finally, that your owne Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture. You say, I must learne of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall: And in particular, That Scripture is the Word of God. I aske [...] what you meane by the Church, or some part of the Church? Is your meaning, that the Tradition of some part of the Church is sufficient to believe Scripture to be the Word of God? Against this you profess every where, that the Scripture is to be receyved only vpon vniversall Tradition of all Churches, and Times from the Apostles. At least, will you haue it a necessary introduction to Faith? I do not see how you can say this, seing you profess to disallow S. Austines saying, as we haue seene a little before: That, Whatsoever was practised or held by the vniversall Church of his tyme, must needs haue come from the Apostles: and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith, which either contaynes a falshood, or is confessedly subject to errour, as de facto you Protestants proclaime, that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into grosse, and as you speake, damnable errours: and you also say (Pag: 148. N. 36.) An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing: and if it were in any thing, then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls, I should haue the same reason to belieue all, that I haue to belieue one, and therfore must either doe vnreasonably, in believing any one thing, vpon the sole warrant of this Authority, or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it: And therfor you expressly conclude in these words: we belieue Canonicall Books not vpon the Authority of the present Church, but vpon vniversall Traditiō. But then, how is that true, which we haue heard you say: The Church is, though not ā certaine Foundation and proofe of my Faith, yet a necessary introduction to it? For, seing [Page 351]Scripture is the certaine foundation and proofe of your Faith, and that, you belieue the Scripture (not for the private spirit, or other criteria, as some Protestants doe, nor vpon the Authority of the present Church, but) vpon vniversall Tradition, it followes evidently, that Vniversall Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proofe of your Faith. And this you cannot deny, if you remember your owne Doctrine: That men may belieue, and be saved without Scripture, but not without the Church, according to your owne saying: I must learne of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall: and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God. Therfor, say I, the Church is a more necessary, not only introduction to Faith, but also Foundation and proofe of it, then Scripture can be: but if you will persist in this your Assertion, that the Church as you take it for a fallible aggregation of men, is not the Foundation of Faith, and that Scripture both in truth, and according to your owne Principles, must be receyved from the Church; what remaynes, but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion.

91. Lastly: to ptoue how easily men may be deceyved, vnless they rely vpon some infallible Authority, may appeare by what happened to myself, who some yeares agoe, falling vpon a wicked Book, vnder a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesu, about the Authority of Scripture, and as printed in a Catholique cittie; it came to my minde, that in tyme the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes. My thoughts proved Propheticall. For since that tyme, a Catholique learned Writer cites it for such; though vpon better information, he declares afterward, in the same Work, that the Book was written by an Heretique, and printed among Heretiques.

92. And here I will end this Chapter, having proved divers wayes, that according to severall Doctrines of yours, Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith, and much less a perfect one, although we should falsely suppose, that it did contayne evidently, and in particular, all Points necessary to be believed. Wherfor it remaynes, that, seing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and totall Rule of Faith, we declare, what that Meanes is: Which we will endeavour to performe in the next Chapter.

[Page 352]

CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH.

THE Premises set downe in the precedent Chapters, did Virtually and implicitely containe, and leaue it easy for Vs to infer explicitely and expressly, as a conclusion, the Title of this Chapter. For, since Christian Faith is the Gift of God, and infallible; since Scripture alone doth not evidently containe all necessary Points of Faith: since your particular way of receiving Scripture as the word of God, cannot be sufficient to erect an Act of infallible Faith, no nor can be any Rule of Faith, and much less a perfect Rule; it followes necessarily, that there must alwayes be extant a Living. Uisible Judg; which can be no other, but the Church of God, against which, our B. Saviour promised, that the gates of Hell should not prevaile. This Deduction is so cleare, that you are forced to acknowledg it (Pag 326. N. 4.) Where you affirme, That Catholikes would faine haue the Doctrine (of the infallibility of Christian Faith) true, that there might be necessity of our Churches infallibility. Seing then, both Catholikes and Protestants, and al Christians firmely belieue, Christian Faith to be infallible, and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church, it followes that we must either acknowledg in Her such an infallibility, or tell Christians, that for ought they know, all [Page 353]that they belieue of God, of Christ, of Scripture, of the Resurrection, of the Dead, of Heaven, of Hell, of all the Articles of Christian Religion, may proue no better than a dreame, or an imposture, or fiction. Blessed be the infinite Wisdome and Goodness of God, who destroyes the Wisdom of the Wise, and the prudence of the prudent (1. Cor. 1.19.) This Man was picked out among all the men in England, to impugne the Roman Church: his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University, and was excessively cryed vp by his friends, neither did any Writer ever shew greater malice against the Roman Church, than hee. But with what success? No other but this: That Protestants must either deny, with this man, all Certainty of Scripture, and Christianity; or els acknowledg, not the Scripture, but the Church to be Judg of Controversyes in matters cōcerning religiō: that is, they must either renoūce Christianity, by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith, or abandon Protestancy, by condēning their capitall doctrine of the fallibility of the Church, and sufficiency of Scripture alone; and so must returne to belieue, and obey, the Decrees, and Definitions of Generall Councells, and with them condemne the Heresyes which now themselves maintayne. This then may be my first Argument to proue the infallibility of Gods Church: and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians: yet

2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judg appeares also, by what hath bene sayd about Translations, Additions, Detractions Corruptions, and loss of some Scriptures, which would leaue vs in doubt and perplexity, vnless we believed an infallible Authority, able to supply all such defects, and provide for all events.

3. 3. Out of Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 64. N. 19.) There must be some Judg fit for all sorts of Persons, learned and vnlearned, which the ignorant may vnderstand, and to whom the greatest Clerks must submit: Such is the Church; and the Scripture is not such.

4. 4. To this Argument you answer (Pag: 92. N. 104.) saying: The Scripture is sufficiently perfect, and sufficiently intelligible in things necessary to all that haue vnderstanding, whether they be learned or vnlearned. And my reason herof is convincing and Demonstratiue, because nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed.

5. This Answer is nothing to your purpose, vnlesse you add. That nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed in [Page 354]Scripture: and that being added, it is a meere begging of the Question, taking that for a Proofe, which is the thing controverted betweene vs so farr is your Reason from being convincing and demonstratiue! You should haue vsed a direct contrary forme of Argument, and sayd: The Scripture is not cleare in poynts of greatest moment, even to the learned, (as experience teaches, and I proved hertofore at larg) Therfor God hath not fayled to provide vs of some Judg and rule intelligible to all; which is his Visible Church on earth.

6. But say you, (Pag. 93. N. 106.) The Evangelists did not write only for the learned, but for all men. And therfor, vnless we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to haue been willfully wanting to their owne desire and purpose, we must conceiue that they intended to speake plaine, even to the capacity of the simplest; at least, touching all things nec [...]ssary to be published by them, and believed by vs.

7. Answer. 1. In this whole Controversy: whether the Scripture alone be a Rule of Faith without the Church, you goe vpon humane and topicall discourses, wheras if all matters of Faith are to be tryed by Scripture alone, your Arguments should be taken from it alone. For, by humane Reason, we cannot be assured of Gods voluntary Decree, whether or no he will haue vs regulated by Scripture alone. 2. To make your discourses haue any shew of proofe, you must still begg the Question, and suppose that there is no meanes left for vs to learne matters of Faith, except the Scripture: and therfor you say, the Holy Ghost and the Evangelists had bene wilfully wanting to their owne desire and purpose, vnless they had written to the capacity of the simplest, at least all things necessary to be published by thē, ād believed by vs, which supposes all things necessary must needs be written, and that no such poynt could be delivered by the Church, though not expressed in Scripture: which is manifestly false, seing the Evangelists wrote, while the Apostles were aliue, and could deliver by word of mouth not only some, but all necessary or profitable Articles of Faith, as Christians were taught for those yeares before which no Scripture of the New Testament was written: and therfor I may turne the Argument vpon yourself, and say; At that tyme, there was no necessity, that the Gospells should be written to all, yea or to any: and therfor supposing the writing of them, you cannot suppose that they were plaine, even to the capacity of the simplest. If writing were so necessary for all, then enters your owne Argument against yourself: How the Holy Ghost, and the Evangelists were [Page 355]not wanting to their duty, in differring so long to write; in so much as S. Johns Gospell was not written many yeares after our Saviours Ascention, that is, about the yeare 99. which makes it cleare, that writing was not so necessary. I do not deny, but when they wrote, they wrote for all, but not as if all must of themselves be able to vnderstand them without the helpe of the Church (and in this sense we may say, they rather wrote for all, than to all) otherwise all must be obliged to learne to read, yea and to be learned, and be able to judg of languages, translations &c. seing from Scripture alone they must learne all Points necessary to salvation. Do not you teach, that if one should belieue all the Mysteryes of Christian Religion, though he should not belieue, but even reject Scripture, yet he may be saved? Therfor much more one may be saved, though he himself vnderstand no Scripture, in case he haue some other to declare it: Yea even the most learned must finally not rely vpon their owne abilityes, or evidence of Scripture, but vpon the infallible Voice and Interpretation of the Church, as we haue proved. Not only the Gospells, but all Scripture was written for all, that is, for the good of all, one way or other: and yet I hope, you will not say it is necessary, that all must by themselves vnderstand all Scripture. Do you thinke in good earnest, that none is so vnlearned, as not to vnderstand all the foure Gospells? And yet you say, they did not write only for the learned, but for all men. You will say: at least they must be plaine to all, touching all things necessary to be believed. Yes, if first you take for true and granted, that which you know we deny: that all things necessary are contayned in Scripture alone, or that we can learne them by no other meanes than by Scripture itself. And this your Limitation (at least) insinuates, that you cannot affirme the Gospells to be cleare in all Points: and yet, as I sayd, and as you say, the Evangelists did not write only for the learned, but for all men.

8. You say; This (writing the Gospells) was one especiall meanes of the preaching of the Gospell, which was commanded to be preached, not only to learned men, but to all men.

9. Answer: Preaching and writing are different things, and we are not wont to say, that men preach by writing, or write by preaching; yet if you meane only, that writing the Scripture is one especiall meanes for divulging or publishing the Gospell, I grant it, and acknowledg an infinite obligation to God, for having vouchsafed to [Page 356]inspire men for writing the Holy Scripture; but I deny, that writing was a necessary meanes of preaching the Gospell; which the Apostles themselves declared in fact, who instantly after the receiving of the Holy Ghost, set themselves to preach, but not to write, and they who wrote, were but few, and those few performed it, not as a thing necessary, or enjoined, but only vpon incident occasions: Therfor wher you make this Argument; writing was one especiall meanes of the preaching of the Gospell; and therfor must be plaine, even to the capacity of the simplest; you should say the contrary: Writing was no necessary meanes of the preaching the Gospell; and therfor there is no necessity that it be plaine to all. Yourself say (Pag: 35. N. 7.) Plaine sense will teach every man, that the necessity of the meanes must alwayes be measured by, and can never exceed the necessity of the end. As if eating be necessary, only that I may liue, then certainly if I haue no necessity to liue, I haue no nece [...]sity to eate. If I haue no need to be at London, I haue no need of a horse to carry me thither. If then, we may learne all things necessary to salvation, without a writing or Scripture (as you grant we may, and as all Christians must grant, for the tyme before Scripture was written) we must say; therfor it is not necessary for that end; and though it were necessary, yet it is not necessary that it be so plaine, as every man may vnderstand it by himself, seing that end of vnderstanding, may be compassed by another meanes, which is the Declaration of Gods Church. And here I beseech you reflect on your owne words (Pag: 79. N. 68.) That it is altogether abhorrent from the goodnesse of God, to suffer an ignorant Laymans soule to perish meercly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation, which yet was commended to him by the Church, which (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he had Reason to rely vpon either aboue all other, or as much as any other. Therfore, say I, we are to belieue, that the Church, on which we must relie, ought to be infallible, that so we may trust her without danger. For if her Authority be fallible, vncertaine, and doubtfull, (yea if de facto she erred) she is liable to your censure (Pag: 37. N. 20.) A doubtfull and Questionable Guide is for mens direction as good as non [...] at all.

10. But here againe (Pag: 93. and Pag: 94. N. 108.) (which is put to two §. §) You object, how shall an vnlearned man amongst vs know which is the true Church; or, what that Church hath decreed; seing the Church hath not bene so carefull in keeping of her Decrees, but that many are lost, and many corrupted; and that even the learned among vs are not [Page 357]agreed concerning diverse things, whether they be de fide or not: Or how shall the vnlearned be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of the Decrees of the Church, than of plaine Texts of Scripture; especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceyved so obscurely, that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them, and are all written in languages which the ignorant vnderstand not; and therfor must of necessity rely herein vpon the vncertaine and fallible Authority of fome particular men, who informe them, that there is such a Decree. And if they were translated into vulgar languages, why the Translators should not be as fallible, as you say the Translatours of the Scripture are, who can possibly imagine? And (N. 109.) you say; How shall an vnlearned man, or indeed any man, be assured of the certainty of any Decree, seing a Councell depends on a true Pope, which, he cannot be, if he came in by Simony, or were not babtized, (which depends on the due Intention of the Minister) or were not rightly ordayned Priest, and this againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret Intention, and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character?

11. This is the summe of what not only you, but other Protestants are wont to object, and it is the vtmost of your endeavours: But will be easily answered, by laying this ground: That both in this, and other Poynts, we must distinguish, between the certainty of a generall ground, or foundation, and the certainty of that particular meanes, by which we actuate, or apply to particular occasions that Generall ground, which, vnless it be first belieued with certainty, cannot haue strength, to moue vs to vndertake with resolution and perseverance, mattters of great difficulty. You say (Pag: 143. N. 30.) There is not so much strength required in the Edisice, as in the Foundation: And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building, they will make it much a sever thing, that the foundition shall not faile the building, then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation.

12. This Truth will better be vnderstood by Examples. That we may prudently yield Obedience, Piety, and Observance, (and be obliged to doe so) towards Magistrates, Parents, and Superious, it is sufficient, that we haue a morall and prudent practicall judgment, that they are such; because that judgment is sufficient, to apply the generall ground, that Obedience, Piety, &c: are due to Magistrates, Parents &c: But if that Generall ground were not certaine, as an evident dictamen of Reason, but only probable, men would not thinke themselves obliged to such dutyes, but rather would stand for their liberty, by [Page 358]pleading possession, and following that other dictamen of Reason, Equity, and Justice, Meliorest conditio possidentis. To Hope for the reward promised to the just after this life it is sufficient, that we haue good Reason, though not certainty, that we are just, or in the state of Grace: But if this generall Principle, The just shall be eternally rewarded, were not certaine, few I feare, would be perswaded to preferr a future vncertainty, before that which they enjoy certainly, and for the present. You say (Pag: 172. N. 71.) The Spirit of Truth may teach a man Truth, and yet he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly: But if one were not certaine of this generall ground, That God of his part, teaches every one sufficiently, men would not easily thinke themselves obliged, or would be induced to vse their best endeavours to learne things, which they belieue cannot be learned, vnless God alone teach them sufficiently, if they had no certainty, that they can hope for any such teaching. And to come neerer to our purpose: If one do verely belieue some particular Poynt to be evidently contained in Scripture: who can oblige him to belieue that Point with absolute certainty, vnless he first belieue Scripture itself to be the infallible word of God? Neither is this enough to make his Assent really infallible (though it were supposed to be casually true) vnless Scripture were not only believed to be the word of God, but that indeed it be so. For, Infallibility of Assent, signifyes two things: the one that de facto the thing for the present is true: the other, that it depends on such constant Causes or Priciples, as cannot in any possible case, or occasion, consist with falshood, or vncertainty, which could not be verifyed, vnless Scripture, in truth, and reality, and not only in opinion or belief, be the word of God. For, though in some one occasion it might chance to speake truth, yet in some other it might faile, and cause vs to fall into some errour. But if we make another kind of supposition, That one is told by his Pastour, or Prelate (whom he might prudently belieue) that some Point is contained in Scripture which indeed is so contayned, ād he beleeue it as cōtayned in that booke which he believes to be the word of God, ād in itself is such, and consequently infallible; in that case, he of whom I spoke, may exercise an infallible act of faith, though his immediate instructour or proposer be not Infallible: because he believes vpon a ground which both is believed to be Infallible, and is such indeed; to wit, the word of God; who therfor will not deny his [Page 359]supernaturall concurse necessary to every true act of Divine Faith: Otherwise, in the ordinary course, there would be left no meanes for the Faith, and salvation of vnlearned persons; from whom, God exacts no more, than that they proceed prudently, according to the measure of their severall capacityes, and vse such diligence, as men ought to vse in a matter of highest moment. All Christians of the primitive Church were not present when the Apostles spoke, or wrote, yea it is not certaine, that every one of those thousands whom S. Peter converted, did heare every sentence he spoke, but might belieue some by relation of others who stood neere.

13. Three things then, are necessary, and sufficient, for exercising an Act of Faith: 1. That the ground itself be infallible. 2. That it exist in that case; for example, that God haue indeed revealed such a truth. 3. That he who believes, proceed prudently. Now, to determine in particular, when one may be judged to proceed prudently, depends on divers circumstances, of Persons, capacity, instruction &c. What I haue exemplifyed in Scripture, may be applyed to Divine Revelation in generall, which could not be the Formall Object, or Motiue of our Faith, if it colud beare witness to any least vntruth; and yet we may belieue by an Act of true Faith, that which we only prudently belieue that God hath revealed, if indeed he hath revealed it. And so, the first ground which I layd, is true; that the Foundation vpon which we finally rely, must be absolutly certaine, whatsoever the particular meanes by which such Foundation, or Principle is applyed, may chance to be. This I say is true, speaking of particular persons, cases, motives, and, as I may say, in actu exercito, without, touching for the present other Questions.

14. This ground being premised, I demonstrate, That both learned and vnlearned Catholikes, haue a firme Foundation, vpon which they build their Faith: and that Protestants, whether they be learned or vnlearned, haue no such ground.

15. First: we haue proved that Scripture doth not contayne all necessary Points of Faith: and therfor for those necessarie Points which are not to be found in Scripture, they must either be ignorant of them, or erre by denying them, or els belieue them vpon the Authority of the Church, which they expressly and obstinately hold to be fallible: and so we may apply against them, your owne words (Pag: 148. N. 36.) where you expressly grant, that vnless the Church be Infallible in all [Page 360]things, we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake, and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing. For, an Authority subject to errour, can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing: and if it were in any thing, then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls, I should haue the same reason to believe all, that I haue to belieue one; and therfor must either do vnreasonably, in believing any one thing, vpon the sole warrant of this Authority, or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it. Out of which words it followes, that you cannot believe any one Point of Faith for the Authority of the Church, and that it were vnreasonable in you to doe so; and an vnreasonable and imprudent Act cannot be supernaturall, or be pleasing to God, nor proceed from the speciall motion of the Holy Ghost, as every Act of Divine Faith must doe. Therfor, since Protestants rely vpon Scripture alone, which contaynes not all necessary Points of Faith, the best learned amongst them must be destitute of somthing necessary to salvation, and then what shall we say of the vnlearned, who depend on their teachers? But it is cleare, that Catholikes learned and vnlearned, who belieue the infallibility of the church, may learne of Her, and by tradition, or the vnwritten word of God, what is not particularly contained in his written word, or Scripture.

16. But here, as in divers other occasions, I must vnexpectedly, yet necessarily, make some stay. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap: 3. N. 15. Pag: 94.) hath these words: If I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture, receyved for such, I may doubt of all: and thence by the same parity I inferr, That if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Poynts, we could not belieue Her in any one, and so not in propounding Canonicall Bookes, or any other Points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall. At these words you take exception (Pag: 148. N. 36.) and say; By this Reason your Proselyts knowing you are not infallible in all things, must not, nor cannot belieue you in any thing. Nay you yourself must not belieue yourself in any thing, because you know that you are not infallible in all things. Indeed if you had sayd, we could not rationally belieue her for herowne sake, and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing, I should willingly grant the consequence. which you proue in the next words (alledged by me aboue) For, an authority subject to errour, can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing &c:

17. Answer. You haue no reason to cavill at the words of Charity Maintayned, which are very cleare, and containe no more then what [Page 361]we haue heard yourself expressly teaching, That an Authority subject to errour can be no firme Foundation of my belief in, any thing. And therfor He sayd expressly, if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some Points, we could not belieue her in any one. Where you see, he speakes of Infallibility, which is destroyed by any one least errour; and consequently cannot possibly be vnderstood otherwise than of believing the Church for her owne infallibility, and Authority; and being so vnderstood, yourself profess willingly to grant the consequence, which is the very same which Charity Maintained did inferr; and even out of the very same reason which you did giue. Besides, he speakes expressly of Scripture and the Church, in order to the proposing of Canonicall Scripture, or believing other Points of Faith, Fundamentall or not Fundamentall, which require a Proposer vniversally infallible, as yourself grant. And so (to answer your Objection) no body can belieue me, nor I can belieue my self, for my owne authority, in matters which require certainty and Infallibility, (as all Points of Faith doe) vnless I were believed to be infallible in all things, for the same reason, which we haue heard yourself giue; that an Authority subject [...]o errour can be no firme Foūdation of my belief in any thing But, you say, there is no cōsequēce in this Argument, (which you say is like to myne) the d [...]vell is not infallible; therfor if he sayes, there is one God, I cannot belieue him. No Geometrician is infallible in all things, therfor not in the things which he demonstrates. N. N. is not infallible in all things, therfor he may not belieue, that he wrote a Booke, entituled Charity Maintayned.

18. Answer. It is very true, that I cannot belieue the Divell, with an infallible Assent, for his owne Authority, in saying, there is one God, vnless I belieue him to be infallible. But if he proue what he sayes, by some evident demonstration, I do not belieue him for his Authority, but I yield Assent to the demonstration proposed by him, for the evidence and certainty of the thing itself, proved by such a demonstration; and so alwayes infallibility in our Assent, requires infallibility in the Ground or Motiue therof: As de facto the Divell himself knowes with an infallible internall Assent, yea, and as I may say, feeles to his cost, that there is a God; but whether you can belieue him with certainty, when exteriourly he vtters that, or any other Point, meerly for his Authority, is nothing to our purpose, though it seemes, you can best diue into his intentions, by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motiue, where you say; The Divell [Page 362]might perswade Luther from the Masse, hoping by doing so to keepe him constan [...] to it; or that others would make his disswasion from it, an Argument for it, (as we see Papists doe, you should add, and as yourself did before you were a Papist) and be afrayd of following Luther, as confessing himself to haue bene perswaded by the Divell. This your strang answer to your owne Motiue I do not confute in this occasion, it having bene done already in a litle Treatise, intituled Heantomachta, or Mr. Chillingworth against himself; and in an other called, Motives Maintayned. Certainly you haue not observed that saying; We must not bely the Divell.

19. The same Answer I giue to your example of a Geometritian, whom in those things which he demonstrates, we do not belieue for his Authority, but for evidence of his demonstration, which is infallible; neither did the Author of Charity Maintayned belieue for his owne fallible Authority, that he hath written such a Booke, but by evidence and infallibility offense. And here, you should remember your owne words, (Pag: 325. N. 2.) Faith is not knowledg, no more then three is foure, but eminently contained in it, so that he that knowes, believes, and somthing more, but he that believes, many tymes does not know; nay if he doth barely and meerly belieue, he doth never know. Therfor, according to your owne Doctrine, he who assents in vertue of some evident demonstration, doth know, and not belieue for the Authority of another. And who sees not, that if I belieue a thing for some other reason, and not for the Authority of him, who affirmes it. I cannot be sayd to belieue it for his Authority, but I assent to it for that other reason: Yea if we consider the matter well, when I know one affirmes a thing, and yet do not belieue it for his Authority, but for some other Motiue or reason, I may be sayd, of the two, rather to disbelieue then belieue him, at least I do not belieue him at all (for that Point) but either some other Person, or for some other Reason. Wherfor You do but trifle when (Pag: 138. N. 36.) You speake to Charity Maintayned in these words: You say we cannot belieue (the Church) in propounding Canonicall Books, (if the Church be not vniversally infallible) if you meane still (as you must doe, vnless you play the Sophister) not vpon her owne Authority, I grant it: For we belieue Canonicall Bookes not vpon the Authority of the present Church, but vpon vniversall Tradition. If you meane, not at all, and that with reason, we cannot belieue these Bockes to be Canonicall, which the Church proposes, I deny it. In these [Page 363]words, I say, you do but trifle. For, you know that Charity Maintayned did speake of believing the Church vpon her owne Authority, which is so true, that you say he must meane so vnless he play the Sophister, and what then shall we think, you play, in imputing to him such a sense, wheras you deny not, but that his words may be taken in a good sense, as indeed they could not be taken otherwise. Beside, I do not at all, belieue the Church, when I chance to belieue that which she proposes, if I belieue it, for some other reason, and not for her Authority; and therfor it is a contradiction in you to say, I belieue the Church at all, when I belieue for some other reason, as I haue declared aboue. You say (Pag: 35. N. 7.) I grant that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion, must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth. For, if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, in any one thing which God requires men to belieue, we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent. Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintayne sayd? If now, one should turne your owne words against yourself, and say; Indeed if you had sayd, we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing for its owne sake, I should willingly grant your consequence; But if you meane, not at all, I deny it: Would you not say, that he did▪ but cavill? Remember then; Quod tibi non vis fieri, alteri ne seceris. But let vs goe forward.

20. The second difference between learned and vnlearned Catholikes, and both those kinds of Protestants, is this. You say (Pag: 87 N. 94.) The Scripture is not so much the words, as the sense. If therfor Protestants haue no certaine Meanes or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture, to them it cannot be Scripture, nor the infallible Word of God. But I haue proved, that Protestants haue no such certaine Meanes, or Rule: Therfor we must inferr, that by pretending to follow Scripture alone, they do not rely vpon any certaine ground, and that Scripture to them cannot be an infallible Rule. And this being true, even in respect of the learned, the Faith of the vnlearned, who depend on them, cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground; wheras the vnlearned amongst Catholikes, believing their Pastors, who rely on the Church, which both is, and is believed to be, infallible, their Faith comes to be resolved into a ground really infallible. The like Argument may be taken from Translations, Additions, Detractions, and Corruptions of Scripture, of which, the learned Protestants can [Page 364]haue no certainty, and much less the vnlearned; and so their Faith is not builded vpon any stable Foundation, and consequently the vncertaintyes which we object to you, touch the very generall grounds of your Faith, and not only the particular meanes by which they are applyed to every one.

21. 3. I appeale to the conscience of every vnpartiall man, desirous to saue his soule, whether in Prudence, one ought not to preferr the Roman Church, and those who agree with Her, before any companie of Sectaryes; who disagreeing among themselves, cannot all belieue aright: and yet none of them is able to satisfy, why their particular sect should be preferred before others, who pretend Scripture alone, no less then they. Of which differences the vnlearned amongst them being not able to judg, they cannot prudently joyne themselves rather to one than another Sect; as for the same reason they being not learned, cannot prudently conceiue themselves able to convince vs out of Scripture, no more than they can judg, what company of Sectaryes is to be preferred before all other, seing the learned Protestants cannot convince one another; especially if we remember, that they assigne for vnderstanding the sense of Scripture, many Requisites and Rules, which exceed the capacity of the vnlearned, who therfor must resolue either to be of no Religion at all, which no man indued with the common light of reason, can resolue, or els must judg that they may safely, and ought constantly to imbrace the Catholique Roman Religion: which if they doe, their proceeding being prudent, God will not be wanting to affoard them his supernaturall concurrence for the production of an Act of Faith, even though we should suppose that the particular immediate reasons, which induce them to this resolution, be not of themselves certaine and infallible, but yet such as, all circumstances considered, are prudent, and the best that occurre in such an occasion. Beside; No Man of ordinary discretion, knowledg, and prudence, though otherwise vnlearned, can choose but haue heard, that the Roman Religion is very ancient, that divers learned Protestants thinke very well of it, and of those who dy in that profession, yea expressly grant, that divers whom they belieue to be Saints in Heaven, did liue and dye in our Religion: they see evidently, that we agree among ourselves; that great Miracles haue bene wrought in our Church, with the happy success of converting Infidells to Christian Religion: Wheras contrarily, for every one of the sayd considerations, it is evident, that Protestants [Page 365]cannot chaleng them; yea, they profess, that before Luther, the world was in darkness, and that their reformation began with him; that we hold, no Heretike, whether Protestant, or other, can be saved without repentance, and yet, as I sayd, that the most learned among Protestants grant Vs salvation; that they haue no peace among themselves, nor can ever hope for it: that they profess Miracles to haue ceased; that they do not so much as endeavour to convert Nations, and yet every Christian believes, that Christ commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospell to Nations, for their conversion: these things, I say, and divers other, are so manifest, that the vnlearned cannot be ignorant of them, and therfor no Protestant can prudently adhere to any particular Sect.

22. You in particular, who teach, that Christian Faith is but probable, must profess, that even learned Protestants haue no infallible ground for their Faith. For if they had such a ground, and did certainly know it to be such, their Faith would be infallible, which you deny. But this head of vncertainty doth nothing at all touch Catholikes, learned or vnlearned, who vnanimously believe Christian Faith to be absolutely certaine and infallible. Out of these grounds I come now to answer your Objections.

23. You aske, (Pag: 93. N. 108.) How shall an vnlearned man ignorant of Scripture, know watch of all the Societyes of Christians is indeed the Church?

24. Answer. This Demand must be answered by yourself, who profess to belieue the Scripture for the Authority of the Church, as for the chief ground of such your belief: and other Protestants acknowledg the Church to be an inducement to belieue it. How then do you, and they, independently of Scripture, or before they belieue Scripture, know which of all the Societyes of Christians is indeed the Church? The Church was before Scripture, and might still haue continued without Scripture: in which respect there cannot want evident Notes, to distinguish between the true and false Church, even for the vn [...]arned, if they will apply themselves to cooperate with the occasions, and Grace which Goind his Goodness never failes to offer.

25. But then, say you, (ibidem) seeing men may deceive and be deceyved, and their words are not demonstrations, how shall he be assured that what they say, is true▪ Answer, First the Notes and Markes of Gods Church are so patent, that every one may evidently see them, vpon condition [Page 366]that he be not negligent in an affaire of so great moment. 2. I haue shewed already, that the Meanes by which, infallible grounds of Faith are applyed to every one, need not be of themselves infallible; as also I haue declared the difference between vnlearned Catholikes and Protestants, in this behalf. Now the true Church being once found, your other Objections are of no force. For, that Church, infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost, cannot faile to make Decrees, and conserue or renew, and communicate them to faithfull people, as need shall require. A thing not hard to be done in the Catholike Church, professing obedience to one supreame Head, the Vicar of Christ, and Successour to S. Peter, who by subordinate Prelates and Pastours, can easily and effectually convey Decrees, Ordinations, and Lawes to all sorts of Persons.

26. You say (Pag: 94. N. 108.) even the learned among vs are not agreed concerning divers things, whether they be de fide, or not. But this can apport no prejudice to the vnlearned, yea nor to the learned, so that they all stand prepared and resolved, to belieue and obey what the Church shall determine; which as I haue often sayd, she will be sure to doe, when it shall be necessary for the good of soules; and to doe it so as her voyce shall be clearly heard, and vnderstood, by one, or more, decrees, and declarations? Thus we see Generall Councells haue declared divers Points of Faith, after they began to be controverted by some, and found meanes to notify them to Catholikes of all sorts. I beseech you, what Christians after the ancient and sacred Councell of Nice, were ignorant that Arius, and is followers, your progenitours, were condemned for denying our Saviour Christ to be the Son of God, true God and equall to his Father? Or what Catholike in these latter tymes is ignorant, that Heretikes hold, and haue bene condemnd for holding divers Errours, contrary to the belief and practise of the Catholique Church; as making the signe of the Crosse; The Reall presence, and Adoration of our Saviour Christ in the B. Sacrament: the Sacrifice of the Masse, Prayers to the Saints in Heaven, and for the Soules in Purgatory; Worshipping of Images: Seaven Sacraments: observing of set feasts, and fasts: vow of Chastity for Persons in holy Orders, and Religious men and woemen, and the like.

27. You vrge (Pag: 94. N. 108.) How shall an vnlearned man be more capable of vnderstanding the sense of Decrees made by the Church, then of plaine Texts of Scripture? especially seing the Decrees of divers Popes and [Page 367]Councells are conceyved so obscurely that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them. And then they are written all in such languages which the ignorant vnderstand not, and therfor must of necessity rely herin vpon the vncertaine and fallible authority of some particular men who informe them that there is such a decree. And if the decrees were translated into vulgar languages, why the translatours should not be as fallyble as you say the translatours of scripture are, who can possibly imagine?

28. Answer. Take away an infallible living Judg, and Tradition of the Church, you will hardly find any Text of Scripture containing the sublime Mysteries of Christian Faith, evident, even to the learned among you; as hath bene proved hertofore, and appeares by the experience of your great and irremediable disagreements; and is manifest of itselfe, because you haue no certaine Rule when the Scripture is to be taken in a litterall, figuratiue, morall &c: sense: which difficulty ceases in the Decrees of the Church: both because it is knowen vpon what occasion, and against what Enours the Church makes [...]her Decrees (as all know vpon what occasion, and against whom, the sacred Councell of Trent was gathered) and therby it is easy to vnderstand the decrees for the Negatiue or affirmatiue part, at least for the substance, and the things chiefly intēded in them: or if any doubt should remayne, the Church can declare herself; which Scripture can never doe. And although the Decrees of Popes and Councells, are not conceyved so obscurely as you would make men falsely belieue, yet all obscurity is easily cleared, by some further declaration. As for languages in which they are written, it is Latine: a language knowne not only to the learned but to many also whom we need not reckon among the learned: and they who vnderstand not Larine, will find so great vniformity among all those who vnderstand that Language, that they cannot remaine vncertaine concerning the meaning of those Decrees, though they be not translated into vulgar Languages; or if they were so translated eyther the translations would be found totally to agree, or els it were easy to be informed, which of them did mistake, seing innumerable persons do perfectly vnderstand Latine: and Besides, as I sayd, it is evidently knowne vpon what occasion the Decrees were framed, and what was the scope of them, and what part they condemned as false, or defined as true. But for Scripture: seing you haue no certaine Rule to know the sense therof, ād Translations of Protestants are manifestly seen to be contrary one to another, the most learned among you can haue no certainty [Page 368](yea, I dare say, that greater learning will occasion greatest multiplicity of doubts and perplexityes, vnless there be acknowledged an infallible Living Judg) and much less can the vnleaned haue certainty sufficient to exercise a true Act of Diuine Faith. More of this matter may be seen in Charity Maintayned (Part: 2. Chap: 5. N. 32.) in answer to an Objection made by Potter, like to this of yours. To your saying: If the Decrees were translated into vulgar Languages, why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translators of the Scripture are, who can possibly imagine? I answer: There is a manifold difference between the Translations of Scripture, and of the Ecclesiasticall Decrees. For, every word of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Ghost: One Text may haue divers literall senses intended by the same Holy Spirit: We are ignorant what was the scope of Canonicall Writers for every particular Chapter, or Text: Every Reason given in holy Scripture, is a matter of Faith: The style and Majesty therof surpasses humane wit and manner of writing: All which considerations make the Translations of Scripture, both more difficult, and more dangerous, then those of Ecclesiasticall Definitions or Decrees, in which the fore sayd Reasons haue not place, as appeares by what I sayd even now.

29. But you would proue (Pag: 94. N. 109.) that no man can be certaine of the Churches Decrees; which must be confirmed by a true Pope. Now the Pope cannot be true Pope if he came in by simony: Which whether he did or no, who can answer me? He cannot be true Pope vnless he were baptized, and baptized he was not vnless the Minister had due intention: So likewise he cannot be a true Pope, vnless he were rightly ordained Priest; and that againe depends vpon the Ordainers secret intention, and also vpon his having the Episcopall Character. All which things, depend vpon so many vncertaine suppositions, that no humane judgment can possibly be resolved in them. I conclude therfor, that not the learnedst man amongst you all, no not the Pope himself, can according to the grounds you goe vpon, haue any certainty, that any Decree of any Councell is good and valid, and consequently, not any assurance that it is indeed the Decree of a Councell.

30. Answer: These very Objections Potter made, and are answered by Charity Maintayned; (Part: 2. Chap: 5. N 31.) but you take no notice therof) That your suppositions are never to be admitted; but we are sure, that whosoever in a tyme free from Schisme, is once accepted [Page 369]by the Church for a true Pope, is such indeed. Yet if you will be making such vntrue suppositions, that the Pope did enter by Simony, or wanted Baptisme, or true Ordination, God would never permitt him to define any thing in prejudice of the Church. Neither are the occasions of Defining matters of Faith alwayes vrgent; as we see the Church for the space of three hundred yeares after the Apostles, past without any Generall Councell. Yea if de facto any Pope define some truth to be a matter of Faith, we are sure even by his doing so, that he is true Pope, it being impossible, that God should permit his vniversall Church to be obliged to belieue a falshood, or an vncertaine thing, as all are obliged to beleeve the Definition of one who is accepted for true Pope. See more of this, in the saied place of Charity Maintayned.

31. But now, Good Sr. I beseech you reflect, that in being so eager against vs, you haue degraded (or rather haue denyed) your Bishops, Priests, and the whole Pretended mock-Hierarchy of the Protestant Church in England, which hitherto hath bene ambitious, to proue the Ordination and Succession of your Bishops, from the Roman Church, of which nevertheless you say, (Pag: 77. N. 67.) He that shall put together, and maturely consider all the possible wayes of lapsing and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome, I belieue will be very inclinable to thinke, that it is an hundred to one; that amongst an hundred seeming Priests, there is not one true one. Nay, that it is not a thing very improbable, that amongst those many millions, which make vp the R [...]man Hierarchy, there are not twenty tr [...]. If this be so; if the fountaine be so troubled, or rather none at all, what certainty can there be in the streame which flowed from Rome to England? if of many millyons among vs, there are not twēty true Priests, (if wee keepe a proportion with England to the whole world) there must not be among you one true Bishop, or Priest. And was not your Book fitly approved expressly as conforme to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England? Neither can you answer, that your Arguments proceed only against the ground we goe on, that intention of the Minister is necessary to the validity of Sacraments. For, if indeed it be not necessary, then you must grant, that those vncertaintyes which you exaggerate against our Baptisme, Ordination &c: are but imaginary feares; as yourself say (Pag: 358.) That some mens perswasion that there is no such thing, as an indeleble Character, hinders them not from having it, if there be any such thing, no more than a mans perswasion that be has not taken Physick, or Poyson, [Page 370]will make him not to haue taken it, if he has. (Though, by your leaue, this instance of Physick &c: is not convincing; because they who deny an indeleble Character, may perhaps out of an obstinate loue to their Heresy, and hatred against our Doctrine, resolve and intend rather not to receiue the Sacrament, than to admit any thought that there is such a thing as a Character, which you call a creature of our owne making, a fancy of our o [...]ne Imagination, and then really they receaue neither Character, nor Sacrament) and so if intention be not necessary, the want of it, cannot possibly make any Sacrament invalide. If it be necessary; you haue destroyed your owne Hierarchy, while you impugne ours, vpon this ground, that we hold the intention of the Minister to be necessary. Nay, seing not only all Catholikes, but some learned Protestants also, teach intention to be necessary, at least, you cannot be sure that it is not so; and then againe, you must either renounce your owne Objections, or vndermine, and make doubtfull your Hierarchy: Which you must do also in another respect. For, though you take our Catholique Doctrine about the necessity of intention, as one ground of vncertainty, for the validity of our Sacramēts; yet you mention other Points, which are common to vs and Protestants, as, that determinate Matter and Forme are essentiall to Sacraments; and your English Church in particular, in the Administration of Baptisme, expressly saith: If they which bring the infants to the Church, do make such vncertaine answers to the Priests questions, as that it cannot appeare, that the child was baptized with water, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (which are essentiall parts of Baptisme) then let the Priest baptise it in Forme aboue writte [...], concerning Publike Baptisme &c: And (Pag: 76. N. 64.) You say; To be certaine that one is a Priest, he must know, first, that he was baptized with due Matter; 2. With the due Forme of words (which he canno [...] know, vnless he were both present and attentiue.) And (N. 65.) He must vndertake to know, that the Bishop which ordayned him Prtest, ordayned him compleatly with due Matter, and Forme. And (N. 60.) He must vndertake to know; that the Bishop which made him Priest, was a Priest himself. And (N. 67.) He must protend to know the same of him that made him Priest, even vntill he comes to the very founta [...]ne of Priesthoed, For, take any one in the whole traine and Su cession of Ordainers, and supp [...]se him by reason of any defect, only a supposed, and not a true Priest, then according to your Doctrine (and according to the Doctrine of Protestants also, if the defect fall vpon the Matter or Forme) he could not giue a true, but only a supposed [Page 371]Priesthood; and they that receyve it of him, and againe, they that derive it from them, can giue no better than they receyved; receyving nothing but a name and shadow, can give nothing but a name and shadow: and so from age to age, from generation to generation, being equivocall Fathers beget only equivocall Sons. Thus you. And it is Gods just judgmēt, that the certainty, ād validity of Protestāts Ordinatiōs, ād their whole Hierarchy of Bishops should be made questionable, seing they could endure the publishing of your Booke wherin the certainty of Christian Faith is denyed.

31. But now, to say somthing by this occasion, concerning the Intention in administration of Sacraments, whatsoever you are pleased to say, yet in true judgment, there is less danger of any defect in that behalf, than in any other, for example, of Matter or Forme; which may be vitiated, both by the malice of the Minister, and also against his will; wheras a due Intention is wholly in his owne power, and will, and, as I may say, costs him nothing; and we suppose him to be a man, not a Divell, delighting in the damnation of Soules, without any self interest: or if in your Charity you will suppose him to be so full of malice, it is easy for him to vitiate the Forme. For, seing the validity of the Sacrament, doth not oblige him to speake with a voice, loud and audible to others, he may pretend to speak the forme secretly, and yet either say nothing at all, and so omit the Forme, or els say somthing els: or if he pronounce most of the words audibly, he may with an vnder-voyce interpose some words, which will destroy the Forme, as if, for example, he say openly, I Baptize the, and secretly put in this word (Not) in the Name of the Father &c: And this he may be induced to doe by your doctrine (that, Intention is not necessary and so, the want of it will not invalidate the Sacrament) and therfo [...] to be sure of some defect to be committed in that which is essentially necesary even in the opinion of Protestants, he will procure to corrupt the matter, o [...] forme, or both.

32. Besides, as I began to say aboue, some chief learned Protestants, teach the necessity of Intention in the Ministers of Sacraments. (Pag: 326. N. 3.) you stile Mr. Hooker, a Protestant Divine of great Authority, and no way singular in his opinions, and yet this very man, who, you say, is not singular in his Opinions, in his sift Booke of Ecclesiasticall Policy, (Sect: 58.) sayth: That in as much as Sacraments are Actions religious and mysticall, which nature they haue not vnless they proceed from a serious meaning: and what every mans private mynd is, as we cannot know, so neither are we bound to examine: therfor alwayes in these cases the knowne inof [Page 372]the Church generally doth suffice; and where the contrary is not manifest, we may presume that he which outwardly doth the worke, hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God. Consider, how this your Divine of great Authority affirmes, that Sacraments cannot be so much as religious and mysticall actions (which are Attributes essentiall to Sacraments) vnless they proceede from a serious meaning; and that this meaning hath noe difficulty; seing it suffices that one intend to exercise that Action as Christians are wont to doe; which intention; we may in a manner say a man cannot chuse but haue. For, though he were a Pagan, yet if he intended to do what Christians are wont to doe in that particular action, it were sufficient. Covell also in his defence of Hooker, teachers the same Doctrine: and neither you, nor any Protestant in the world, can haue any ground, to thinke that it is possible to convince them of fal shood in this matter: and therfor this vncertainty, which you impute to vs, falls heavy vpon yourself, and other Protestants, if indeed they administer Sacraments without such an intention as all Catholikes ād some chief Protestāts belieue to be necessary.

33. Now as for the Doctrine itself of Catholikes about the necessity of Intention; it is so reasonable and cleare, that it is strang, any can call it in Question. For, I beseech you, if a madman, or a foole, ar a drunken man, or an infant, or one in his sleepe, should chance to cast water vpon one, and pronounce the Forme, should such an one be baptized; or if he were baptized already, were such an action of such persons, a rebaptizatiō? If one with purpose, only to learne the manner of baptizing, did practise the pronouncing the words, and applying the Matter, should that be true Baptisme? If one by chance reading, or disputing, or for some other end, should pronounce the words of Consecration out of Scripture, and that without his knowlege there should chance to be bread ād wine with in a morall distāce, should he consecrate the Eucharist? Or, are men obliged never to pronounce those words in such occasions as I specifyed least they consecrate whether they will, or no [...] Are not these foolish absurdityes? If you say (and it is all that can be imagined you can say) that at least he who pronounces the words, must exercise a deliberate, humane, morall, free Action, which madmen, infants &c. nor even men in their wits, cannot exercise, when they are ignorant of the morall presence of the matter that is to be consecrated: but that it is not necessary, besides the substance of a morall Action, to intend also to administer a Sacrament: I answer; first, This answer evacuates the ground of Heretiks, [Page 373]who say, That intention is not necessary, because the words receive force only from the Will and Institution of God, and therfor must not depend vpon the morality of that Action, which morality depends vpon the intention of him that pronounces the words: to wit that he intend to doe it seriously, ād not in jeast, or by way only of pronouncing the materiall words without their signification: and so the salvation of soules must depend vpon a secret intention, of which we cannot be sure, as men exercise many indeliberate actions without any virtuall or actuall intētion. If for the validity of a Sacrament, it be sufficient to exercise a deliberate action without any further reference or Intention, one could not without a deadly sin, wash an infant already baptized, and for devotion say, I wash the in the name of the Father, &c: as mē are wōt to say, I doe this in Gods name; because according to this answer, it would be repabtization. 2. I answer: if one be supposed to intend the performance of the Sacramentall action for the substance, no reason can be imagined, why he should not intēd to doe as others do in such an action, for example, if the child be brought to be Christened, and the Minister deliberately apply water, and pronounce the Forme, ether can be no cause which can moue him at least not to intend that which there are wont to do in the like case: and to thinke the contrary may easily or almost possibly happen, argues only in you an excessiue desire to impugne, by whatsoever arguments, our Catholique Doctrine.

34. And here I must of necessity make a diversion rather than a digression, and answer some Points, to which you referr yourself in this (Pag: 94. N. 109.) in these words: All which things, as I haue formally proved, de [...]end vpon so many vn [...]ertaine suppositions, that no human judgment can possibly be resolved in them. For, although what you pretend to haue bene formally proved, hath bene in effect answered already; yet I thought sit to examine every point in particular, that so the Foundation of your assertions in this place, being overthrowne, all the superstructions which you and other Protestants are wont to make, may evidently appeare false and ruinous, and so fall to the ground.

35. Cha: Ma: (Part. 1. Chap: 2. N. 16.) having shewed out of Brierly, (Tract: 1. Sect: 10. subd: 4.) joyned with (Tract. 2. Chap: 2. Sect: 10. Subd: 2.) That the Translations of Scripture, made by Luther, Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, and the Divines of Basill, Cast [...]lio, Calvin, Beza, and Geneva Bibles, as also the English Translation, are mutually condemned by Protestants themselves (respectiue) as corrupting the [Page 374]Word of God (and the Authors, as Antichrists and deceivers) Wicked, and altogeather differing from the mynd of the Holy Ghost, sacrilegious, Ethnicall, making the Text of the Gospell to leap vp and downe, vsing violence to the letter of the Gospell, adding to the Text, changing the Text, deserving either to be purged from those manifold errours which are both in the Text, and in the margent, or els vtterly to be prohibited; in the Translation of the Psalmes, in addition, substraction, and alteration, differing from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least, and such, as is doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe therto, depraving the sense, obscuring the truth, deceiving the ignorant, in many places detorting the Scripture from the right sense, (and that the Translators shew themselves to loue darkness more than light, falshood more than truth) taking away from the Text, adding to the Text, to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost &c. This I say Charity Maintayned having shewed, adds these words: Let Protestants consider duly these Points: Salvation cannot be hoped for without the true Faith: Faith according to them, relyes vpon Scripture alone: Scripture must be delivered to most of them by Translations: Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more certaine, then a most certaine possibility to erre, and no greater evidency of truth, than that it is evident some of thē embrace falshood, by reason of their contrary Translations. What then remayneth, but that truth, Faith, Salvation, and all, must in them rely vpon a fallible and vncertaine ground? How many poore soules are lamentably seduced, while from preaching Ministers, they admire a multitude of Texts of Divine Scripture, but are indeed the false translations, and corruptions of erring men? Let them therfor, if they will be assured, of true Scriptures, fly to the alwayes visible Church, against which the gates of Hell can never so farr prevaile, as that she shall be permitted to deceyue the Christian world with false Scriptures.

87. Against these words (Pag: 76. N. 63.) you speak in this manner: This Objection, though it may seeme to do you great service for the present; yet I feare, you will repent the tyme that ever you vrged it against vs as a fault, that we make mens salvation depend vpon vncertaintyes. For the Objection returnes vpon you many wayes.

38. Answer. I assure you, Charity Maintayned hath never felt, nor ever will feele, any such repentance, as you mention, having never [Page 375]bene taught to repent him self of a good deed, as it seemes, you confess, his to haue bene, while you say to him: I feare you will repent the tyme. Do you feare He will repent? the Object of feare is some apprehended evill; and therfor your feare that He will repent, must imply that it were ill done of him to repent, and consequently that he must persist in what he wrote; and so He may well do, for any thing you bring to the contrary; all your Objections being already answered, by the Ground which I layed, That more certainty and strength is required in the generall Principles of Faith, than in that particular meanes, or Act, wherby such Principles are applyed in Practise to the Person of every one; as for example, we are certaine by Revelation certitudine Fidei, that he who persevers vnto the end shall be saved: but that every particular person doth performe on his part, what is requisite to persever, we haue no revelation nor absolute certainty, God having so disposed, that we ought to work our salvation with feare and trembling. The further reason wherof may be; because if the generall Grounds or Meanes appointed by God, were in themselves fallible and vncertaine: this want would be ascribed to God himself, as if he had not given vs sufficient Meanes for our salvation; but for the particular application made by free Acts of men, or by Meanes of second causes, all the defect is imputed to them alone, and in no wise to God, who on his part hath provided Meanes certaine and sufficient, as will appeare herafter, by answering all the particulars which you alledg wherby it will be found, that no vncertainty can be derived from the generall Principles or Grounds of our Faith, (as it must proceed from the very Grounds of Protestants) but only from the fallibility, infirmity, or fault of men in particular cases.

39. To this Ground, I add this other briefe consideration; That it is one thing to treate, whether or no, a Sacrament be valid; and an other; whether the defect of an invalid Sacrament. may be supplyed by some other Meanes: For example, Intention of the Ministers is vniversally necessary to the validity of a Sacrament (in the sense I haue declared) but whether, or when, or to whom, Sacraments be so necessary, that they cannot be supplyed by other Meanes, must be resolved, by descending to particular cases, as will appeare after a while, and will shew the weakness of the Objections which you extend to no fewer numbers or Sections than the 63.64.65.66.67.68.69.70.72.73.74.) And yet all are the same which we haue toucht, and answered already; [Page 376]as that we cannot be sure that he who absolves the Penitent, or consecrates the Eucharist, is a true Priest: because we cannot know that he or any other was baptized with due Matter, Forme, and Intention, and for the like reasons, we are not certaine, that the Bishop who ordained him, was a true Bishop. But, as I sayd, these vncertaintyes neither are, nor can be, so great as you make them, nor do they touch the Principles of our Faith, but are as it were matters of Fact, and concerne only the application of those generall Grounds to particular occasions, for which we haue no Revelation, or certainty of Faith, which assures vs only, that there shall be alwayes in Gods Church a succession of Bishopes and Priests; and this is enough to shew that your Objections are but exaggerations, and panick feares, as if of many millions, not twenty should be true Prists: which in effect is to say, that God hath no Providence over his Church, but leaves all things to chance, or the weakness and possible malice of men. You teach, that we cannot be certain of the Decrees of Councells, because we are not certaine that the Pope who must confirme them is true Pope: you should say the contrary; There haue bene true generall Councells: Therfor they who celebrated them were true Bishops, and the Pope who confirmed them was true Pope. Thus also we are sure true Priests haue Power to absolue repentent sinners, and true Bishops, to or dayne Priests: but not that this or that in particular is a true Priest or Bishop, or that every particular Penitent hath true sorrow: Otherwise every one must be sure that he is in state of grace, and salvation, making no distinction between the vertue of Hope and Faith, but must with absolute certainty belieue, and not only hope that his sins are forgiven. And therfor Charity Maintayned did not object against Protestants (who belieue Christian Faith to be absolutely infallible, and with whom He had to doe, and not with such as you are) whatsoever vncertainty, but sayd expressly, that their Faith did rely vpon an vncertaine Ground, and therefore could not be infallible. And it is strang that you (N. 68.) should speake to vs, in this manner: I hope you will preach no more against others for making mens salvation depend vpon fallible and vncertaine Grounds, least by judging others, you make your selves and your owne Church inexcusable, who are strangly guilty of this fault, aboue all the men and Churches of the world: I say it is strang this should be objected by you (that we make mens salvation depend vpon vncertaine Grounds) who profess that no Article of Christian Faith is to vs certainly true, and therfor though one were [Page 377]certaine, that he did vse all meanes prescribed by Christian Religion for attaining salvation, yet he might misse therof; which is plaine blasphemy, putting our want of salvation, not vpon any defect in men, but vpon the vncertainty of Christian Religion, and of the Grounds which Allmighty God hath provided for the belief therof. You say indeed (N. 70.) that we belieue the Church to be infallible, only vpon prudentiall Motives; but this we vtterly deny. For we belieue this Point for the same Reason for which we belieue other Articles of Christian Faith, which I haue proved, (Chap: 1.) to rely vpon most infallible Grounds.

40. In your (N. 71.72.) you object no more than what I haue answered more than once; That, although particular men may be moved to accept Christian belief, for some immediate reason or Motiue not infallible of it selfe, yet still their Faith may be resolved into an infallible Ground, which is Divine Revelation proposed by the Church of God, certainly acknowledged to be infallible, as I haue shewed; and that no particular Translations can prejudice vs, who submit to the Church which God will never permit to be deceyved by them.

41. For the vulgate Translation of which you speake (N. 74.75.76.77.78.79.) I need say for the present only this; That it being approved in the sacred Councell of Trent, we are sure, that it cannot contayne any least Point against Faith or good manners: And if by the fault of the Printers, or by any other meanes, any errour should chance to creepe into it, the Church can never make vse of that errour: And therfor, to treate here at large of this particular Translation. would be a labour both fruitless, and needless, divers Catholique Divines having learnedly done it, and every one may goe to Bellarmin (de Uerbo Dei. Lib: 2. Cap: 9.10.11.12.13.14.) where he answers all the Objections of Heretikes.

42. To exaggerate the vncertainty of Baptisme, and consequently of Absolution, (N. 64.) you will needs suppose, that A sew, a More, an Atheist, or an Arian, or any that believes not the Doctrine of the Trinity, are not capable of having due intention for administring Baptisme; which yet is very vntrue. For such men as these, notwithstanding their particular Errours, may seriously intend to do, as much as they can, and as Christians are wont to doe; in which case, if they obserue the true Matter and Forme, their Errours haue no influence into their intention, but are wared and layd aside as if they were not at all. For, in effect [Page 378]their intention is this: If Christian Religion be true, or if this Action of Baptizing be of any valve, I for my part intend to make of it the most and best I can. Now this condition being true, and subsisting, it followes, that that Action will be a true baptizing. This me thinkes you should not deny, who were knowen to be an Anti-trinitarian, and Arian; and yet I conceyve you wold be loath that Catholikes or Protestāts, should belieue, that if you baptized any, the Baptisme was invalid, and of necessity to be repeated. The like I say of Absolution, which may be valid though the Priest be in his mynd an Heretike, vpon such conditions, as I expressed concerning the Administration of Baptisme. You say (N. 66.) that our Rule is, Nihil dat quod non habet: which is true in some cases; but we haue no such generall Rule. A Catechume, for example, or any other may validly Baptise, though himself be not Baptized. And no wonder: seing the Minister is but the instrument of Allmighty God; and it is not required that an instrument haue in it self, all the perfections, conditions, or qualityes, which are communicated to the effect, although in our present case the Minister immediatly only applyes the Matter and forme, and makes his intention, all which is in his power to doe, thoughe be not Baptized.

43. You say (N. 68.) That according to our Principles, When we haue done as much, as God requires for our salvation, yet can we by no meanes be secure, but that we may haue the ill luck to be damned; which is to make salvation a matter of chance, and which a man may faile of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune.

44. This I haue answered already; that, to be secure is a happyness of the next, not of this world, where he who pretends to be secure is in most danger not to be safe. And besides, I must apply here, what I noted aboue; That, it is one thing, whether or no, a Sacrament be valid, and another, whether the defect of that invalidity may be supplyed by some other Meanes. If the nullity be of a Sacrament, the effect wherof is not necessary to salvation, it is cleare, that one may be saved though the Sacrament be invalid. The difficulty is in those Sacraments, which, as Divines speake, are necessary necessitate medij, being ordained to conferr the first justifying Grace, and forgiue deadly sin, incompatible with Grace. Of this condition are the Sacraments of Pennance, and Baptisme.

45. As for the Sacrament of Pennance; the Doctrine of Catholikes is not subject to cast men vpon perplexityes, as you pretend, nor to make [Page 379] salvation a matter of chance, which a man may fayle of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune. For we teach, that sin alone is the cause of damnation, and neither ill fortune, nor any thing els. If one in state of deadly sin, were taken out of this world by a suddain death, or fall out of his wits, so vnexpectedly, that he could not repent, he shall be damned, not for any new sin committed by omitting to repent, which was not in his power to doe in those circumstances; but for his former sins, committed and never forgiven, because never repented: as if one having committed a robery, endeavour to fly, but faile of his purpose, he shall be executed for his robery, not for failing to escape, though he had not bene executed, if he had not bene taken in his endeavour to escape. And therfor you say very vntruly, that according to our Principles, when we haue done as much as God requires for our salvation, yet we may haue the all luck to be damned. For according to our Principles and belief, God requires for our salvation that we do not sin, but that we keepe his commandements, which, by the assistance of his Grace, all may obserue; and if we do so, we are very secure.

46. But you will say, if one haue sinned, and afterward do as much as God requires of him for his salvation, he may haue the ill lucke to be damned. Answer. God hath provided Meanes sufficient on his part, and if by accident, or malice of men, they haue not their effect, that defect cannot be imputed to God, nor shall ever any man be damned except for sin alone. This yourself must grant. For you belieue, or pretend to belieue, that there are some Points of Faith so Fundamentall, and indispensably necessary to be believed, that they are, as you say, minimum vt sic, without which none can hope for salvation. Suppose then, some Pastour or other, vpon whom an vnlearned man might prudently rely, and had no better meanes to informe himself, should malitiouslly teach him an errour in those Fundamentall Articles, or els say they were not necessary, and that the vnlearned person believed his Pastour: I aske, what would you say in this case? Can this poore man be saved without that Faith which is indispensably necessary to Salvation? To say, he can, were to speake plaine contradictoryes, that such a Faith were, and were not necessary: if he be damned, will you inferr, that when one hath done as much as God requires, for his salvation, yet he is not secure, but may haue the ill lucke to be damned, which, say you, is to make salvation a matter of chance, and which a man may faile of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune. If you answer, [Page 380]That he is damned, not for ignorance or errour caused by the malice of an other, but for his owne sinnes, and that God had provided meanes, sufficient in themselves; you make good what I sayd, and must Answer your owne chiefe Objection against vs: Or if you answer further; That if he who fayled in not believing all Fundamentall Points, had in his former life and Actions cooperated with Gods Grace, His Divine Goodness would not haue fayld, one way, or other, to giue him Direction and light, without permitting him to be deceyved in a matter necessary to salvation. Facienti quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam. God will not be wanting to second his owne Graces, with perpetuall addition of more, and greater, if we be not wanting to them, and our selves: Which if we be, we cannot be sayd to haue done as much as God requires of vs. Deus non deest in necessarijs; and we speake in a case of necessity. If, I say, you giue this Answer, you answer for vs, who can easily transferr the example from one deceyved by a malitious Pastour or Teacher, to another defrauded of absolution by a wicked, or a fayned Priest; that if the Penitent had kept close to Gods Inspirations, he would not haue bene permitted to fall vpon such a Priest, or els his soule would haue bene raysed to contrition, wherby all deadly sins are forgiven.

47. This Instance which I haue vrged out if your owne Assertion, that there are some Points indispensably necessary to salvation, is declared by Potter (Pag: 243.) who speakes thus of Fundamentall Points: these are so absolutely necessary to all Christians, for attayning the end of our Faith, that is, the salvation of our soules, that a Christian may loose himself, not only by a positiue erring in them, or denying of them; but by a pure ignorance or nescience, or not knowing of them. And to this purpose among other he cites Dominic: Bannez (in 2.2. Quest: 2. Art: 8.) saying; Invincible ignorance cannot here excuse from everlasting death, though we want them without any fault of ours, or although it were not in our power to attaine the knowledg of them: even as if there were one only remedy wherby a sick man could be recovered from corporall death: suppose the Patient and the Physitian both were ignorant of it, the man must perish, as well not knowing it, as if being brought vnto him, he had refused it. Which words declare, how one may be damned, by occasion of inculpable Ignorance, though, not for it, but for his sinnes committed, and not pardoned. The like example may be giuen, of one inculpably ledd into an errour concerning Repentance, which no man denyes to be necessary for remission [Page 381]of deadly sinnes; as, if he were taught, that no Repentance were necessary; or that it did require no kind of sorrow, for what is past, but only a purpose to amend for tyme to come; or that it were sufficient to conceyve sorrow only for some humane motiue, or some temporall shame, payne, or loss, or the like, which is but tristitia saeculi, and makes one rather a greater sinner, than a true Penitent; Or els, That Attrition alone is sufficient without Absolution; (which is your pernicious errour) or, That it is sufficient to haue sorrow for one, or a few deadly sinnes, though it extend not itself effectually to all: Or, That Faith alone without precedent Repentance, is sufficient, or the like. For, as one may be taught an Errour in other Pointes, so also in this of Repentance. Now, of men in these cases, I make the same Demand which, I made aboue; whether they can be saved without sufficient Repentance? And it being cleare that they cannot, and yet are supposed to haue bene misled without any fault of theirs, your Objection turnes vpon yourself; how, when you haue done as much as God requires for your salvation, yet can you by no meanes be secure, which is to make salvation a matter of chance. &c: What I haue specifyed in the belief of Fundamentall Poynts, and repentance, may easily be applyed to other Points of practise, necessary for salvation.

48. Besides: Many Divines teach, That Contrition is necessary in Divers Occasions, wherby all his sins will be forgiven, whatsoever his Sacramentall Absolution chance to be. Some say, Contrition obliges as often as deadly sins are presented to our mynd vt practicè detestanda. Some, that it obliges vpon festivall dayes, because we cannot spend the day in God Allmightyes service, vnless first we be contrite for our sins; Others teach, That it obliges in occasion of some publike necessity, which we haue reason to feare is inflicted for a punishment of our sins. Others; as often as we are to begin some heroicall worke, vpon which the publike weale, or profit of the people depends; because the forcible and powerfull helpe of God is wont to be denyed to sinners. Others, and those, men of great learning, hold. That at least all are obliged to Contrition at the true, or believed, houre of death, or in morall danger of death, (as in warre, or a long and dangerous voyage by sea,) because a morall danger of death is equivalent to the last houre of death and this they vnderstand even though one confess Sacramentally, and much more if he want a Confessarius. Besides, all are bound to Contrition, either when they administer Sacraments, or receyue [Page 382]those Sacraments, which are called Sacramenta Vivorum, if they be guilty of some deadly sinne, not confessed. Vide Amicum (To: 8. Disp: 9. Sec: 3. & 4.) I abstaine from examining difference of Opinions. This is certaine, that all Catholikes are taught oftentymes to moue themselves to contrition, and all of timorous consciences and good life endeavour to doe it; and every body, at least at the houre of death; at which tyme Charitas propria, or Charity towards ones self, for the salvation of his soule, will as it were naturally, and effectually incline them to it, with the assistance of Gods Grace, which is never wanting, and so neither the want, nor wickedness of any Priest can hurt them. Remember what yourself say (Pag 277. N. 61.) that according to Potter, God hath promised to the Church an absolute assistance, for things necessary, and then you add; a farther assistance is conditionally promised vs, even such an assistance as shall lead vs, if we be not wanting to it and our selves, into all, not only necessary, but very profitable truth. For, Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote her farther. It is ready, I say, but on condition the Church does implore it: on condition, that when it is offered in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason, the Church be not negligent to follow it. Why do you not apply this to our present Question, and say; Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote vs farther, (from attrition to Contrition) vpon condition we do implore it and be not wanting to it and our selves: and that when it is offered in divine directions of Christian Faith (taeching, that no care, or even solicitude, can be too great in securing the eternall salvation of our soules) we be not negligent to follow such directions. Will you say; God is more ready to direct our vnderstanding for the belief of Poynts not necessary, but only very profitable, than he is to assist our will for exercising an Act of contrition, which is alwayes eminently profitable, and in case of deadly sinne, and invalid Absolution, absolutely necessary? To say nothing, that, as I sayd, great Divines hold it to be necessary at the houre of death even though the absolution be valid: At least, these considerations are more then sufficient to put every dying man (and indeed every man) in mynd to implore the Divine assistance, and to endeavour the exercising an Act of Contrition. If you be resolved not to approue these Answers, let vs see what better you can giue, and how you will apply it to satisfy the Argument which I haue made to shew, that the Faith and salvation of Protestants rely vpon vncertaine. Grounds.

[Page 383]

49. You say (Pag: 79. N. 68.) That it is altogeather as abhorrent from the goodness of God, to suffer an ignorant Lay-mans soule to perish, meerly for being misled by an vndiscernable false Translation, which was commended by the Church, which, (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he had reason to rely vpon either aboue all other, or as much as any other, as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution, which his Ghostly Father perhaps was an Atheist, and could not giue him, or was a villaine, and would not.

50. I answer as aboue: The totall and proper cause of damnation of men is their sin, and not any secret defect, or invalidity in the Absolution; and therfore in your case, an vnlearned man shall not be damned meerly for being missled by an vndiscernable false Translation, but for the sins which he hath voluntarily committed; and his damnation can be imputed to himself alone, and in no sense to any want on Gods behalfe, from whose Goodness it is not abhorrent to suffer a manes soule to perish for his sins; which punishment he might haue permitted and inflicted in the very moment wherin they were committed: for sin of it self gives most just cause for a man to be instantly lodged in Hell; as we see māy are permitted to dy in the Act of some wickedness, without foresight of that just punishment hanging over their head, and therfore without possibility to repent vpon the motiue of being so forewarned: neither shall they be damned for their vnvoluntary omission of repentance, in that case, but for the sin itself never forgiven. And this, I returne to say, your self must affirme, as I proved aboue. For, suppose, by such a false Translation on were misled into some errour destructiue, of a Fundamentall poynt of Faith; such a man cannot be saved, and it would not be abhorrent from the Goodness of God to damne such a person; not for his errour, which we suppose to be vnvoluntary; but for his sins. God hath promised pardon to repentant sinners, but hath no where obliged himself to expect their leasure for repenting, or to giue his efficatious Grace at their pleasure, who believing man to be what he is, infiinitely inferiour to the Divine Majesty, and infinitely obliged to his Goodness; and God to be what He is, infinite in all kind of perfections; and sin to be what it is, infinitely vgly, deformed, and malitious; a sinner, I say, firmely believing all this, and yet differring his repentance, if it were but for one momēt, must blame himself alone, if he dy without true repentance, and so be damned for his sins never repented. If I were not well acquainted with your custome of contradicting yourself, I should [Page 384]wonder that you should object to vs, as a thing abhorrent from the Goodness of God, that men should be permitted to be misled by a false Translation, and so chance to be damned; seing you teach, that God may in his Justice permit, true Miracles to be wrought to delude men, in punishment of their sins; and besides this, seing you affirme, true Repentance to consist, not only in harty sorrow, and firme purpose to amend, but to require, as you say (Pag: 392. N. 8.) the mortification of the Habits of all Vices, and effectuall conversion to newness of Life and Vniversall Obedience, and withall, that an Act of Attrition, which we say, with Priestly Absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mortification, which being a worke of difficulty and tyme, cannot be performed in an Instant. It followes clearly out of this Doctrine, that neither Attrition, nor Contrition, can saue a poore soule at the houre of death: because this your kind of Repentance, being a Worke of difficulty and tyme, cannot be, performed in an instant; Nor can such a man be saved at that tyme, though he doe as much as God can require of him for his salvation in those circumstances. You object against vs, as a huge absurdity, that one may be damned by reason of an invalid Absolution, when as yet it is in the Penitentes will, assisted with Gods Grace, to exercise an Act of Contrition, wherby he shall certainly be saved; and yet you are not afrayd to tell vs, that a sinner, though he do all that possibly he can, and haue that most perfect kind ofsorrow, which is called Contrition, yet cannot be saved without the Mortification of the Habits of all vices, and effectuall conversion to a newness of life, and Vniversall Obedience; Which things cannot be performed in an instant, but require long tyme; And then his damnation shall not proceed from his not doing as much as he is able, in those Circumstances, (for we suppose him to do all that) nor for any accidentall defect in applying such Meanes as Almighty God hath provided, but because, according to your Doctrine, God hath not provided sufficient Meanes for the salvation of a Repentant sinner at the houre of his death: Which to affirme, is no better then blasphemy, and makes mens salvation depend not only vpon vncertaintyes, (as you object to vs,) but also vpon impossibilityes: And they shall be damned by reason of the nature of those very Meanes, which are appointed by God for forgiveness of their sins and salvation: that is, by your way of Repentance. The like I may say of your Doctrine, That, Attrition alone is sufficient for salvation; which being certainly most false, and if you haue any modesty, must be even, in your owne Oppinion, [Page 385]vncertaine, as not being the common opinion of Protestants, for ought I know, you put salvation of soules vpon Grounds which are in themselves (and not only in the application of them) vncertaine: And the same I say of your wicked Doctrine, that Christian Faith is not infallible, which must be a sourse of all other vncertaintyes.

51. Having thus answered for ourselves, and retorted your Arguments, it will not be amiss to examine what you vndertake to speake for vs, (without any Commission) to a considering man lying on death bed, who feeles or feares that his Repentance is but Atrition only, and not Contrition, and consequently believes that if he be not really absolved by a true Priest, he cannot possibly escape damnation. Such a man for his comfort, you tell, first, (you who will haue mens salvation depend vpon no vncertaintyes) that though he verily belieue that his sorrow for sinnes is a true sorrow, and his purpose of amendment a true purpose; yet he may deceiue himself, perhaps it is not, and if it be not, he must be damned. You tell him secondly, that the party he confesses to, may be no Priest, by reason of some vndiscernable invalidity in his Baptisme, or Ordination; and if he be none, he can doe nothing. You tell him thirdly, that he may be in such a state, that he cannot, or if he can, he will not gi [...]e the Sacrament with due Intention: And if he does not, all is in vaine.

52. You plead our cause so feebly and falsly, that your best fee will be, to be silenced. First, I haue told you, in what sense we would haue mens salvation depend vpon no vncertaintyes. 2. For your case of a man lying vpon death bed, who feeles or feares that his repentance is but Attrition only, and not Contrition; (surely if it be attrition only, it is not Contrition) we tell him, that Gods grace is never wanting if we do implore it, (which are your owne words cited by me aboue) and not neglect to cooperate with it: If therfor he do his endeavour, God will not fayle to giue him all that shall be necessary for his salvation, whether it be atrrition with the Sacrament, or Contrition without it; and so it shall not be in the Parsons power to damne whom he will in his Parish, as you are pleased to speake; and you speake profanely in applying to our present purpose, that saying; Spes est rei incertae nomen, which is to slight all those Texts of Sceipture, which declare that absolute certainty or security must not be expected in this life, where we must worke our salvation with feare and trembling, so that [Page 386]neither Hope excludes a wholsome feare, nor feare a comfortable Hope; it being also most true, tha we are saved by Hope, and, Hope does not confound, which signifyes more then rei incertae nomen, an empty name only. By this Instruction, the dying man will clearly see, that neither want of Priesthood in the partie he confesses to, nor want of Intention in a true Priest, nor any other thing, beside his owne freewill neglecting to cooperate with Gods Grace, can damne him. We haue heard your words (Pag: 277. N. 61.) That, Gods assistance is alwayes ready on condition, that when it is offered in the divine directions of Scripture, or reason, the Church be not negligent to follow it (I cannot stand here to note, that you seeme to place Gods assistance only in the externall divine directions of Scripture or reason, without necessity of any internall Grace, which is direct Pelagianisme) and you put the case expressly when the Penitent feares that his Repenta [...] is attrition only, and consequently, when God hath giuen him light to see his danger, and the necessity of contrition, and therfor, that God will not be wanting to affoard his Grace, if he be not negligent to follow it; and by this truth he may prudently quiet his mind. This seemes to be the Doctrine of S. Thomas (3. Part: Q. 64. a. 8. ad. 2.) granting, that, in persons indued with the vse of reason, Faith and devotion supplyes the defect of intention in the Minister, for justification from sinne, but not for making the Sacrament valid.

53. Let vs heare what more you are pleased to answer in our behalf. You say; Put case a man by these considerations should be cast into some agonyes, (of your owne making and fayning; for we cleare him of all) what advise, what comfort would you give him? Verily I know not what you could say to him, but this: That, First, for the Qualification required on his part, he might know that he desired to haue true sorrow, and that that is sufficient. But then if he should aske you, why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowfull, to be a true desire, I believe you would be put to silence. Then secondly, to quiet his feares, concerning the Priest and his intention, you should tell him by my advise, that Gods Goodness (which will not suffer him to damne men for not doing better than their best) will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were vnavoidable. And therfore, though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: and if he gaue Absolution without Intention, yet in doing so, [Page 387]he should hurt himselself only, and not his Penitent.

54. Answer. First; If you should tell him, that only a desire of true sorrow, is sufficient for remiffion of deadly sins, either alone, or with Sacramentall Absolution, you should deceaue him. For, a desire only, is of a thing which one is supposed not to haue; and therfor he who only desires to haue sorrow, certainly wants it; as he who only desires to find the true Faith and Religion, cannot be sayd to haue it; though such a desire may moue him to seeke, and sind, if he persever in seeking; and in like manner, he who desires true sorrow, may, to satisfy that good desire, endeavour to passe from a meere desire to the thing desired, seing God will not be wanting on his part to affoard his Grace to perfit that desire; and so persons of timorous or scrupulous consciences, may conceiue they only desire true sorrow, when indeed they haue it.

55. You say: If he should aske you, why he might not know his forrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowfull, to be a true desire; I belieue you would be put to silence.

56. Answer: All that you can inferr from this your Objection, is, That you haue put yourself to silence For you it was, and not Charity Maintayned, who talked of a desire to be sorrowfull, as sufficient, though it were alone. Nevertheless, if one should aske, whether you are not very sure, that you did desire to know and embrace the true Faith and way which leads to eternall happyness, I suppose you would answer, that you were absolutely certaine of such a desire, and yet you cānot in your Grounds, be certaine that the Faith which you embrace, is true: For then you would be certaine, that Christian Faith is true, which you deny; and accordingly (Pag: 376. N. 57.) You say only; This is the Religion which I haue chosen, after a long deliberation, and I am verily perswaded, that I haue chosen wisely. And yet certainly you thought yourself to haue bene more than verily perswaded of your generall desire to imbrace the true Faith. Therfor one may know his desire of Faith to be a true desire, and not be certaine that his Faith is a true Faith; and then, why may he not be certaine that he hath a true desire of sorrow, and yet not be certain that he hath true sorrow? But to omit this Instance, the truth is, that you do not distinguish between an effectuall, and vneffectuall desire; This may be without the effect, or the object of it which is the thing desired, but That cannot be: For when we treate of Actions, which, all things considered, are in our power to exercise, [Page 388]if one effectually desire them, he will not faile to haue them; For, an effectuall desire, will moue him to apply all meanes necessary, for, and to remooue all impediments, against, that end. And from hence I inferr, that every one may obtaine true Contrition by the assistance of Gods Grace, if his endeavours be not wanting: And even these your exaggerations of the great danger men may incurre by want of Intention in the Minister, or defect in the Matter or Forme of Baptisme and Pennance, may moue him to procure Contrition for making all sure, and so out of your poysonous Doctrine make wholsome triacle. But you are mistaken, if you conceyue the Question to be, whether or no one may know that he hath either a desire of sorrow, or sorrow, which in generall one may as it were feele and know; but whether his desire and sorrow, be such as they ought to be, supernaturall, effectuall, vniversall, and from what cause they proceed; whether from the Divine, Angelicall, humane, or bad Spirit, who not seldome transfigures himself into an Angell of light.

57. The second advise you would haue vs giue concerning the Priest and his intention, is, to tell him that Gods Goodness (which will not suffer him to damne men for not doing better than their best) will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were vnavoidable. And therfor, though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: And if he gaue Absolution without Intention, yet in doing so, he should hurt himself only and not his Penitent.

58. Answer. We haue already shewed that if one doe his best, God will not faile to supply all defects concerning the Priest, and his Intention, by giving him Grace to attaine contrition; which is a cleare and solid way of supplying the sayd defects, as that which you propose is not, if your meaning be, that although the Priest were no Priest, or gaue Absolution without Intention, yet God would either make it a valid Sacrament immediatly, as I may say, performing by himself alone the function of the Priest, or els would giue the effect which the Sacrament would haue conferred if it had bene valid, without any change in the Penitent; as if, for example, he had attrition only, his sins should be forgiven, no less than if he had receyved true Absolution, or had arrived to an Act of Contrition. Now certainly this your way could not quiet the feares of any vnderstanding man; vnless you could bring some irrefragable [Page 389]Authority, or convincing reason (which is impossible for you to doe.) that God doth ever make valid an Absolution, invalid for want of a true Minister or Intention; or that a deadly sin may be forgiven by attrition alone. If you suppose, that God doth effectually moue him to Contrition, you alter the case and your Opinion, and contradict your owne words; That, though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one. For, if the Penitent haue contrition, that false Priest is not to him as if he were one, but all passes as if he had never confessed his sinnes to any such man, only by change of the disposition in the Penitent himself; which is the same which I haue declared; and so vpon the matter, your particular way of quieting such a Penitent, might rather plunge him into greater feares, and perplexityes.

59. You goe forward, and object our making the salvation of infants depend of Baptisme, a casuall thing, and in the power of man to conferr, or not conferr: and our suspending the same on the Baptizers Intention.

60. Answer. This Point concerning Baptisme of infants, being especially in these tymes, most necessary to be vnderstood, I hope it will not be amisse, to repeat some things of which I haue spoken before. First then, To deny the necessity of Baptisme for infants, was the condemned Heresy of the Pelagians, as appeares out of S. Austine, (Haere: 88. and, Cont: Julian: Pelag: L: 6. C. 7.) which is so certaine, that it is confessed by the Centurists, (Centur: 5. Col: 585.) and by the Protestant Writer, Sarcerius (Loc: Com: 88.) And S. Epiphan: (Haer: 28.) Condemnes Cerinthus for teaching, that a man may be saved without Baptisme. And Whitak: Cont: Duraeum, L. 10 P. 883. saith: we belieue and teach, That sins are forgiven, and grace conferred in Baptisme, which the Manichees were accustomed to deny. 2. Learned Protestants confesse, that not only S. Austine taught the necessity of Baptisme for the salvation of Children (for which, Cartwright in Whitg: Def: chargeth him with absurdity) but also in Generall, that the Fathers were of the same mynd, in so much as Musculus (in locis, Tit: de Baptismo) saith; The Fathers deayed salvation to the children who dyed without Baptisme, though their parents were faithfull. In further proofe wherof, we need no clearer Testimony, than that of Calvin (Instit: Lib: 4. Chap: 1 [...]. N. 20.) saying; It was vsuallmany Ages since, even almost from the beginning of the Church, that in danger of death, lay people might [Page 390]Baptize, if the Minister was not present in due tyme. And Bilson (Confer: at Hampton-Court) affirmes; the denying of private Persons. in case of necessity to Baptise, were to crosse all antiquity. Hooker also (fift Booke of Ecclesiasticall Policy, Sect: 62.) saith expresly, That the generall and full consent of the Godly learned in all Ages, doth make for validity of Baptisme, yea albeit administred in private, and even by women, (and this Doctrine he himself imbraceth and defends at large,) which confessed sense of Antiquity, declares evidently the necessity of Baptisme. Besides, the same man (fift Booke of Ecclsiast: Politicy, Sect: 59.) speaking of that Text, (Joan: 3.5.) Vnless a man be borne againe of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven: (By which, Catholikes proue the absolute necessity of Baptisme) speaketh against Calvinists, thus: To hyde the generall consent of Antiquity, agreeing in the literall interpretation, they cunningly affirme, that certaine haue taken those words as meant of materiall water, when they know that of all the Ancient, there is not one to be named, that ever did otherwise either expound, or alledge the place, then as implying externall Baptisme. 3. Not only Protestants confess, that the Fathers hold Baptisme to be necessary for the salvation of infants, but also divers of themselves teach the same Doctrine. Bilson in his true Differen: (Part: 4. Pag: 368.) concludeth from S. Austine and the Scriptures, That if children be excluded from Baptisme, they be likewise excluded from the kingdome of God; And, That without Baptisme they cannot be saved, by reason Originall sin is not remitted but in Baptisme. Dr. Andrewes pretended Bishop of Winchester, and a great Rabbi amongst English Protestants (in his Answer to the 18. Chapter of Cardinall Perrons Reply N. 18.) expresly teaches, that Baptisme is necessary via ordinaria. Kemnitius, one of the most learned Protestāts that ever wrote, teaches and proves out of scripture, That God doth not saue vs without meanes, but by the laver of regeneration. (Tit: 3.) And: Baptisme is a meane or instrument by which is made the communication of Christs benefits: For by Baptisme Christ cleanseth and sanctifyeth. (Ephes: 5.) Yea he saith expressly The testimonyes of Scripture are manifest: which, as they cannot be denyed, so they ought not to be shifted of. (Ephes. 5.) Clensing her with the laver of water in the Word. (Joan: 3.) Vnless one he borne againe of water &c. (Act: 22.) Be Baptized and wash away thy sinnes. (1. Pet: 3.) Speaknig of water &c: He sayth: Baptisme being of the like forme (of the Arke of Noë) saveth vs. And he concludes: These being most manifest tectimonyes, which expressly ascribe Efficacy [Page 391]to Sacraments, and declare what that (Efficacy) is, are not to be perverted by tropes from their simple and native signisication, which the proper signification of the words giveth, and so the ancient (Fathers) haue vnderstood these testimonyes simply, as they sound. Behold the Doctrine of a chiefest Protestant proved out of Scripture, and confessed to be the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers interpreting Scriptures; so as our Catholike Doctrine comes to be approved by Protestants, by Scripture, and by the Ancient Fathers, and by Protestants interpreting Scripture: all which Poynts are further taught by the Protestant Urbanus Regius, (In 1. Part: Operum, in Cathechismo minori, Folio 105.) confessing that the Scripture, and the Authority of the ancient Church, constraine him to belieue, that children dying vnbaptized, are damned. The same Doctrine is delivered by Sarcerius; ād by Confess: Augustana: The Protestants of Saxony, and sundry other Protestant Writers, as may be seene in the Tripl: Cord: (Chap: 20. Sect: 4. Pag 456.)

61. Now, we may reflect: First, seing these Protestants for their Doctrine of the necessity of Baptisme, rely vpon Scripture, (as indeed the words of Scripture are as cleare for this Point, as any can be) I would gladly know, what certaine Ground you, or any man can haue, that so many learned Protestants (to say nothing of all Fathers, Antiquity, and moderne Catholike Writters) haue erred in this their Interpretation of Scripture? Is it not your owne Rule, That when men truly desirous to know the truth, and of vpright meaning (I hope you belieue Protestants to be such, at least, most of them) differ about the sense of Scripture, it is a signe, that such places are not evident? And seing, we now treat of a Point, which at least, is necessary to be knowen, whether or no it be necessary (otherwise we cannot be assured that we want nothing necessary to salvation) it followes, that Scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be knowen; and therfor we must haue recourse to a Living Judg. 2. Seing so many of those whom you call brethren, teach our Catholique Doctrine, whatsoever you object against vs, makes no less against them. 3. Your saying, That Baptisme is a casuall thing, and in the power of man to conferr, (though yet many learned Protestants, hold Baptisme to be necessary) is a prophane speech, as if God had not a most particular Providence in disposing all rhings for the good of his Elect, particularly in things necessary to salvation. Why do you not likewise object against all Christians, their making the salvation of every one depend on the preaching of the Gospell (of [Page 392]which our Saviour spoke when he also commanded his Apostles to conferr Baptisme (Matth: 28.19.) which you may also say, is a casuall thing, and in the power of man to doe, or omitt? as if God could not be sure how to order infallibly all events or effects, vnless they fall out by necessity. Nay, I say more. Our God is so good, and desirous that all be saved, that if men did strictly concurre and cooperate with his holy Providence, and Grace, in all occasions, things would so fall out, as that mediatè or immediatè, proximè or remotè, one way or other, there would never want sufficient Meanes for infants to be baptized. So farr is this matter from being a casuall thing! And still we must consider, that infants dying without baptisme, are deprived of salvation, not for the fault of those who omitted to Baptize them, nor properly for want of Baptisme itself, but for Originall sin, once contracted and never abolished, by that meanes and instrument, which God hath appointed for that End and Effect; as he might in his Justice haue left all Mankind in their sins, without providing for them a Redeemer, according to the proceeding which he held with the apostating Angells; and therfore this Doctrine, That children dying without Baptisme, cannot be saved, implyes no cruelty, absurdity, or strangeness, to those who believe other Poynts of Christian Faith: Especially if we consider, that although they shall not enjoy felicity in Heaven, yet they shall lead their life with much content, by contemplation, and also by considering, that perhaps if their Creatour had granted them longer life, yea and procured them to be baptized, they might haue dyed in actuall deadly sinne, and haue bene damned in Hell, with Poena Damni, & Sensus, both of being deprived of the beatificall Vision, and of insufferable torments of sense; and what greater absurdity is it, that infants should Misse of salvation, for want of intention in the Minister, then if they had not bene in the occasion of not being baptized at all, by reason of some other impediment? And therfor I see no reason, why we should for such cases of want of Intention in the Minister (or of due Forme or Matter) haue recourse to any extraordinary Meanes; which should not be extraordinary, but ordinary, if God did provide it, whensoever the infant is not baptized, vpon whatsoever occasion or impediment, and so indeed Baptisme should never be absolutely necessary to salvation. Besides, seing there can be no certainty of extraordinary meanes, the matter will still remaine doubtfull, and objections must be answered some other waie.

[Page 393]

62. But you will object, That at least we differ from Protestants in suspending the salvation of infants, on the Baptizers Intention.

63. Answer. I haue shewed, that some learned Protestants of chief note, require the same intention which we doe; and also that every iudicious man will certainly judg, that there is no danger of invalidity in Baptisme for want of intention, but rather in respect of the Matter or Forme; and yet not only the Protestant Church of England teaches, that the Matter and Forme are necessary for Baptisme, but also divers other Protestants deliver the same Doctrine, as may be seene in The Triple Cord (Pag: 457.) and the thing is evident of it self to every one who vnderstands the termes of Matter and Forme. If men may be damned for their Actuall sinnes, though they be supposed to be invincibly ignorant of necessary or fundamentall points of Faith (as Potter confesses) why may not infants be deprived of Heaven for originall sinne, though theire want of Baptisme be not immediatly voluntary to any?

64. Your last Objection (N. 69.) is against Our making he Reall Presence of Christ in the Eucharist depend vpon the casualtyes of the Consecrators true Priesthood and intention, and yet commanding men to belieue it for certaine that he is present, and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine, [...]ought they can possibly know, may be nothing els, but a piece of bread, so exposing them to the danger of idolatry, and consequently of damnation.

65. Answer. First: Who will not wonder, you should object to vs danger of idolatry, by reason of some particular case, or application of a generall true Ground (which can be neither Heresy, nor formall idolatry) while Protestants are exposed to danger of Heresy and idolatry, and consequently of damnation, by reason of the very generall Ground, by which, their Actions should be directed? Luther and Lutherans belieue the Reall Presence, and divers of their chiefest Writers expressly teach, that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist. And Kemnitius proves it by the severall sayings of the Saints, Austine, Ambrose, and Gregory Nazianzen. The Reader may be pleased to see Brierley (Tract: 2. Cap: 1. Sect: 3.) Seing then Zwinglians, Calvinists, Socinians, and all they who deny the Reall Presence, hold the opinion of Lutherans to be false, and that the Eucharist for substance is but a piece of bread; according to your Objection those Lutherans expose themselves, not only to the danger of idolatry, and consequently of damnation; but also to certaine idolatry, if the Faith of Sacramentaryes be certainly true, [Page 394]as, themselves hold it to be. On the contrary side: If Christ be really and substantially present in the Sacrament, they who deny both his Presence, and Adoration, are Heretiks, and expose themselves to the danger of a sin no lesse haynous than idolatry. For it is no less (if not more) injurious to deny that honour to any person which is due to him, than it is to yeild greater respect than is due; rather this latter is less grievous that that former; because to exibite due honour, is one of those precepts which Divines call Affirmatiue, and do not oblige for all tymes; but expressly to deny that honour which is due to one, yea and avouch it not to be due, is ranked in the class of Negatiue Precepts, which oblige for all places, tymes, and other circumstances. Thus we are not obliged to be at all tymes in act of adoring God, but we are bound never to deny the supreme honour, which Divines call Latria, to be due to his Divine Majesty. If therfor Lutherans be Hererikes and Idolaters, for adoring Christ in the Eucharist, if it be only a piece of bread; other Protestants shall be Heretikes, and as bad, or worse, than Idolaters, if indeed Christ, true God and man, be really present. The difference then and doubtfullness among you, concernes Matter of Faith; but that which you object to vs, concernes only matter of Fact. We are most assured of this generall Ground; Christ is re [...] present in the Consecrated Hoast; but it is not an Article of Faith, that this Hoast in particular is Consecrated, or, that that which seemes to be bread and wine, is indeed such. You say; We command men to belieue for certaine, that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but for certaine you speake against your conscience, if you would haue the Reader to belieue, that we command men to belieue with certainty of Faith, that Christ is present in this or that particular Hoast; though, vnless we haue some grounded positiue reason to the contrary, we ought not positively to doubt; which would be but an Act of imprudency, or perhaps vncharitableness, or injustice; as it happens in a thousand cases, wherin we haue no certainty of Faith, or Metaphisicall evidence, and yet it would be meere foolishness, positively and practically to doubt of them: nor could there be in this case any shadow of danger to committ formall, or culpable Idolatry. Religion is a morall Uertue, and requires not, for its direction in particular occasions, the certainty of Faith, but is regulated by the vertue of Prudence, which in our case doth most reasonably judg, that Christ is really present, in that Hoast, which we haue good reason to judge is Consecrated; and if there be no danger of formall idolatry, [Page 395]there can be no danger of damnation. But in the meane tyme, you should consider, that by your fallible Faith, you can haue no certainty, that Christ either, is, or is not present in the Eucharist, and so you expose yourself to the danger of a grievous sin, by not believing and adoring Christ, if really he be present. Besides; seing you hold, that any errour against Divine Revelation, is damnable in itself, no man must read Scripture, or seeke to find the sense therof, least he chance to misse of the true meaning, ād so expose himself to danger, of cōmitting a thing damnable in itself. You blame Charity Maintained because you conceaue he would not haue vs subject to any vncertainty in matters belonging to salvation; and yet now you object against all Catholiques, that they adore our Saviour, when they are not absolutely certaine that he is present; though indeed, if passion did not blind you, you would condemne Lutherans only, who belieue, that bread remaynes, and therfor if Christ be not really present, as you hold for certaine he is not, they adore that which is nothing els but a piece of bread: wheras we Catholikes believing that bread doth not remayne, cannot possibly direct our intentions, and Adoration to bread, but to Christ himself, and so the most that can be imagined will only be this; that we adore Christ, thinking he is where he is not, our intention being still carried to him ād not to any Creature; which if you will hold for true idolatry, you must condemne all good Christians of idolatry who adore God as He is in Heaven, Earth, and everie where, though in the opinion of your fellow Socinians He be really and substantially, only in Heaven. Even Dr. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying (Pag: 258. Numb: 16.) speakes home to the purpose of freeing Catholiks from all danger of idolatry, in these words: idolatry is a forsaking the true God, and in giving the D [...]vine Worship to a Creature or to an idoll, that is, to an imaginary God, who hath no foundation in essence or existence: And is that kinde of superstition, which by Divines is called superstition of an vndue object: Now it is evident that the Object of their Adoration (that which is represented to them in their mindes, their thoughts and purposes, and by which God principally, if not solely takes estimate of humane actions) in the blessed Sacrament, is the only true and eternall God, hypostatically ioyned with his holy humanity which humanity they belieue actually present vnder the veile of the Sacramētall signes: And if they thought him not bresent, they are so farre from worshipping the bread in this case that themselves professe it to be idolatry to doe soe, which is a demonstration that their soule hath nothing in it that is idololatricall. If their confidence and fancyfull [Page 396]opinion hath engaged them vpon so great mistake (as without doubt is hath) yet the will hath nothing in it, but what is a great enemy to idolatry, Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas.

66. Having thus answered and retorted the Objections wherin you seeme to triumph, it is tyme to goe forward in proving the necessity of a Living infallible Judg.

67. Fourthly then, I resume the Argument of Charity. Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap: 2. N. 23. Pag: 67.) There was no Scripture for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses: And againe for about two thousand yeares more, from Moyses to Christ our Lord, Holy Scripture was only among the people of Israël; and yet there were Gentils indued with divine Faith, as appeares in Job and his frends. Wherfore during so many ages, the Church alone was the instructor of the faithfull, by meanes of Tradition. The Church also of Christ was before the Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one tyme, but successively, vpon 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 afterwardes some were doubted of, &c:

68. To this Argument (Pag: 100. N. 123.) You answer, that it is just as if I should say, Yorke is not in my way from Oxford to London, therfor Bristell is: Or a dog is not a horse: Therfor he is a man. As if God had no other wayes of revealing himself to men, but only Scripture, and an infallible Church, wheras S. Paul telleth vs, that men may know God by his workes, and that they had the Law written in their harts. Either of these ways might make some faithfull men without either necessity of Scripture, or Church. To this purpose you cite also S. Chrysostome, Isid: Pelus: and S. Paul, (Heb: 1.1.)

69. You could not but see the weakness of this your Answer, since you know that we speake not of extraordinary cases or concurrence, but of the ordinary Meanes, which God in his Holy Providence is wont to vse, helping one man by the ministery of another, in governing, teaching, preaching, and the like, and making good that truth of the Apostle, sides ex auditu. Faith comes by hearing. Which only way of teaching, and Tradition, could serue to beget Faith for that tyme wherin no Scripture, either of the Old, or new Law was written. Will you take vp the Apostle for saying, Fides ex auditu, and tell him, that there be other Meanes beside hearing, to beget Faith, as the Law written [Page 397]in mens harts, ād consideration of Gods creatures? If this be not the state of the Question, to what purpose do you through your whole Booke, seeke to establish the sufficiency of Scripture alone, and to destroy the necessity of the Churches Declarations, and Traditions? Since, when all is done, you may be told in your owne words, That without necessity of Scripture or Church, there are other Meanes to produce Faith, and so all your Arguments will be like this; Yorke is not in my way &c: A dog is not a horse &c: By this Meanes, one may with the Old Heretikes Manichees, Valentinians, Cerdonists, Marcionists, and the new Libertines, reject Scripture, and not be subject to the letter, but that they ought to follow the Spirit that quickeneth. As likwise the Swenckfeldians rejected the wtitten word, as the letter that killed contenting themselves with internall Spirit; and might with you alledg, that men had the Law written in their harts. Yourself say (Pag: 15 [...]. N. 38. The Churche is, though not a certaine Foundation of proofe of my Faith, yet a necessary Introduction to it; Which you must vnderstand in the Ordinary way. Vnless you haue a mynde to contradict your self, and say; That absolutely there are no other possible meanes to attaine Divine Faith, than by the Seripture and the Church, as a necessary introduction to it. Yourself therfor must answer your owne slighting Instances. For, if in the ordinary course, and as I may say, without a kind of Miracle, it were true, that the way from Oxford to Londō were either Yorke, or Bristoll, or that a dog must be either a horse, or aman; were not these consequēces very Good? But Yorke is not; therfor Bristoll is; But a dogg is not a horse; therfor he is a man? Now, the Ordinary necessary meanes to produce Faith, being either Scripture, or the Church; if we subsume; But it is not Scripture, (which is evident for that tyme, when there was no Scripture) it clearly followes; Therfor it is the Church, which I Hope, you will not deny to haue bene infallible in the Apostles tyme, before Scripture was written; and so your examples proue against none but yourself.

70. We must still remember, that Faith being the Gift of God, we cannot belieue, except in cases wherin God by his Eternall Providence hath decreed to affoard vs his particular Grace for that end; which he is not wont to doe, vnless the conditions by Him prescribed, be performed. Since therfor the Church hath bene appointed, as the ordinary Meanes to attaine Faith, we ought not to promise ourselves the particular assistance of Grace, necessary for exercising an Act of true Faith [Page 398]except vnder condition of hearing and submitting to that Church, and not by consideration only of Gods creatures, or by the Law written in our harts, or by extraordinary enthusiasmes, private spirits, and the like. If it had bene Gods holy pleasure to require of men to belieue only that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of those that seeke Him, or some other few Articles, he would haue affoarded his sufficient supernaturall Grace to belieue those Points, as also to loue Him, repent of our sins, and attaine salvation by believing those Pointes only (for as much as would belong to Faith:) But de facto it falls out otherwise, and we are to belieue many other Points, as yourself pretend to teach (Pag: 133. N. 13. where you say, That they who should belieue the sayd Article, That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him, (Heb: 6.11.) might be rewarded, not with bringing them immediatly to salvation without Christ but with bringing them first to Faith in Christ, and so to salvation: Which you endeavour to proue by the story of Cornelius (Act: 10.) of whom you say (Pag: 134.) If he had refused to bel euein Christ after the sufficient Revelation of the Gospell to him and Gods will to haue him belieue it, he that was accepted before, would not haue continued accepted still, because one of the conditions which Christ requires for remission of sins, and salvation from him, is, that we belieue what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared, to haue bene revealed by him. This confirmes what I sayd, that God doth not giue Grace to Belieue, Hope, and Loue, except vpon those conditions which he appoints and requires, which now is not only to belieue some one Article, or to attaine Faith by the mere consideration of Gods creatures, or by the Law written in our harts, or by immediate extraordinary lights, but by the Ministery of the Church; and therfor (Ephes: 4.11.12.) Pastours and Doctours are sayd to be given to the consummation of the Saints, vnto the worke of the Ministerie, vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ. Which declares, that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ, but by the Ministery of Pastours and Doctours: And even those Protestants who rely vpon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture, will grant, that the Spirit is not given but when the Churches Ministery precedes as an Introduction, or, as Potter (Pag: 139.) speakes, the present Church workes vpon all whithin the Church, to prepare, induce, and perswade the mynd as an outward meanes, to imbrace the Faith, to reade and belieue the Scriptures.

71. It remaymes then, that not Scripture, but the Church, (which [Page 399]was before Scripture, and from which we receaue it) must be the necessary meanes, in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith, and decide Controversyes in Religion, and consequently, must be infallible according to your owne Doctrine (Pag: 35. N. 7.) that the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith, and Religion, must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth. For if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, in any thing which God requires men to belieue, we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing.

72. 5. I vrge the Argument of Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap: 2. N. 23. Pag: 69.) If Protestants will haue Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule, let them first produce some Text of Scripture, affirming that by the entring therof, infallibility went out of the Church.

73. To this you answer (Pag: 104. N. 138.) In these words: As no Scripture affirmeth, that by the entring of it, infallibility went out of the Church, so neither do we, neither haue we any need to do so. But we say, that it continued in the Church even togeather with the Scriptures, so long as Christ and his Apostles were living, and then departed: God in his Providence having provided a plaine and infallilde Rule, to supply the defect of Living and infallible Guides. Gertainly, if your cause were good, so great a wit as yours is, would devise better Arguments to maintaine it. We can shew no Scripture afsirming infallibility to haue gone out of the Church; therfore it is infallible. Some what like to his discourse, that said; it could not be proved out of Scripture, that the King of Sweden was dead, therfore he is still Living. Me thinks in all reason, you that chaleng privileges and exemption from the condition of men, which is to be subject to errour; you that by vertue of this privilege vsurpe Authority over mens consciences, should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven, and shew some express warrant for this Authority you take vpon you; otherwese you know, the Rule is, vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur, presumitur pro libertate.

74. This Answer is easily confuted. First, I must returne it vpon yourself, with thankes for your voluntary express grant, That no Scripture afsirmes, that by entring of it, infallibility went out of the Church. Remember your owne saying; that there are only two Principles common to Christians; Reason, and Scripture: Seing then it is evident, that meere naturall Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter, and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture, that infallibility [Page 400]went out of the Church by the entring of Scripture, what remaines, but that you haue no proofe at all for it? And, since that you directly grant, infallibility to haue continued for some tyme in the Church, even togeather with the Scriptures, and that neither by reason, nor Scripture, you can proue that it ever departed from Her; we must of necessity conclude, that she still enjoyes that priviledge, most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith. You say, God hath provided a plaine and infallible Rule, to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides. But we haue proved the contrary, That Scripture is not plaine in all Points belonging to Faith; and though it were so, yet yourself confess in this place, that infallibility in the Church, may stand with the sufficiency and plaines of Scripture; and therfore you cannot inferr; scripture is sufficient; therfore the Church is not infallible. You teach (Pag: 101. N. 126.) That though all the necessary parts of the Gospell be contained in every one of the foure Gospells, yet they which had all the Bookes of the New Testament, had nothing superfluous; for it was not superfluous, but profitable, that the same thing should be sayd divers tymes, and be teslifyed, by divers witnesses. Therfore the Testimony of the Church, if she were supposed to be infallible, might be profitable, although Scripture were cleare and sufficient. Protestants pretend, that we can proue matters belonging to Faith, only by Scripture: Wherfore you must either proue by some plaine Text of Scripture, that infallibility dyed, as I may say, with the Apostles, or never affirme herafter any such groundless, voluntary, and pernicious Proposition. From Scripture we learne, that with out repentance are the gifts of God. (Rom: 11.29) And it is an Axiome of naturall Reason, Melior est conditio possidentis. God once bestowed vpon the Church, the gift of infallibility; and therfore without some evident positiue proofe, you are not to depriue her of it: And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument, except to plead Possession, which you cannot take from vs without some evident proofe to the contrary; And you being the Actor, and we the Defendents, not wee, but you must prove; and performe what you exact of vs, to shew some express warrant &c: though it be also most true that we haue great plenty of convincing proofes for the infallibility of Gods Church.

75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden, I belieue you will loose your jeast, whē I shall haue asked whether this were not a good Argument; we can know by Scripture alone, whether the King of Sweden [Page 401]be aliue or dead; but we know by Scripture, he was once Living, and know not by any Scripture that he is dead: Therfore, for ought we know, he is aliue; and so your example returnes vpon yourself; that seing you know by Scripture infallibility to haue bene once in the Church, and that by no Scripture, (which with you must be the only proofe in this case) you know, that it ever departed from Her, you must belieue that still she enjoyes it. As for vs, we challeng no Priviledges, but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church, and which we proue by the same Arguments, wherby the Apostles and their Successors proue their Authority, (as shall be shewed herafter) and the Rule, Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur, praesumitur pro libertate, is profanely applyed to our present case, wherin it is an vnspeakable benefit to haue our liberty, not taken away, but moderated, directed, and elevated to the End of Eternall Happyness. If in any case, certainly in this, that saying, Licentia omnes sumus deteriores, is most true; as lamentable experience teaches in so many Heresyes, and so implacable contentions of Heretikes among themselves, by reason of the liberty which every one presumes to take in interpreting Holy Scripture: And for avoiding so great an inconvenience and mischeife, it is necessary to acknowledg some infallible Living Judg, and so your Rule for Liberty, being rightly applyed, proves against yourself: And the Church having once confessedly enjoyed infallibility, I must returne against you your owne words: Me thinkes in all Reason, you that presume to take away Priviledges once granted, by God himself, for the Eternall Good of soules, should produce some exprress warrant for this bold attempt; especially it being a Rule, Privilegia sunt amplianda; chiefly, when they proceed from a Soveraigne Power, and are helped by that Dictate of Reason, Melior est conditio possidentis. And in the meane tyme, you are hee, who breake that Rule, Ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur, praesumitur pro libertate, by pretending, that men are obliged to submit Reason, though seeming never so certaine and evident, to the contents of Scripture, which yet you teach, not to be manifestly and certainly, but only probably, true: Against which is your owne saying, Praesumitur pro libertate, vbi contrarium non manifestè probatur, as it happens in your fallible and only [Page 402]probable Faith, which cannot be manifestly proved to be true; for if it could be so proved, Christian Faith should be absolutely certaine, and not only probable: And so, continually you are framing Arguments in favour of your Adversary.

76. I will not here loose tyme in examining your saying (Pag: 101. N. 126.) The Bookes of Scripture, which were receyved by those that receyved fowest, had as much of the Doctrine of Christianity in them, as they all had which were receyved by any; all the necessary parts of the Gospell, being contayned in every one of the Gospells. Are not the divers profitable things which are contained in some of the Gospells, and omitted in others, part of the Doctrine of Christianity, taught by the Apostles to Christians? Besides, what can you vnderstand by these words (Pag: 101. N. 125.) For ought appeares by your reasons, the Church never had infallibility? And yet Charity Maintayned spoke of the Church of Christ, as it was before any Scripture of the new Testamēt was written; which Church He proved to be infallible, because at that tyme there could be no other infallible Rule or Judg, which is a cleare ād convincing Reasō. And so I hope it appeares by his Reasons that the Church once had infallibility.

77. Sixthly: You haue these words (Pag: 115. N. 156) Nothing can challeng our belief, but what hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and vniversall Tradition: Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to vs. Therfore nothing but Scripture can challeng our belief. Now I saie in like manner; it is neither delivered in Scripture, nor otherwise hath descended to vs from Christ by Originall and Vniversall Tradition, that Scripture is not at this tyme joyned with some infallible Living Judg, as once it was; or that the Church was ever devested of that Authority, and infallibility, which it had; or that God had provided a plaine and infallible Rule, to supply the defect of a Living and infallible Guide, (as you say) or that Scripture alone without Tradition, is the Rule of Faith: Therfore none of these Points can challeng our belief. My saying hath bene proved hertofore, and yourself confess, that you do not proue out of Scripture, that with the entring of it, infallibility went out of the Church; but contrarily, that they did remayne togeather for a tyme.

78. Seaventhly: I take an Argument from your owne Doctrine, that Scripture is not a materiall Object of Faith, or an Article which we belieue: To which Maior, I subsume thus: But that Meanes, by assenting to which alone, I belieue all other Points, must itself [Page 403]be assented to, and believed (for how can I believe any thing for an Authority which I do not belieue?) Therfore Scripture alone cannot be the Meanes by which I come to belieue all other Points. And seing no other ordinary Meanes to produce Faith, can be assigned, besides Scripture, and the Church, we must inferr, that the Church is the ordinary Meanes to produce Faith, and decide Controversyes in Religion; and consequently even according to your owne Doctrine, she must be infallible; Otherwise, as you say of the Meanes to decide controversyes, (Pag: 35. N. 7.) We can yield vnto it, but a wavering and fearfull Assent in any thing.

79. Eightly. You confess, that the Church erring in any Fundamentall Point, ceases to be a Church; and seing you also profess, that we cannot know what points in particular be Fundamentall, you cannot know whether the Church de facto hath not fayled. vnless we belieue: that she is infallible and cannot fayle. And yet most Protestants gra [...] that the Church cannot fayle, our Saviour having promised tha [...] [...] gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her: In so much as Whitaker against Reynolds, in his Answer to the Preface, (Pag: [...]3.) saith; [...] belieue to the comfort of our soules, that Christs Church [...]th continued, and never shall faile so long as the world endureth. And we account is a sprophane Heresy to teach otherwise. And Potter avoucheth, that Christ hath promised, the Church shall never fayle, as you confesse (Pag: 277. N. 61.) That there shall be by divine Providence preserved in the world to the worlds end, such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation, and nothing inevitably destructive of it: This and no more the Doctour affirmes, that God hath promised absolutely. And yourself say, (Pag: 106 N. 140.) VV [...] yield vnto you, that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points, because (as we conceyue) God hath promised so much. By the way; if according to Whitaker, it be a profane Heresy to say the Church shall fayle; and that according to Potter, God hath promised so much absolutly, yea and that it was a most proper Heresy in the Donatists against that Article of our Creed, I belieue the Catholike Church; and that you also conceiue our Saviour Christ hath done so, how dare you say (Pag: 15. N. 18.) The contrary Doctrine I do at no hand belieue to be a damnable Heresy? Is it not a damnble Heresy to belieue that Christ can faile of his promise? Besides, since these Protestants profess, and you also conceaue, that God hath promised the Church shall certainly [Page 404]be assisted, so far as not to erre in Fundamentall Points; I aske, whether the Church can resist such an Assistance or Motion of God, or no? Whatsoever you answer for Protestants, and yourself, will serue for an Answer to this very Objection of resistibility, or irresistibility, which you make against vs, who defend the infallibility of the Church, and absolute certaine Assistance, that she shall never erre in matters belonging to Faith and Religion. But to returne.

80. Seing the Church cannot perish, she cannot faile in Fundamentall Points; and seing also you confess, that it is impossible to determine in particular what Poynts be Fundamentall; (and we see other Protestants could never yet agree in giving a Catalogue of such Points) we must either belieue that she can faile in no Points at all, or else we cannot be sure, that she failes not in Fundamentall Articles. This granted, I go a step further, and say; that seing in the ordinary course of Gods Providence, we are not taught by immediate Revelations, Enthusiasmes, or the like, but by the Ministery of the Church, it followes, that God hath indued and adorned her with such Prerogatives and Notes, that all who will cooperate with Gods Grace, may attaine the knowledg of Her, and be able to joyne themselves to Her Communion, and abandon all other false Synagogues or Congregations. Otherwise it is all one to make the true Church invisible, or vndiscernable from other Communityes, and to say there is no true Church at all, in order to any fruit, which faithfull people can take or receiue from Her; and infallibility in Fundamentall Points, which, even Protestants grant Her, will serue to no purpose at all. It is your owne saying, (Pag: 105. N. 139.) No Church can possibly be fit to be a Gaide, but only a Church of some certaine denomination. And what comfort can it be to our soules as Whitaker sayd, That Christs Church never shall faile, if we cannot know where that Church is, nor that there be Meanes and Notes, to shew her vnto vs? Neither can any be obliged to obey her Commands, follow her Doctrine, heare her preachers, frequent her Sacraments &c: vnless they can be sure to find her. (Rom: 10. Vers: 14.15.) How shall they belieue him whom they haue not heard? And how shall they heare without a Preacher? But how shall they preach vnless they be sent? Behold preaching, in the ordinary course, necessary to Faith, and lawfull Mission necessary [Page 405]to Preaching! All which can belong only to the visible true Church. For this cause, (Ephes: 4.) There must be in the Church, Pastors to governe, and Doctors to teach. And (Esay: 62.6.) We reade; vpon thy walles, Jerusalem, I haue appointed watchmen, all the day and all the night for ever they shall not hold their peace. If they hold not their peace, they must haue auditours, who must be knowne, and these must know where their Preachers are to be found. Even Calvin (Lib: 4. Inst: Chap: 1. Sect: 4.) Saith, that the knowledg of the visible Church is not only profitable, but necessary for vs, and that we are to be kept vnder her custody and government all the dayes of our life, our weakness requiring that we be her Disciples through the whole course of our life. And having (Sect 5.) alledged the words (Eph: 4.11.) He adds; We see that God, who could make men perfect in a moment, yet will not do it but by the education of the Church. God inspires Faith, but by Meanes of the Gospell, as Paul tell vs (Rom: 10.17.) That Faith comes by hearing. Although the Power of God be not tyed to outward meanes, yet he hath tyed vs to the ordinary way of teaching. Wherby we see, that even those who talke so much of the private Spirit, yet profess that it is not given without the Ministery of the Church, as I saied above. Fulk also ( in his Answer to the counterfaite Catholike, Pag: 100.) sayes of Preachers: Truth cannot be continued in the world but by their Ministery. And in Propositions and Principles disputed in the vniversity of Geneva. (Pag: 845.) The Ministery is an essētiall mark of the true Church. Mr. Deering (in his Reading vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes, Chap: 3. Lecture 15.) sayth; Salvation springeth in preaching of the Gospell, and is shut vp againe with the ceasing of it. And, (Ibid: Lectur: 16. fine) Take away preaching, you take away Faith. Cartwright (in his second Reply, Part: 1. Pag: 381. circa medium) maintayneth, that the people perish, where there be no preachers, although there be Readers. And that by bare reading, ordinarily there is no salvation, no Faith. Let Protestants marke this. If Scripture were of itself evident in all Points of Faith, it were sufficient to reade it; and people need not perish for want of preaching, but Faith and salvation might be had without it, by only reading Scripture.

81. Out of what hath bene sayd, these important Corollaryes are manifestly deduced. First: That the true Church, which all ought to seeke, and may find if they indeavour, ād be not wāting to Gods Grace, is a visible Congregation, which may be distinguished from all other, ād so come to be of one denominatiō. For, it is evidēt, our Saviour sayd not of false pastours ād prelates, he that heares you, heares me Luc: 10.16. nor [Page 406]were false Preachers sent by him; nor did he appoynt Pastours, Doctors &c. to be followed in a false Church; nor did he appoynt watchmen &c. in Babylon, but in Jerusalem: nor can the sayings of Protes [...]nts, which I haue [...]ited aboue, be vnderstood either of a false Church, or of a true Church, as it were in generall and in abstracto, without being possible to be knowen in particular. But they must be vnderstood, of a true Church; with relation to vs, and the salvation of particular persons, for which end our B Saviour did constitute, and doth preserue Her: What els [...]n Calvins words signify? That it is necessary for vs to know her; That the keepes and defends vs; That we must be her Discrples; That our of her [...]osome, no remission of sins can be hoped: That although God could, yet he will not bring Vs to perfection, but by the education of the Church: That he inspires Faith, by the instrument of the Gospell, and Meanes of hearing; and that God hath tyed vs to this ordinary way. And what els can Fulk, and other Protestants meane. For it were but foolery to say, That an vnknowne Ministery is an essentiall Mark of the true Church? Or that salvation springeth in a preaching not known where to be found, and is shut vp with ceasing of it? Or that truth cannot be continued: in the world without the ministery of Preachers? Or of any such sayings?

82. Secondly: It followes, that seing there must alwayes be a knowne particular Church which cannot perish, that is in your Principles, cannot erre in Fundamentall Points, that knowen Church must be infallible absolutely in all Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall. For, if we did conceiue she could erre in any one Point of Faith, we could not rely on her Authority in any other; which you also grant, as we haue lately shewed; and (Pag: 105. N. 139.) you speake directly to our present purpose in these words: We vtterly deny, the Church to be an Infallible Guide in Fundamentalls; for to say so were to oblige ouerselves to find some certaine society of men, of whom we might be certaine, that they neither do, nor can erre in Fundamentalls, nor in declaring what is Fundament all: And consequently to make any Church an Infallible Guide in Fundamentalls, would be to make it Infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed. To which Assertion of yours, I subsume thus: But there must be alwayes a visible Church discernable from all false Congregations, which Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Points of Faith: Therfore there must alwayes be a discernable Church, Infallible in all things she proposes, and requires to be believed.

[Page 407]

83. Thirdly: It is deduced: That even according to the most rigid Protestants, God doth not ordinarily affoard his Grace for bringing men to Faith by the only consideration of his Creatures, or by the Law written in our harts, or by other secet meanes, but by teaching, preaching, and the like. By which consideration, we haue not only confuted what you sayd, (Pag: 100. N. 123.) that men might be made Faithfull without either necessity of Scripture; or Church; but that also is answered, which you Object (Pag: 356. N. 38.) where you aske; Why should not I be made a true and Ortodoxe Christian, by believing all the Doctrine of Christ, though I cannot deriue my descent from a Perpetuall Succession that believed it before me? To which demand, the Answer is very easy, and convincing, to all such as against the Pelagians, belieue true Christian Faith to be the Gift of God, and producible only by his speciall Grace and Inspiration, which he gives only by the meanes appointed in his Holy providence, that is, Preaching, Teaching, and Ministery of his visible Church, as we haue heard Calvin saying, God inspires Faith, by Meanes of the Gospell, as Paul tells vs, that Faith comes by hearing. And if any will take vpon them, to belieue by force of naturall Reasō, or by Revelatiō in Scripture, vnderstood by their owne wit ād interpretatiō, they shall be sure to be miserably deceyved, ād be far enough from exercising any true Act of Divine supernaturall Faith, necessary to Salvation. Now the Church by Divine Institution cannot consist without a Succession of Bishops, from the Apostles to the worlds end, and therfore God gives not his Assistance for the production of true Faith, except by the Ministery of such a Church, as is governed by Bishops; though no man denyes, but that he might haue done otherwise, by ordaining and ordering another course of his holy Providence; as Protestants will grant that God might haue saved men without Scripture, though in their opinion de facto he will not do it, but that it, even taken alone, is not only sufficient, but necessary to salvation.

84. Fourthly I deduce; That, the Premises considered, it may justly appeare to every Christian very strange, that (Pag: 150. N. 41.) having cited these words of Charity Maintained; If the Church be not an Infallible teacher, why are we commanded to seeke, to heare, to obey the Church? You would answer in this manner: For commands to s [...]eke the Church, I haue not yet met with any, and I belieue, you, if you were to shew them, would be yourself to seeke. But yet if you could produce some such, we [Page 408]might seeke the Church to many good purposes, without supposing her a guide Infallible. And then for hearing and obeying the Church, I would faine know, whether none may be heard and obeyed, but those that are infallible? Whether particular churches, Governours, Pastors, Parents, be not to be heard and obeyed? Or whether all these be infallible? I wonder you will thrust vpon vs so often these worne out objections, without taking notice of their Answers. But all this is clearly confuted, by what hath bene sayd already. And 1. What Christian would not wonder, as I sayd, to heare you affirme, that you haue not met with any commands to seeke the Church? If the Ministery of the Church be the ordinary Meanes to attaine Faith, and, as even yourself confess, a necessary Introduction to it; if Faith come by hearing; if in Her only we con expect to find true Pastours and Doctours; if it be necessary to know her, as Calvin confesses; if Faith, remission of sins, and salvation cannot be had except by her Meanes; I beseech you, are not these sufficient commands to seeke Her, or rather may we not call this command of seeking her, either the command of Commands, or els a command implyed in all the commands, of Believing, Hoping, Loving, Repenting and seeking salvation, seing these cannot be had, but by seeking, and finding her, and is it not evident, that if we be obliged to attaine an End, we are bound to seeke out the Meanes, which are necessary for that End? Nay do you not speake inconsequently to yourself, while you deny not, but that there is a command to heare and obey the Church, and yet deny that there is any command to seeke her? It seemes you are indeed a child of Adam, who would hide yourself from God, and from those Superiours whom he hath appointed to guide and governe you, in his place. If one belieue that there are some, whom by Gods appointment he is to heare and obey, in order to Heaven, and Happyness, is it not his part, or hath he not a most strict obligation, to do his best endeavour, to find out such persons, or such a Congregation? But, say you, we might seeke the Church, to many good purposes, without supposing Her a Guide Infallible. No doubt, but, speaking in generall, we may seeke one without supposing him to be a Guide Infallible, as one may seeke some lost sheepe, such as you are, to bring them from Heresy to the Church, and from Socinianisme to true Reason, (Which will not be guided by itself, but by a Superiour Maister, appoynted by God) without supposing them to be Infallible Guides. But when we seeke a Church, from which alone we con learne with certainty required to [Page 409]Faith, what Scripture is Canonicall and all Points of Faith necessary to salvation (neither of which we can learne from Scripture) we must suppose that Church to be Infallible. Thus all they who belieue the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, (whether totall, or not) consequently belieue it to be infallible: And (Pag: 35. N. 7.) you confess, that the Meanes to decide controversyes in Faith and Religion, must be indued with an Vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth. And if the Church were not Infallible, one of those many good purposes which you fancy to yourself in seeking Her, would be, that we should certainly expose ourselves to danger, of being perniciously deceived, in matters concerning Eternall Salvation; seing, as I sayd, we haue no other certaine and sufficient Meanes, to belieue scripture, and other Articles of Faith. And now, I beseech you, tell me, whether we heare and obey all particular Churches, Governours, Pastours, and Parents, as Judges of Controversyes in Faith and Religion, and the only Meanes to propose to vs all Points necessary to be believed? Certainly, if we were obliged to heare and obey them in so eminent a degree, (as we are not) we ought also to belieue them to be infallible, even according to your owne Assertion repeated in divers places of your Book. I wonder you and other Protestants will be still thrusting vpon vs this worneout Objection, without taking notice of the Answer which hath bene so often given, and which shewes, that your Objection tumes against yourself. And as for our obligation to seeke the Church, none can speake more home, than Dr. Field, one of the chiefest Protestant Divines of England (in his Treatise of the Church, in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Lor [...] Archbishop,) teaching expressly, that there remaineth nothing for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which among all the societyes in the world; is that Church of the Living God, which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, that so they may embrace her Communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgment.

85. Fiftly; I know not whether you speake more vntruly, or perniciously, or (giue me leaue to speake truth) more ridiculously, when (Pag: 105. N. 139.) you say to Charity Maintayned: You must know there is a wide difference between, being infallible in Fundamentalls, and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentalls. Dr. Potter sayes, That the Church is the former; that is, There shall be some men in the world, while the world lasts, which erre not in Fundamentals; for otherwise there should [Page 410]be no Church: For to say the Church, while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls, implies contradiction, and is all one as to say, The Church, while it is the Church, may not be the Church. So that to say, that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls, signifyes no more but this, There shall be a Church in the world for ever. Thus you: And thus the sons of men, and children of darkness, take pleasure to seeme witty by jeasting sacrilegiously in things belonging to God. The Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts, because if she erre in such Points, she is no more a Church. Why say you not thus? All men are infallibly true, because if they erre, they cease to be true, in that wherin they erre. Mr. Chillingworth is immortall, and cannot dy, because if he dy, he is no more Mr. Chillingworth; and happy had it bene for him, and others seduced by his sophistry, si non fuisset natus homo ille. Thus also you may say: That God, when he threatned and decreed, that Adam should be mortall, and dye, if he transgressed his command, at the same tyme even after his transgression he was immortall and could not dye, because if he died, he should no more be Adam. To be immortall, in common sence, signifyes a certainty not to dye, and not ridiculously, that if he dy, he doth exist no more; and so not to exist implyes the direct contrary of being immortall, and supposes one to be mortall; and therfore to say, The Church is infallible, because if she erre, she is no more a Church, comes to this, that she is fallible, which is directly contrary to infallible. For, as we sayd of immortality, so in proportion, infallibility must signify an assurance not to erre; and the Church to be infallible in Fundamentall Points, must signify, that she cannot erre in them, and so not loose her being by such errour, which is plainly opposite to your saying, that she may erre, and therby cease to be. You erre therfore, in not distinguishing between Actum primum and secundum, or Potentiam and Actum, as Philosophers speake. To say, a Church is infallible, or cannot erre or be destroyed, signifyes some antecedent, either extrinsecall or intrinsecall, Principle, or Power, preserving Her in such manner, as that such a Principle, cannot actually consist with errour. And therfor you speake not like a Philosopher, in saying, The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls, that is, There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts, which erre not in Fundamentalls, passing ab actuad potentiam, and proving that men are infallible, because de facto they erre not, wheras men may chance not to erre, and yet not be infallible. You haue heard Whitaker [Page 411]saying, We beleeue to the comfort of our soules, that Christs Church hath continued, and never shall faile so long as the world indureth, and we account it a prophane Heresy to teach otherwise. What comfort, I pray, can it be to soules, that the Church may erre in Fundamentall Points, yet so, as she remaynes no more a Church; which Whitaker accounts a prophane Heresy? Every one conceaves infallibility to be a favour, and Priviledge? You tell vs the plaine contrary; That infallibility in the Church, for the most principall and necessary Points of Faith, doth not signify, that she may not erre in them, but that if she erre, she must inevitably perish, or dye by such a damnable errour, and become as it were the Divells martyr, by dying for so bad a cause: Which surely is no favour or Priviledge; especially if we call to mynd, an other Doctrine of yours, that Errours not Fundamentall are compatible with the Being of a Church, which is a greater favour than to be destroyed: And therfore how can infallibility in Fundamentall Points, in your way of explication, (that if she erre in such Points she ceaseth to be a Church) be a Priviledg or Favour, seing no body will say, that fallibility and errour in Points not Fundamentall, which yet destroy not the Church, are favours? Other men conceaue, that these Propositions are convertible: Whosoever is infallible, cannot erre; and, whosoever cannot erre, is infallible: But you contrary to all other mens Logick, say the Church is infallible, because she may erre damnably and desperatly, and therby loose her Being.

86. When Protestants teach, That the Church cannot perish, but is infallible in Fundamentall Points, they make a difference between Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall; and teach, That she may faile and de facto hath fayled in these, but cannot faile in those. But you in opposition to all others maintayne, That the Church may erre both in Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Articles; from whence, every one would inferr, that she is absolutly fallible in both, and infallible in neither; or if infallible in either, in both: And yet you haue found a devise, that though she erre in both those kinds of Articles, she is infallible in one of them only, that is, in Fundamentall Points: And fallible in Points not Fundamentall. A rare piece of Philosophy! To erre damnably, and Fundamentally, and yet be infallible! Yea, which is most admirable, to be infallible, because she erres most deeply, and be fallible because she erres in matters of lesser moment. Beside, other Protestants put a difference between the vniversall [Page 412]Church is infallible ād cannot erre in Fundamentall Points, but that Particular Churches ād Persons may; But in your doctrine there cā be no such distinction. The vniversall Church, with you, is infallible, because if she erre Fundamentally, she ceases to be a Church, as also Particular Churches, if they erre Fundamentally, cease to be Churches; and the same I say of particular Persons, and so particular Churches and Persons shall be no less infallible than the vniversall Church, which is contrary to the doctrine of other Protestants, and to your owne words also (Pag: 106. N. 140.) We yield vnto you, that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points, because (as we conceaue) God hath promised so much. Now you will not say, that God hath promised so much to particular Churches and Persons; and therfor you must put a difference between the vniversall, and particular Churches; which difference cannot stand with this your speculation, that the Church is only in fallible in some points, because if she erre in them, she ceases to be a Church: which exoticall kind of infallibility agrees to all particular Churches, and persons.

87. Hence it is, that Protestants ground the Perpetuily of the vniverfall Church, not vpon a probable belief or hope that it shall be so, or vpon Her actuall not erring Fundamentally, as you do, but vpon some antecedent Principle, namely, the Promises of our Saviour Christ and Assistance of the Holy Ghost. Dr. Potter in particular, whom you vndertooke to defend, speakes very clearly to this purpose (Pag: 105.) in these words, The whole Militant Church, (that is all the members of it) cannot possibly erre, either in the whole Faith, or any necessary Article of it. For, such an errour must needs disvnite all the Members from Christ the Head; and so dissolue the Body, and leaue Him no Church, which is impossible. Mark that he sayth not as you doe; The Church cannot erre in any necessary Article, because therby she should cease to be a Church, but contrarily, seing it is impossible that she can cease to be a Church, and leaue Christ no Church, she cannot possibly erre in the whole Faith, or any necessary Article of it. With what modesty, or conscience do you alledg here Dr. Potter, as if he did not disagree from you? The contrary wherof will appeare more by his words (Pag: 153.154.155.) The Church, saith he, Vniversall is ever in such manner assisted by the good spirit, that it never totally failes, or falls of from Christ. For it is so firmely founded on the Rocke: Matth: 16.18. ( that is on Christ the only Fundation, Cor: 3.11.) that the gates of Hell) whether by [Page 413]temptation, or persecution) shall not prevaile against it. And that you may see how far he was from dreaming of your Chimericall infallibility, he cites Bellarmine (de Eccles: Lib: 3. Cap: 13. saying, That the Church cannot erre, is proved out of Scripture, (Matth: 16.) vpon this rocke I will build my Church) and then goes on in these words: The whole Church cannot so erre as to be destroyed. For then our Lords promise here (Matth: 16.18.) of Her stable edification, should be of no value. Obserue this: And what he hath afterward, in these words: The Church vniversall hath not the like assurance from Christ, that she shall not erre in vnnecessary additions, as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith, what is Fundamentall and necessary. It is comfort enough for the Church, that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers, and conserue her on earth against all enemyes: But she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error. That the Church be never robbed of any truth necessary to the being of the Church, the promises of Christ assure vs. Behold; First; The Church may erre in not Fundamentall, but cannot erre in Fundamentall Ponts, wheras you say she may erre in both. 2. That the reason why she canot erre in Fundamentall Points, is, because she is firmely founded on the rocke, and if she did faile, our Lords promise of her stableedification should be of no value: And therfore the Lord will even secure her from all capitall dangers, and of this, the promises of Christ assure vs. And this, as I sayd, is the common doctrine of Protestants: Wherby it appeares, that the Church is not sayd to be infallible in Fundamentall Points, because she should perish by every such Error; but contrarily, because she is assisted by the Holy Ghost, never to erre in such Points, she shall never be destroyed; in direct opposition to you who say, that she may erre, and by erring be destroyed. What a kind of Syllogisme must be framed out of this your Doctrine, in this manner? The Church is infallible, or cannot erre in Fundamentall Points, because if she did so erre, she should cease to be a Church: But she may cease to be a Church: Therfore she is infallible, and cannot erre in Fundamentalls. You should in ferr the direct contrary: Therfore she may erre, and is not infallible. I beseech you, of what value should our Saviours promises be, according to your doctrine? That the Church should not erre, at least in Fundamentall Poynts of Faith? No. You say she can erre in such Points. In what then? Only in this admirable worke, that if she did erre, she should be sure to pay for it, by perishing. For, say you, To say the Church, while [Page 414]it is the Church, may erre in Fundamentalls, implyes contradiction, and is all one as to say, the Church, while it is the Church, may not be the Church. This then is the effect of Gods Promises, that that shall be, which implyes contradiction to be otherwise; that is, Gods Power and Promise shall only effect, that two contradictions be not true; as, that if some Living sensible creature be a beast, he shall not be a man. Is not this to be sacrilegiously impious against God, and his holy Promises, and Providence? Is the Church so built vpon a Rocke, assisted by the Holy Ghost, that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her, only to this effect, that if she erre, she shall perish; that is, the Gates of Hell shall in the most prevalent way that can be imagined, prevaile against her? What foolish impietyes are these? Let vs therfore inferr out of these Premises: That there must be alwayes a true visible Church, knowen, and discernable from all false ones, and therfore of one denomination: That even according to Protestants, this true Church must be infallible in all Fundamentall Points: That if she be infallible in Fundamentall Points, we must belieue Her to be infallible in all, even according to your owne grant, as I haue shewed out of your owne words: And so finally we must conclude, that there must be alwayes a visible Church of one denomination, and infallible in all Points of Faith, as well Fundamentall, as not Fundamentall.

88. And by what hath bene sayd, I confute and retort your saying, (Pag: 150. N. 39.) A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet in himselfe and to himself be infallible, but he could not be a Guide to others. A man, or a church that were invisible, so that none could know how to repayre to it for direction, could not be an infallible Guide, and yet he might be himself infallible. This, I say, is retorted. For whosoever is infallible in him selfe, is fit to be an infallible Guide to others, per se loquendo, and in actu primo, and needs only that accidētall impediments bee removed, as it happeneth in our case, the Church being visible, and spred over the whole world. So that she can be hidden to no body, but is furnished with all meanes of communicating her Doctrine to others. Yourself, and Protestants, grant, that the Church is a necessary introduction to Faith, which she could not be, if she were invisible, or that none could know how to repayre to her for direction: And then Protestants teaching that she is infallible in Fundamentall points, it followes, that she may be an infallible Guide in such points, and in all other, according to your owne [Page 415]inference. And so I conclude that your difference of the Churches being infallible, and an infallible Guide, is vanished into nothing. But enough of this. Let vs now proceed to other Reasons proving the necessity of an infallible Guide.

89. I proue the infallibility of the Church, by confuting a Reason or similitude much vrged by our Adversaryes: That to him who knowes the way, a Guide is not necessary: And therfore the Scripture being a plaine Rule for all necessary Articles of Faith, no living Guide will be necessary.

90. But this Argument is many wayes defectiue. 1. We retort it; Seing it hath bene proved that Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule, a Living Guide must be necessary. Certainly if the whole Bible had bene put into severall mens hands, without any precedent knowne Tradition, Declaration, or Ministery of the Church, it would haue fallen out, that in the most important Mysteryes of Christian Religion, which now all are obliged to belieue, for example, The chiefest Articles of the Creed, Sacraments &c. scarcely any one would haue agreed with another; and much more had it bene impossible for them by the sole evidence of Scripture, to joyne in the same Idea, or frame of a Church. Suppose then the Bible had bene offered to some Vnderstanding Pagan, wholy ignorant of Christian Religion and Doctrine, do you thinke he would haue bene able to gather from the bare words of Scripture, the same meaning, or Articles, which Christians now belieue by the help of Tradition, instruction, and preaching? I say, he would never have fallen vpon the same meaning of the words, whether he did belieue them to be true, or no, (as we see Protestants themselves cannot agree.) Which is a signe, that the words only of Scripture do not evidently signify those Mysteryes, which Christians belieue them to containe: Otherwise every one who vnderstands the words, would vnderstand the true sense, as ordinarily we vnderstand the meaning of other writings, wherin we see men do seldome disagree. And the more we consider the force, vse, and necessity of Tradition, the more we shall be constrained to ranke it among those things, which are better knowen, by wanting, than we can apprehend by alwayes enjoying them. If men did do things only by the Booke, even in mechanicall arts, or handy-crafts, how different and vnlike works would every one take from the precepts, learned only by reading, and with how much study and difficulty would that be done, and how different [Page 416]would they be both from one another, and from those, which artificers do now by custome and tradition worke with great ease and vniformity? I doubt whether you would trust an apothecary taught only by his booke, or pharmacopaeia, without any master at all.

91. Secondly; If one know a way as perfectly as it is capable to be knowen, but that indeed it is such, as there cannot possibly be given any Rule or Direction how to find, or walk in it without danger of errour, such a knowledg of such a way would not be sufficient of itself, but a guide would be necessary to sind, and walke in it, without danger. Now we haue shewed, not only that the Scripture containes not all points necessary to be believed, (for which therfor we stand in need of a guide) but also that there is no certaine infallible Rule, how to know certainly the meaning of those truths which it containes, which we proved out of Protestants themselves, and by the many hard and intricate Rules which they give for that purpose, and by their perpetuall and irreconciliable differences, which could not happen, if they had any such cleare and certaine Rules, wherin agreeing, they must needs agree among themselves. Que sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se. Therfore beside scripture which you compare to a way, there must be a living Judg to guide vs in that way.

92. Thirdly: You teach, That Scripture is a plaine way, in this sense, that although we cannot either by it, or any other Meanes, know what points in particulat be Fundamentall; yet because all such Truths, and many more, are evident in Scripture, whosoever knowes all that is evident, shall besure to know all that is necessary or Fundamentall. Now this very Doctrine shewes, that Scripture alone cannot be a plaine and sufficient way. For, to know precisely and certainly all evident places of Scripture, is impossible to many, and of obligation to none, as I declared elswhere; and therfore the End (which is to know all necessary points, and can be attayned by this Meanes alone) cannot be of obligation, which to affirme is absurd; as if one should say, points necessary to be knowen, are not necessary to be knowen. By a Living Guide this difficulty is avoyded, we being sure that the Church will not faile to propose in due tyme, all that shall be necessary without imposing on mens Consciences, heavy, and vngrounded burthens.

93. Fourthly; There is a great and plaine disparity betweene the knowing of a way by our corporall eyes, and finding out a Truth by [Page 417]our vnderstanding, the eye of our soule. Our senses are naturally, necessarily, and immoveably determined to their objects. One who is supposed to know his way perfectly, may Voluntarily take an other way, but cannot therfore be sayd to mistake his owne. It passes not so with our vnderstanding, except in some prime principles of Reason, evident of themselves. In other points, which either are elevated above the naturall forces of humane capacity, or haue an appearance of being contrary to it, or crosse our will, or cary with them a repugnance to the naturall dictates and inclinations of flesh and bloud, our vnderstanding is apt and ready to mistake or be misled, as daily experience teaches, and therfore stands in need of some assisting help and Authority, believed to be infallible, to strengthen and settle it against all encounters and temptations. It is your owne Assertion (Pag: 329. N. 7.) that, the Points which we belieue, should not be so evidently certaine, as to necessitate our vnderstanding to an Assent, that so there might be some Obedience in Faith, which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not, when the vnderstanding does all, and the will nothing. Now the Religion of protestants, though it be much more credible than yours, yet is not pretended to haue the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration. Behold a confessed difference, between one who knowes a way by evidence of sense, and an other, who believes a way or Rule only by Faith. The former needs no command of the will, nor any guide; but the latter needs a guide, and you confess he needs the command of the will, which were not needfull if the way, which is Holy Scripture, were so plaine as you pretend: and if the vnderstanding must depend on the will for believing Points which seeme evident in Scripture, that there might be some place for obedience; how shall the weakness and mutability of the will it self be established, except by some other infallible Living Authority? And therfore your Argument proves nothing, because it proves too much; that, as one who knowes and sees his way, neeeds no helpe of his will, or of Guide, or any other particular assistance; so for attaining the true meaning of Scripture, we need no interpreter, no diligence, even such as Protestants prescribe, as skill in languages, conferring of places &c: though (2 Pet: 1.21) it be saied; Not by mans will was prophecie brought at any time: But the holy men of God spake, inspired with the Holy Ghost. Which sequeles being very false, you must acknowledg a great disparity, between the evident knowing of a way, and vnderstanding Scripture. To [Page 418]which purpose. I may well alledg your owne words (Pag: 137. N. 19.) If we consider the strang power that education and prejudices instilled by it, haue over, even excellent vnderstandings, we may well imagine that many Truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a man, prepossest with contrary opinions, not revealed plainly. I pray you tell vs, what education, or prejudices, could hinder a man from finding that way, which he is supposed perfectly to know, and which it is not in his power to misse by ignorance, though, as I fayd, he may voluntary goe out of it? You must therfore acknowledg, that your similitude or parity is nothing but a disparate, and disparity.

94. Fiftly: Let a man be never so perfect in the knowledg of his way, he shall never come to his journeyes end, if he want strength to walke that way. Now Faith being the gift of God, and requiring the assistance of Grace, exceeds the strength of humane wit or will; and this Grace being not given but by the Ministery of the Church▪ as I haue declared, and as we haue heard Calvin saying God inspires Faith, but by the instrument of the Gospell as Paul teacheth, that Faith comes by hearing: It followes, that none can, in the ordinary course, receiue strength to vnderstand, and know the way, which you say is Scripture, without the Ministery of the Church, or a Living Guide; and so it appeares many wayes, that your Argument, or similitude proves nothing against vs, but very much against yourself.

95. Tenthly, and lastly: I proue the vniversall infallibility of the Church, by answering an Argument or removing an impediment, which Potter objects, as if some Catholique Doctours held not the Church to be vniversally infallible. This the Doctour (Pag: 149.) pretends to proue out of Dr. Stapleton in particular; as if he did deny the Church to be infallible in Poynts not Fundamentall; to which purpose he cites him (Princip: Doctrinal: Lib: 8. Contr: 4. Cap: 15.) But this is clearly confuted by Charity Maintayned (Part: 2. Chap: 5. Pag: 127.128.129.130.) shewing, that Dr. Stapleton doth not oppose Poynts Fundamentall to other revealed Truths, or Points of Faith not Fundamentall, as if the infallibility of the Church did extend itself only to Fundamentall Articles; but he distinguishes between Points revealed, and belonging to Faith, and Points not revealed, nor belonging to Faith, but to Philosophy, or curious disputes, either not called in Question amongst Catholikes, as if they were matters belonging to Religion, or if they chance to be such, yet are not defined by the Church. For, if [Page 419]once they be controverted, and the Church giue her sentence, he expressly teaches in the same place, that the infallibility of the Church hath place in those Points which are called in Question, or are publikely practised by the Church: As also (Rel: Cont: 1. Q. 3. Art: 6.) He expressly saith, that certaine Doctrines are either primary Principles of Faith, or els, though not primary, yet defined by the Church, and so, as if they were primary. Others are Conclusions deduced from those Principles, but yet not desined. Of the first kind are the Articles of Faith, and whatsoever is defined in Councels against Heretiques &c: Of the second, are questions, which either belong to the hidden workes of God, or to certaine most obscure places of Scripture, which are beside the Faith, and of which we may be ignorant without losse of Faith, yet they may be modestly, and fruitfully disputed of. And afterward he teaches, that whatsoever the Church doth vniversally hold, either in doctrnie or manners, belongs to the foundation of Faith: And proves it out of S. Austine, (Serm: 14. de verb: Domini. Ep: 28.89.96.) who calls the custome of the Church, Ecclesiae morem fundatissimum, & Fidem fundatissimam, consuetudinem Ecclesiae fundatissimam, Authoritatem stabilissimam fundatissimae Ecclesiae: The most grounded practise of the Church, and most grounded Faith, the most grounded custome of the Church, the most firme Authority of the most grounded Church. Could any thing be more cleere, to shew, that according to Dr. Stapleton, the infallibility of the Church reacheth further then to those Points which you call Fundamentall, and that it belongs to the very foundation of Faith, that we belieue whatsoever the Church holds? And that it is not lawfull for any to dispute against such determinations of the Church? Which doth overthrow your distinction of Poynts Fundmentall and not Fundamentall▪ though you alledg the Authority of S. Thomas (2.2. Q. 2. Art: 5.) and Stapleton in favour therof. For S. Thomas in the very place you cited, after he had sayd, that there are some objects of Faith which we are bound explicitely to belieue; addeth, that we are bound to belieue all other Poynts, when they are sufficiently propounded to vs, as belonging to Faith. Thus far Charity Maintayn [...]d. Wherby it is manifest, that according to Stapleton, the Church cannot erre in defining any point to be revealed, which is not so; or that it is not revealed, if indeed it be so; and consequently, that she is vniversally infallible in all points belonging to Faith, whether they be of them selves Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall. I say, of themselves: for in sensu composito, as I may say, That is, vpon supposition that once [Page 420]they be desined, he expressly declares; as we haue seene, that that belongs to the Fundation of Faith whatsoever the Church vniversally holds either in Doctrine or worship. When therfore he sayth: (Princip: Doctrin: Controv: 4. Lib: 8. Chap: 15.) for God, as also nature, as he is not wanting in things necessary, so is he not lavish in superflnityes; He speakes not of points of Faith not Fundamentall, which being once defined, he professes to belong to the Fundation of Faith, but in the next precedent words he expressly declares, that when he saith, the Church is not infallible, he vnderstands only, that infallibility was not granted to her Propter aut invtiles curiositates explendas, aut subtilitates non necessarias investigandas; Either for satisfying idle curiosityes, or finding out vnnecessary subtiltyes; and proves it, because God and nature as they are not wanting in things necessary, so are they not lavish in superfluityes. And therfore Potter did wrong the learned Stapleton, alledging those his words, as if he had ever dreamed, that the Church is not vniversally infallible in all Points of Faith, whether the matters, of themselves, be great or small.

96. And you also wrong Charity Maintayned▪ in saying (Pag: 144. N. 32.) That he wrongs Dr. Potter when (Part: 1. Pag: 91.) he writes thus: Dr. Potter (Sect: 5. Pag: 150.) speakes very dangerously toward this purpose (of limiting the infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture to necessary Points only, as he restraines the Promises made by Christ to his Church) where he endeavoureth to proue, that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamentall, because as nature, so God is neither defectiue in necessaryes, nor lavish in superfluityes. Which Reason doth likewise proue, 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 necessaryes, or lavish in superfluityes. In which words you say; Charity Maintayned wrongs Dr. Potter: Because it is not he, but Dr. Stapleton in him that speakes the words Charity Maintayned cavills at. Answer; If Charity Maintayned had absolutely assirmed, those to be the very words of Dr. Potter, the Doctour might blame himself only; who having first cited the immediatly precedent words of Dr. Stapleton in a different or cursiue letter, declaring that they were Dr. Stapletons, and not his owne: the words immediatly following (for as nature, so God is neither defectiue &c.) he sets downe in the ordinary letter of his Booke both in his first and second Edition. 2. Seing Potter accepts, and approves [Page 421]those words, he must be answerable, for all consequences that are truly deduced from them, as if they were his owne. 3. The truth is Dr. Stapleton brings those words for a purpose not only different, but contrary to that for which Dr. Potter alledges them, and therfore not Stapleton, but Potter must be lyable to all bad consequences, which follow out of them. For, Potter would proue out of them, that infallibility was given to the Church, not for all, but only for Fundamentall points of Faith; which we haue seene to be directly contrary to the Doctrine of Stapleton, who out of the sayd words proves only, that infallibility was not granted, for deciding idle curiosityes, or vnprofitable subtiltyes: And therfor, 4. seing the life and essence of words, is their signification, this being wholy different in those words, as they are spoken by Stapleton, and vnderstood, misapplyed, and misalledged by Potter, Charity Maintayned did not wrong him, but he did wrong Dr. Stapleton in applying the sound, and as I may say, carcasse of his words, against the true meaning and life of them, intended, and fully declared by Stapleton; as you also, do wrong Stapleton in approving Potters allegation of those words; and Charity Maintayned, as if he had wronged Potter. Who can deny this to be a good consequence; God is neither defectiue in necessaryes, nor lavish in superfluityes; Therfor he hath not induced the Church with infallibility for deciding of vnprofitable questions; which is Stapletons Argument? As contrarily this other is of no force; God is not lavish in superfluityes; Therfore he hath not conferred infallibility vpon his Church, for any other Points of Faith, and revealed Truths, except such as are of themselves necessary to salvation (as if all points which are not Fundamentall were curious or vnprofitable matters.) Which Potter doth inferr, directly against the consequence which Stapleton drawes from those very same words, affirming, that every thing defined by the Church, belongs to the Foundation of Faith. Besides, since Potter alledgeth those words, to proue that the promises of our Saviour made to his Church, must be restrained to Points Fundamentall, least he might seeme lavish in superfluityes; Charity Maintayned had reason to inferr, that for the same Reason of not being lavish in superfluityes, the Doctour might limite the infallibility of the Apostles to necessary and Fundamentall Points. Neither is it sufficient for you to say (Pag: 143. N. 30.) that we read in Scripture, All Scripture is divinely inspired, and therfore All Scripture, whether it deliver Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall Points is [Page 422]true. For, Charity Maintayned in this very place and about this very Text of Scripture which you cite out of him (and endeavour to answer) by way of prevention, had confuted this your instance, in these words: If it be vrged, That All Scripture is divinely inspired, that it is the word of God &c: Dr. Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer, to say, That Scripture is inspired, &c: Only in those parts or parcells wherin it delivereth Fundamentall points: Thus Charity Maintayned. But you thought safest to dissemble, these words. And I pray, if those vnlimited words concerning the Church; that the gates of hell shall not privaile against her (Matth: 16.18.) and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth &c: (which texts are alledged by Potter) must be limited to Fundamentall points; why may not those other words, all scripture is divinely inspired, signify only, that all scripture is inspired, for what belongs to points fundamentall, or necessary to salvation, as Cha: Ma: doth vrge in the same place.

97. Now then, vpon the whole matter it is manifest; that the learned Dr. Stapleton, teaches neither more nor lesse, concerning the Infallibility of the Church, than all other Catholikes doe. For, (besides that which we haue sayd already) Relect: Controv: 4. Quest: 2. He expressly declares, That she is infallible in the Conclusion or Doctrine and definition, though it be not necessary, that she be Infallible in the Arguments, or proofes, or manner of teaching. Est, saith he, in ipsa Doctrina infalliblis, etsi in forma & ratione docendi, non ita: and therfore he puts no difference, between the certainty of her Definitions, though the Reasons or proofes which she vse, chance to haue, of themselves, more or less certainty, whether they be taken from Scripture, or Tradition, or otherwise; in regard that these may chance not to be so cleare, as of themselves alone to convince. 2. He teaches, That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions vnnecessary, but such as belong to the substance of Faith, publike Doctrine, and things necessary to salvation: and we haue heard him say, ad fundamentum Fidei pertinere quidquid Ecclesia tenet, sive in Doctrina, sive in cultu: That whatsoever the Church holds, either in Doctrine, or in worship, belongs to the fundation of Faith, and that all things defined by the Church, are as if they were primary principles of Faith, and so according to him, all things defined by the Church, belong to the substance of Faith, and are necessary to salvation.

98. But here is not an end of Potters taxing Dr. Stapleton without [Page 423]ground, and against truth. For (Pag: 161.) he saith; Stapleton hath a new pretty devise, that the Church, though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes, is yet Propheticall, and depends vpon immediate Revelation (and so infallible) in delivering the Conclusion. And (Pag: 169.) he saith: Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walke alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary (De Concil: Lib: 1 Chap: § Dicuntur igitur.) that Councells neither haue, nor write immediate Revelations: But Mr. Doctour, to speake truth, Bellarmin leaves Stapleton, just as you leaue your art of citing Authors against their meaning. Bellarmin teaches, That Councells neither haue, nor write immediate Revelations. And does not Stapleton purposely teach, and carefully proue the same? And does he not doe it, even in the first and Third Notabili, which immediatly precede that fourth Notabile, out of which you pretend to draw that, which you call a new pretty devise? How then can you say, that Stapleton teaches, that the Church is Propheticall, and depends vpon immediate Reuelation in delivering the Conclusion; seing he teaches expressly the contrary? Nay, doth he not in that very fourth Notabili which you cite, expressly say; Ecclesiae Doctrina non est simpliciter Prophetica, aut ex Revelationibus immediatis dependens. The doctrine of the Church, is not simply Propheticall, or depending vpon immediate Revelations. Who would haue believed, that in matters of so great consequence, you could vse so litle sincerity? Dr. Stapleton teaches the same, and proves very learnedly (Princip: Doctrin: Contr: 4. Lib: 8. C. 15.) Which very Chapter you also cite, and yet make no conscience to tell vs, that Bellarmin in this leaues Stapleton. But how then doth Stapleton say, the Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the Meanes, but is Propheticall and divine in the Conclusion? Answer. We haue shewed, that Stapleton sayes expressly in the same place, That the Doctrine of the Church is not Propheticall: And besides, he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina, which you leaue out, and sayth it is divina propter ea quae in tertio & quarto Argumentis produximus: for the causes which we alledged in the Third and Fourth Arguments: In which Arguments he proved, that the Church is infallible, and cannot erre, because she is guided and taught by an infallible maister the Holy Ghost, as the Prophets were, (and in this agrees with Prophets) though as I sayd out of Stapletons express words, with this difference, that the Prophets had immediate Revelations, which the Church pretends not to haue, but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost, to imbrace [Page 424]and declare former revelations, made to the Apostles; vppon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely, and not vpon discourses or inducements.

99. Potters falsification will appeare more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursiue in the meanes, but is propheticall and Divine in the Conclusion: which Potter cites thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursiue in the Meanes, is yet Propheticall, and depends vpon immediate Revelation, (and so infallible) in delivering the conclusion. What a mixture is here of Potters words with the words of Stapleton? Which say not that the Church, depends vpon immediate Revelation, but the direct contrary as we haue sayd, and his Parenthesis, (and so infallible) is also a falsificarion, as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion vpon immediate revelation, wheras he groundes it vpon an other principle, as we haue seene. This being supposed, that Stapleton teaches, the Church to haue no immediate Revelations, and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not vpon humane disce [...]se, and inducements, or Premises, the Doctour had no Reason to say that Stapletons doctrine is a fansie repugnant to Reason and to itself. He Objects (pag: 168.) A conclusion followes the disposition of the Meanes, and results from them. But this is not to the purpose; seing the Definitions of the Church are called by Stapleton, Conclusions, only because they are that which the Church determines and concludes, not because they are formall Conclusions, essentially, as such, depending on Premises. Neither doth it follow, that there can be no vse of diligence and discourse, if the Church be infallible, in the sense I haue declared. Thus the Apostles in their Councell (Act. 15.) did vse diligence, and, as the Scripture saith, there was made a great disputation, and they alledged the working of Miracles ād other Arguments of Credibility, and yet no Christian will deny, but that the Apostles were infallible: So the Church must on her behalfe vse diligence, and discourse, that all things on her parte, may be done more sweetly, in order to the perswading of others; but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions, must rely vpon those words which the Apostles vsed, Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis: It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost, and vs. Neither likwise doth it follow, that the Canons of Councells are of equall authority with holy. Scriptures, in which every reason, discourse, Text, and word, are infallible; which [Page 425]we need not say of Councells, though they be certaine and infallible for the substance of their definition; Wherof more may be seene in Catholique Writers, and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite, (de Concill: Lib: 2. Chap: 12.) and yet, as if he had seene no such matter in Bellarmine, inferrs against Stapleton (who fully agrees with Bellarmine) that if the canons of Councells be divinely inspired, they must be of equall Authority with the Holy Scriptures

100. Many other Arguments might be brought, to proue the necessity of an infallible Living Guide, and Ecclesiasticall Traditions; from Scriptures, Fathers, Theologicall Reasons, which I omitt, referring the Reader to Charity Maintayned (Part. 1. Chap: 2. and 3.) and in this whole Worke, I haue vpon many occasions proved the same. For, this point is so transc [...]dent, and necessary, that we must meete with it, almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion. This I must not omitt, that I having answered, and confuted, all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alledged by Charity Maintayned, it followes, that they remaine still in force, and proue this most necessary Truth: Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule of Faith, but Tradition, and a living Judg are necessary to determine Matters belonging to Faith and Religion: And whosoever will take an other way, will haue reason (and God grant it proue not too late, to tremble at those words of Uincent: Lirinens: (contra Heres: Cap: 23.) concerning Origen: Dum parvi pendit antiquam Christianae Religionis simplicitatem; dum Ecclesiasticas Traditiones, & Veterum magisteria contemnens, quaedam Scripturarum capitula novo more interpretatur; meruit vt de se quoque Ecclesiae Dei diceretur: Si surrexerit in medio tui Propheta. Et paulò post: Non audies, inquit, verba Prophetae illius. While he despises the ancient simplicity of Christian Religion; while contemning Ecclesiasticall Traditions, and magistery of the Ancient, he interprets some places of Scripture in a new manner, he deserved that it should be also sayd to the Church of him: If there shall rise in middes of thee a Prophet. And a litle after thou shalt not heare the words of that Prophet. God grant, that every one heare this wholsome advise: The neglect therof alone, hath beene cause of Schismes and heresyes in ancient Tymes, and never more than in these lamentable dayes of ours.

101. But because you do without end object, that we cannot proue [Page 426]the infallibility of the Church without running round in a Circle, proving the Church by Scripture, and Scripture by the Church, which is in effect, to proue, the Church by the Church, and the Scripture by Scripture; I will in the next Chapter endeavour to confute, and shew the vanity of this so often repeated Objection.

CHAP: V. IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHVRCH

1. I Say, in what manner and order. For we having already proved the Infallibility of the Church; inremaines only now to declare, how we can do it without falling, into a Circle, proving the Scripture, by the Church, and the Church by the Scripture, which you object without end; though, if you be a man of any solid learning, it is impossible you could be ignorant of the Answer, which Catholike Writers giue to this common objectiō. We grant that with different sorts of persons, we must proceed in a different way. If one belieue not the Church, or Notes, proprietyes, and prerogatives belonging to Her, and yet belieue Scripture to be the Word of [Page 427]God; to such a man the Church may be proved by Scripture; as contrarily, to him who believes the Infallibility of the Church, it may be demonstrated in vertue of Her Authority, what Scripture is Canonicall, and what is the true sense therof, by informing him what Canon the Church receyves, and what Interpretation she gives. Thus, in regard Protestants deny the Infallibility of the Church, but pretend to belieue Scripture to be the Word of God, to them we proue by Scripture the perpetuall Existence, Vnity, Authority, Sanctity, Propagation, efficacy, Infallibility, and other Propertyes of the Church. But speaking per se, and ex natura rei, the Church is proved independently of Scripture, which we receyue from the Church, as you grant, which was in Being before the Scripture, as all must yield; and yet at that tyme there wanted not meanes to find the Church. For, none could haue believed the Scripture to be Infallible, vnless first they believed the Writers to be infallible; and many were converted to the true Church, before they could belieue the Scripture, as not extant at that tyme. So that all must grant, that there be Meanes, and Arguments, wherby some men may gaine such credit, as others may, and ought vnder payne of damnation, to belieue, that they are Persons to be accepted as Messengers of God, and Teachers of Divine Doctrine.

2. Thus Moyses, the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, the Apostles, all Apostolicall men by whom God hath converted Nations to the true Faith and knowledg of Him, did proue themselves true Preachers, by many effectuall, and most certaine inducements, independently of the Old, or New Testament; yea S. Irenaeus relates, as you expressly grant, that some Nations were made Christians without any knowledg of the Scripture. As therfore our Lord and Saviour Christ, his Aposties, and all they who afterward converted the world to Christian Religion, proved themselves to be sent by God; (being verifyed of them, He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.) by Miracles, Sanctity of life, Efficacy of Doctrine, admirable repentance of sinners, Chang of manners, Conversion of all sorts of Persons, of all Countryes, through the whole world; and this to a Faith, Profession, and Religion, that proposes many Points, as necessary to be believed, aboue, and seemingly contrary, to humane Reason, and against mens naturall inclinations; togeather with the consideration of the constancy [Page 428]of Martyrs, Abnegation of Confessours, Purity of Uirgins, Fortitude even of the youngest Age, and weaker sexe, and other admirable conspicuous Notes, and strong inforcements, to gaine an absolute and vndoubted assent to whatsoever they should propose in Matters concerning Faith and Religion: So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes, of many great and manifest Miracles; Sanctity; Sufferings: Uictory over all sorts of enemyes, Conversion of Infidels, all which Notes are dayly more and more conspicuous and convincing, and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last; and it seemes, God in his wisdome and Goodness hath blessed vs very particularly since the appearing of Luther, and other moderne Heretikes, for the greater confusion of them, and glory of his Church; and the same I say of the name Catholique, which is continually more verifyed by accession of new Countreyes; as also that of succession of Bishops from the Apostles, particularly in the Sea of Rome; Vnity, Stability, Perpetuity: The Church, I say, by these and the like evident Arguments, proves that she deserves credit, as the first Doctours and Preachers did; and consequently that her Doctrine, and Definitions, in Matters concerning Faith, are certainly true. And we may with all truth avouch, that whosoever either denyes these Notes of Miracles, and the rest to be found in the Catholique Roman Church, or despises them as insufficient, opens an inevitable way for Jewes, Turks, Gentils, and all enemyes of Christian Religion, to deny the truth therof; which to them must be proved by such Arguments as are evidently found in the Roman Church, and in no other Congregation. Moreover as the Apostles, and Apostolicall men, were not believed to be Infallible, because they wrote Scripture but contrarily, their Writings or Scriptures are believed to be infallibly true, because the Writers were preendued with Infallibility, which Infallibility was proved by Miracles and other Arguments: so the Church is believed infallible in force of the same Arguments, abstracting from any proofe drawen from Scripture; wherby we are uery sure not to run in a Circle, into which we are not entered, while first we belieue the Church for such Arguments as I haue spoken of, and afterward embrace Scripture for the Churches Authority; and if we be forced to proue the Church by Scripture; it is propter incredulitatem vestram, for your incredulity, and not because indeed it is needfull of itself. Whatsoever you object against vs in this way, will be found, vpon examination, to impugne the infallibility [Page 429]of the Apostles, and Primitiue Church, and to proue that Insidels converted to Christianity in vertue of such Arguments, as I haue touched, were rather deluded, than converted.

3. If any object, that although, what we haue sayd, be true of the true Church, yet it remaines to be proved that the Roman Church is the true Church.

4. I answer; For our present purpose, it suffices that the true Church be proved to be infallible, without descending to other particular disputes in this place: (Though somthing I haue touched already.) This is cleare: That neither Protestants, nor any of our new Sectaryes, can so much as pretend to the true Church, if they grant her to be infallible, since they belieue their owne Church to be fallible. The same I might say of the Gift of working Miracles; of which our Saviour saith. (Marc: vlt: Vers: 17.) Them that belieue, these signes shall followe: They shall cast out Divells. &c: On which place Calvin (in Harmonia) confesses that the grace of Miracles is promised, not to every one, but to the whole body of the Church. And in the marginall notes of the English Bible printed An: 1576. vpon (Joan: 14. Vers: 12.) He that believes in me, the works that I doe, he shall doe, and greater; our adversaryes confess and say, that this is referred to the whole body of the Church in whom this vertue doth shine for ever, Luther also (To: 7. Lib: de Judaeis &c:) vrgeth against the Jewes the daily confirmation of our Christian Faith by Miracles in all Ages since Christ, saying; From God we haue learned and receaved, as an everlasting word and verity of God, for these thousand fiue hundred yeares confessed and confirmed by Miracles and signes. How then can it be sayd, that Miracles haue ceased ever since the Apostles tyme? Now it is evident, that this Gift is lasting in our Church, and in our Church only. The same appeares in the Motiue of Succession of Bishops; Antiquity; Unity; perpetuall Existence; Conversion of Nations; which Propertyes we manifestly proue to be wanting in all Sects. In England Protestants did once pretend a Succession of Bishops; whose institution they pretended to hold as Divine: But this pretence is to little purpose for them. For; 1. It was no vniversall consent, but opposed by many, even in England; by Scotland, France, Holland, Germany, and other Protestant Congregations. 2. They wanted both true Ordination, and Succession, and so could not be true Bishops. 3. They held it not necessary; but that they who reject them, may be saved; and it is strang, [Page 430]that a Church rejecting and impugning a Divine Institution, can hope for salvation; yea even by this they either acknowledg themselves to haue had no absolute certainty, that Episcopacy is de Jure Divino; orels they speake very inconsequently, and vnchristianly, that without them, there may be true Churches, and salvation. Who would not wonder to reade in Dr. Andrewes the pretended Bishop of Winchester, and a prime man among Protestants in England, these words, directed to the French Hugonot Molin (Respons: ad Epist: 2. Petri Molinaei?) Quia hîc idem nobiseum &c: I make no doubt but you are of the same opinion with vs in this matter. If without offence you can profess so much, you shall doe a thing very gratfull to vs; if you cannot, you shall performe a thing not vngratefull, if for tyme to come you meddle not with our affaires. For, in the condition in which you are, it will be hard both to please your owne, and not displease ours: Neither doth it follow, if ours be divini juris, of divine right, that either silvation cannot be had, or the Church cannot stand without it. A strang Divinity, and fortitude, and zeale in a Bishop; not to dislike dissembling, in a thing believed to be Juris Divini, least one offend his parishioners; or that it is not damnable to impugne a thing which is Juris Divini! But what doth Molin answer to this Divinity? Heare him. (Epist: 3.) Non potui dicere &c: I could not say, that the primacy of Bishops is Iuris Divini, of divine right, but that I should haue accused of Heresy our Church, which hath shed so much bloud for Christ: For, to be obstinate against those things which are of divine right, and to oppose the Command of God, is plainly Heresy; whether it be in a thing concerning either Faith or discipline. And besides, I must haue overthrowne that Principle, by which our Religion doth chiefly defend itself against Papistery: That all things which are Iuris Divint of Divine Lawe are contayned sufficiently and evidently in Holy Scripture. I beseech the Reader to obserue two maine Points: 1. That it is an Heresy to deny any thing which is Juris Divini, of Divine right, though it belong only to the discipline of the Church; which is very true; because whatsoever is against any thing revealed in Scripture, is against Faith, and damnable to be defended, whether it concerne speculation, or practise; and to hold that it is not damnable, to deny a thing sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, is plaine insidelity. 2. That to say, Episcopacy is Juris Divini, is to grant that not all things which are Juris Divini, are sufficiently and evidently contained in Scripture alone, which is the: thing I affirmed in the beginning of my second [Page 431]Chapter: And so English Protestants, who teach, Episcopacy to be Juris Divini, must either say, that some Point [...] [...]ealed by God, is not evident in Scripture; or els renounce their plea for Episcopacy, that it is Juris Divini. And indeed, as long as they hold it not as a Point of Faith, and consequently not necessary to be believed, it is all one, as if they did not hold it to be Juris Divini, because in this case, nothing, is as good, as no certainty. For, it is certaine, and a matter of Faith, that the true Church must haue Bishops, and to deny it, is an Heresy in a matter of greatest moment, and which strikes at the very roote of Religion; neither can any true Church communicate, or dissemble or conniue, with those Congregations who deny this truth, as our English Protestants doe connive and communicate with them, and Dr. Andrews expressly sayes may be done; yea or with those, who hold it to be only probable and the better doctrine, though not certaine, nor the contrary to be Heresy; wheras to affirme that any Article of Faith is only probable, is plaine Heresy. And in this Point the Divinity of the French Hugonot Molin is better than that of the English pretended Bishop; I meane for the consequence which he makes, that if Episcopacie be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugne it; and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor; of Episcopacy, teaching §. 46. That to separate from the Bishop, makes a man at least a Schismatike, and §. 47. That it is also Heresy. And in his Liberty of Prophesying, (Epist: Dedic: Pag: 32.33.) having sayd, that the Lutheran Churches, the Zuinglians, and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy, he adds; which the Primitive Church would haue made no doubt to haue called Heresy. More of this, and of the Notes of the Church, may be seene in Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap: 9.) this not being a place to treat at large of these matters. It is sufficient for our present purpose, to demonstrate, that we are no way guilty of walking in a Circle. Only it will be necessary to note here two Points,

5. First: That the Arguments of credibility fall primarily vpon the Church, not vpon Scripture: (which confirmes what I sayd, that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote, but their writings deserue credit, because the writers were Infallible.) Thus in the Old Law. Moyses gained authority by working Miracles, and by other Arguments of credibility, wherby the people accepted him as a Man sent by God, to declare his word and will, and in such manner as they were sure to belieue God by giving credit to Moyses. They believed [Page 432]our Lord, and Moyses his servant (Exod: 14.31. and 19.9:) and ther vpon they belie [...]ed the Scripture which he wrote, and proposed as the Infallible word of God, and by it other particulars, even concerning Moyses himself. In the New Law; the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons, before their writings could be prudently receaved as Diuine, or the Word of God. The Reason therof is, because the Motives or Arguments of credibility, immediatly make that credible of which they are effects, which immediatly manifest their cause. Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediatly to the Church or Persons, and not to writings, and so Marc: Vlt: it is sayd; These signes shall follow those who belieue. And therfore, though there were no Scriptures, if the Church did still remaine, these motives would also remaine; for example, Sanctity of life; Miracles; conversion of Nations; Martirdomes; Victory over all enemyes; the name Catholique &c: Which could not agree to Scripture, though we did falsely suppose, that it did remayne, and the Church perish. For, no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life, Succession of Bishops &c: yea, the Scripture can haue no efficacy, vnless it be first believed to be the word of God, and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony; and therfor whatsoever perfections or attributes may seeme to belong immediatly to the Scripture, must depend on the Church, as the Scripture itself doth, in order to our believing it to be the word of God; But contrarily, the Perfections or priviledges of the Church, are independent of Scripture, as the Church itself is, which was before Scripture. And here it is also to be considered, that we haue no absolute certainty, that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle, to proue immediatly that Scripture is the word of God; but we are sure, they did it mediatè, by gaining Authority to their Persons, and then to their writings. And thus you say (in your Answer to the Direction N. 43.) That the Bible hath bene confirmed with those Miracles, which were wrought by our Saviour and the Apostles. But now, if we be obliged to believe the Scripture in all things, by reason of Arguments which bind vs to belieue it to be the word of God, we must also be obliged to belieue the Church, in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes, since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediatly proue the true Church than they proue Scripture.

6. The second thing to be observed, is, That when we are obliged [Page 433]to receave some Persons as messengers of God, appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths, as the Apostles were; we are bound to belieue them in all things which they propound for such Truths. For, as I haue often sayd, if they might erre in some things of this nature, we could not belieue thē in any other thing for their sole Authority; as all cōfess of Scripture, that being once delivered by mē of the forsayd Authority as the word of God, it must be receyved as vniversally true, in all and every least passage, though the Apostles did not confirme by seve rall Miracles the matter of every particular Text (and yet every one is an object of Faith) nor of every particular Truth which they spoke; but it was sufficient that people did, and were obliged to receaue them, as men who by commission from God, taught the true way to eternall Happynes, and therfore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose.

7. Out of this true Ground, I inferr; That it cannot be sayed without injury to Gods Church, to the Apostles, and God himself, that, when men of our Church worke Miracles, and produce other Reasons, to proue that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentils, Jewes, Turks, or Heritikes, those Miracles are not sufficient Proofes of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth, but of some particular Points; for example, not of Purgatory, Prayer to Saints, Reall Presence &c. but of such Christian verityes, as Protestants belieue with vs. This cannot be sayd. For, it is evident, that the same might haue bene objected against the Apostles, to wit, that God intended to proue by their Miracles, only some verityes believed by Jewes, or Heretikes, and not every one of the particular Mysteryes of Christian Religion. Neither can it be sayd, that the Preachers of our Catholique Church, when they convert Nations, doe worke Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in generall, or in abstracto, or an Idea Platonica, but to the Catholique Roman Religion, which if it were false, God in his Goodness could never permitt, so many and great Miracles to be wrought, and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced, that people must be obliged to receiue such Preachers, as Teachers of the true way to Heaven; as he could not permit the Apostles to worke Miracles, intending that they should be trusted in some, not in all Points. For, this generall Reason taken from Gods Goodness and providence, is the same in all who bring the like Arguments of Credibility, as our Church never wants Arguments like to those, whereby the Apostles [Page 434]made good their Authority. Besides, if the sayd Objection were of force, men de facto can haue no certainty, that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contayned therin; because it will be sayd, that although Miracles were wrought to proue that the Bible is the word of God, they might be vnderstood, not to confirme every passage or Text, but only some Truths contayned therin. And likewise according to this Objection or invention, no certainty can be had what the Apostles or other Preachers teach, or teach not, with infallibility: Nor will there remaine any meanes to convert men to Christianity. For, every one may say, that, not the Poynt which he apprehends to be false, was confirmed by Miracles, but those other Articles, which he conceaves to be true: And so no Heretike can be convinced by Scripture, which, he will say is not the word of God, except for his opinions; and so nothing will be proved out of Scripture, even for those things which are contayned in it. Neither will anie thing remayne certaine, except a generall, vnprofitable, impracticable Notion, that the Apostles taught, and the Scripture contaynes some things revealed by God, without knowing what they are in particular; which would be nothing to the purpose, and therfore as good as nothing.

8. But yet, dato, non concesso, That the Apostles and the Church are to be believed only in such particular Points, as are proved by Miracles &c: we say, that innumerable Miracles haue bene wrought, in consirmation of those particular Points wherin we disagree from Protestants, as may be seene in Brierly (Tract: 2. Chap: 3 Sect: 7. subdiv: 1.) For example, of Prayer to Saints (out of S. Austine Civit: L. 22. C. 8.) Worship of Reliques (out of S. Gregory Nazian: S. Austine, S. Hierom: S. Basil: Greg: Turonen: Theodoret:) the Image of Christ: Reall presence, Sacrifice of Christs Body; Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead; The great vertue of the signe of the Crosse; Holy water; Lights in the Church; Reservation of the Sacrament; Holy Chrisme; Adoration of the crosse; Confession of sins to a Priest, and extreme Vnction; which miracles Brierly proves by irrefragable Testimonyes, of most creditable Authors, and Holy Fathers; wherof, if any Protestant doubt, he can do no lesse for the salvation of his soule, than examine the matter, either by the [...] of this Authour, or of other Catholique Writers, and not only by [...] clamours and calumnyes of Protestant Preachers, in their Ser [...] Writers, in their Bookes: And let him take with him for his [...] thefe considerations. 1. That these Miracles were wrought [Page 435]and testifyed, before any Protestant appeared in the world: And therfore could not be fayned, or recorded vpon any particular designe against them, and their Heresyes. 2. That even Protestants acknowledg the Truths of such Miracles. Whitaker. (cont: Duraeum, Lib: 10.) sayth; I do not thinke those Miracles vaine which are reported to haue bene done at the monuments of Saints: as also Fox and Godwin acknowledg Miracles wrought by S. Austine (the Monke sent by S. Gregory Pope, to convert England) through Gods hand, as may be seene in Brierly (Tract: 1. Sect: 5.) and yet it is confessed by Protestants, and is evident of itself, that he converted vs to the Roman Faith. But, not to be long, I referr the Reader to Brierly, in the Index of whose Booke, in the word (Miracles) he will find full satisfaction, if he examine his allegations, that in every Age since our Saviour Christ, there haue bene wrought many ad great Miracles, both by the Professors of the Roman Faith, and expressly in confirmation of it. This I say, and avouch for a certaine truth; that whatsoever Heretikes can object against Miracles wrought by Professors of our Religion, and in proofe if it, may be in the same manner objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour, and his Apostles; and that they cannot impugne vs, but joyntly they must vndermine all Christianity.

9. To these two considerations, let this Third be added; that it is evidently delivered in Scripture, Miracles to be certaine Proofes of the true Faith and Religion, as being appointed by God for that end. (Exod: 4.1.) when Moyses sayd, They will not belieue me, nor heare my voice, God gaue him the Gift of Miracles, that they might belieue God had spoken to him. (3. Reg: 17. Vers: 24.) That woman, whose sonne Elias had raised to life, sayd; Now, in this I haue knowen that thou art a man of God, and the word of our Lord, in thy mouth, is true. Christ (Matt: 11. V. 3.4.5.) being asked whether he was the Messias, proved himself to be such by the Miracle; which he wrought The blind see, the lame walke; the lepers are made cleane, the deafe heare, the dead rise againe. Which words signify, that Miracles are not only effectuall, but necessary to proue the truth of a Doctrine, contrary to what was receyved before. Yea (Joan: 5.36.) Miracles are called, a greater testimony thē John. (Marc: vlt:) they preached every where, our Lord working withall, and consirming the Word with signes that followed. (2. Cor: 12. V. 12.) The signes of my Apostleship haue beene done vpon you in all patience, [Page 436]and wonders and mighty deeds. (Hebr. 2.4.) God withall testifying by signes and wonders, and divers Miracles. But why do I vrge this Point? You clearly confess it (Pag: 144. N. 31.) in these words; If you be so infallible, as the Apostles were, shew it as the Apostles did. They went forth (saith S. Marke) and preached every where the Lord working with them, and confirming their words with signes following. It is impossible, that God should lye, and that the Eternall Truth should set his hand and seale to the confirmation of a falshood, or of such doctrine as is partly true, and partly false. The Aposiles doctrine was thus confirmed, therfore it was intirely true, and in no part either false or vncertaine.

10. Now, put these Truths togeather: Many and great Miracles haue bene wrought by professours of the Roman Religion, and particularly in confirmation of it; Miracles are vndoubted Proofes of the true Church, Faith, and Religion: What will follow, but that the Roman Faith and Religion is entirely true, and in no part either false or vncertaine? Wherfore men desirous of their Eternall salvation, may say confidently with B. S. Austine (Lib: de Vtilit: credendi, Cap: 17.) Dubitabimus nos ejus Ecclesiae &c. Shall we doubt to rest in the bosome of that Church, which with the acknowledgment of mankind, hath obtained the height of Authority from the Apostolique Sea by Succession of Bishops, Heretikes in vaine barking about her, and being condemned, partly by the judgment of the people, partly by the gravity of Councells, partly by the Majesty of Miracles? To which not to giue the first place, is indeed either most great impiety, or precipitous arrogancie.

11. Behold the Notes of the true Church, Miracles, Succession of Bishops! Which perpetuall Succession of Bishops, is the Ground and Foundation of the Amplitude, Propagation, Splendor, and Glory of the Church, promised by God, ād foretold by the Prophets, as may be seene Isaiae (Chap: 60. Vers: 22. Chap: 2. Vers: 2. Chap: 49. Vers: 23. Chap. 54. Vers: 2.3. Psalm: 2.8. Dan: 2.44.) Which Promises some learned Protestants finding evidently, not to be fulfilled in the Protestant Church, which before Luther was none, and being resolved, not to embrace the Catholique Church, wherin alone those Promises are clearly fulfilled, fell either to be perplexed and doubtfull of Christian Religion, or vtterly to forsake it, ād become Jewes, or Turks. Such were Castalio, David Georg, Ochinus, Neuserus, Alemannus, and others, as may be seene exactly set downe in Brierly, (Tract: 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 5.)

[Page 437]

12. These things considered, we must say, that if it be once believed against wicked Atheists, that there is a God; that he hath Providence over his creatures, and is to be worshipped in some Religion; it is impossible, that he can bestow so great Prerogatives vpon the Roman Church, and affoard so many, forcible, and evident Reasons convincing Her to be the true Church, and yet that she should not be so indeed. For, such an errour could not be ascribed to man, following the best guidance of evident Reason, but to God alone; which cannot be affirmed without blasphemy. And how is it possible, that Gods will should be, that we embrace his true Worship, and Religion, and yet affoard to the contrary errour, so great strength of Reason, that in all prudence and reason, men should embrace, not the true, but the false Faith and Religion?

13. And this may suffice for the present to demonstrate, that we are free enough from walking in a circle; and that you speake very vntruly, when you say (Pag: 377. N. 59.) and in your Answer to the Direction (N. 8. and 14.) that we can pretend no proofe for the Church, but some Texts; wherin you contradict even yourself, who (Pag: 66. N. 35.) say that our Faith, even of the Fundation of all our Faith, our Churches Authority, is built lastly and wholly vpon prudentiall Motives? If wholly vpon prudentiall Motives, how do you so often tell vs, that we build it only vpon Scripture. And that by so doing, we run round in a Circle, proving Scripture by the Church, and the Church by Scripture?

14. But now, let vs consider a litle, whether your pretended Brethren the Protestants, can themselves avoyd that, which you and they do so vehemently object to vs. First then; They who profess to know the private spirit, cannot avoyd a Circle, while they proue Scripture by that spirit, and that spirit by Scripture, by which alone, according to their Principles, they can try whether, or no it proceede from God. Wherof Ihaue spoken heretofore.

15. Secondly; they who pretend to know the Scripture by certaine internall criteria, or signes found in Scripture itself, as light, majesty, efficacy, or, as Potter speakes (Pag: 141.) a glorious beame of divine light which shines in Scripture, must fall into the same Circle with those men of the private spirit. For, seing those criteria, which they fancy to themselves, are nor evident either to sense, or naturall reason, they must be knowen by some other meanes, which can be none except some internall [Page 438]private spirit, or Grace within, as Potter expressly speakes (Pag: (141.) and (Pag: 142.) saith, There is in the Scripture it self, light sufficient, which the eye of Reason cleared by Grace, may discover to be Divine, descended from the Father and fountaine of light. If then we aske these men, why they belieue Scripture to be indued with such light, majesty, &c. seing these things appeare not evidently to any of our senses, nor to our vnderstanding, as prima principia of naturall Reason which are manifest of themselves; their Answer must be, that internall Gracē assures vs therof, and so this Grace is necessary, not only ex parte subjecti or potentiae, to assist our soule aboue our naturall forces, in order to supernaturall Objects; but it is the reason, motiue, and medium ex parte objecti, for which we belieue; for, other reason these men can giue none; and then enters the Argument which I made even now. How can they know that this light, or spirit is infused by God, (and proceeds not from some bad spirit) except by Scripture, and consequently by first knowing Scripture, wherby that light must be examined? and yet they cannot know scripture, except they be first inspired with this light, and know it to be a true light and not an illusion; which is a manifest Circle, placing this light before Scripture, and Scripture before this light; and finally, they are in effect, cast vpon the private spirit. Catholikes, I grant, belieue that the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is necessarie for exercising an Act of Faith, but they require it only ex parte potentiae, to enable our vnderstanding to assent to an object, represented and proposed by Motives sufficient to oblige vs to an infallible Act, having for its principall and formall Object, the Divine Revelation, which Revelation and Motives, are adequately and perfectly distinguished from the sayd Assistance; as in proportion we belieue by the vertue and strength of the Habit of Faith ex parte potentiae, but we do not belieue for it, neither is it apprehended, or considered, or represented to our vnderstanding, when we belieue; but that which we apprehend, moves the Act of our vnderstanding, is the reason and motiue for which we beleeue; as also the facultie of our vnderstanding is necessary for vs to belieue, and yet we do not belieue for, but by it: And therfore Protestants avoyd a Circle, as we evidently do.

16. Thirdly. As for you who profess to belieue the Scripture for the Church, if you be free from an vnprofitable Circle, we also, who receyue and belieue the Scripture for the Authority of the Church, [Page 439]are secured from it for the same reason; and therfore you must either acquit vs, or condemne yourself; though you will never be able to be proved not guilty of vntruth and injustice, in objecting to vs alone, that very thing of which yourself are guilty.

17. But now, because in this Controversy about the Church, Protestants seeke to make great vse of a distinction between Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall Poynts, I must in the next Chapter say somthing therof; that is, wheras Charity Maintayned hath shewed against Dr. Potter, the falshood and impertinency of that distinction, as it is applyed by Protestants; yea and that they contradict themselves therin; I will now endeavour to proue that notwithstanding all that you haue written in defense of the Doctour, the Arguments of Charity Maintayned remayne in force, as also that you, in this matter contradict both Protestants, and yourself.

[figure]

[Page 440]

CHAP. VI. ABOVT FVNDAMENTALL AND NOT FVNDAMENTALL POYNTS OF FAITH.

1. THis Question concerning Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Poynts of Faith, is stated at large by Charity Maintayned (Chap: 3. N. 2.) The summe is. Some Points are called Fundamentall or necessary, because every one is obliged to know and belieue them expressly, and explicitely; and Potter (Pag: 243.) speaking of some Points of Faith, sayth; These are so absolutely necessary to all Christians, for attaining the End of our Faith, that is, the salvation of our soules; that a Christian may loose himself; not only by a positive erring in them, or denying of them; but by a pure ignorance, or nescience, or not knowing of them. Other Points are called not Fundamentall, for the contrary reason, that men may be ignorant of them, or not belieue them explicitely, without sinne and damnation; yet so, as they cannot, without a grievous sin, be rejected or denyed, whensoever they are sufficiently represented to our vnderstanding, as Thruths revealed by God. For, in that case they grow to be Fundamentall, so farr, as they cannot be denyed without damnation. And in this sense, there is no distinction between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall Objects of Faith. Which is so evident, that Potter (Pag: 240.) sayes; It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he belieue all revealed truths of God, wherof he may be convinced, that they are from God. And (Pag: 212.) he teaches, that such Points may not be denyed or contradicted without Infidelity. This he sayth, and this every one must say who vnderstandes the termes. For, to reject what one believes to be testifyed by God, is to thinke [Page 441]that he either deceives, or may be deceived,

2. But then, How comes it to passe, that when we object to Protestants, that all of them cannot be of the same Church and Faith, and consequently cannot all hope to be saved, seing it is evident they contradict one another in many Points of Faith, wherin one side must deny a revealed Truth, which they confess to be damnable; how (I say,) come they to answer, not that those Points wherin they differ, are not sufficiently proposed to all of them as revealed by God, and so all of thē may be excused by ignorance (which were a poore, and vncertaine, and as it were a casuall Answer, depending on particular circumstances of persons, capacityes &c: for which no generall Rule can be given, and they themselves often pretend some of them to erre against Scripture, when it is no lesse evident in some not Fundamentall, than it is in some Fundamentall Points, and so ignorance cannot excuse them) but they are wont only to answer, that they agree in all Fundamentall Points, though they differ in Points not Fundamentall; placing the difference not in the different proposition of the Object, but in the nature, or waight of the Objects, or Articles themselves. For, if they speake of the proposall alone, they can put no difference betwixt not Fundamentall and Fundamentall Points; seing no man can belieue either kind of those Points, till they be sufficiently proposed, as Potter (Pag: 246. expresly sayth: Sufficient proposition of revealed Truths is required, before a man can be convinced. For, if they be not propounded to me, in respect of me it is all one as if they were not revealed. And for want of this, he excuses the Apostles who believed not the Resurrection, which is a Fundamentall Point of Faith, and therfore sufficient proposall is necessary in Fundamentall Articles. What then will Protestants finally answer? If they disagree in Fundamentall Points, they differ in the substance of Faith, and in things necessary to salvation. If they differ in Points not Fundamentall, yet sufficiently proposed, they differ also in things which Potter affirmes to be Fundamentall to a Christians Faith, and necessary for salvation. What then remaynes, but that they cannot be of the same substance of Faith, howsoever they answer?

3. We see then, how vaine, false, disadvantagious and contradictory to Protestants themselves, this distinction is, as they apply it; seing they must say, as we haue proved, that errour in Points not Fundamentall is against the substance of Faith, and destructiue of salvation, and yet that it is not such, in regard they affirme, that all of them may [Page 442]be saved, notwithstanding their errours in Points not Fundamentall; which they cannot imagine to be possible, if an errour in such Points be damnable, as we haue heard Potter confesse it to be, and you also acknowledg the same in a hundred places of your Booke.

4. Yet for the present, let vs haue the patience to heare them say, that they agree in Fundamentall Points, and therfore in the substance of Faith. But then every one who desires satisfaction in this matter, and hath no minde to be fed or rather fooled, with an emptie sound of words in the ayre, cannot chuse, but instantly demand, what those Fundamentall Points are in particular?

5. For, it cannot be discerned whether all Protestants, or a few, or any, agree with others, or the same man at different tymes with himself in Fundamentall Points, vnless it be knowen, what those Points be. What would it availe a sicke person, to tell him, that there are some infallible remedyes for his disease, if you cannot tell him what they are? Catholikes haue often, and earnestly, vpon most just and necessary causes, vrged Protestants to exhibite a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points; and learned Protestants haue endeavoured to give it; but with so great disagreement among themselves, and ill successe for their purpose; that their paines proved advantagious to vs Catholikes alone, and shewed that no such thing could be done; as appeares by their disagreeing Catalogues, set downe at large, and in particular by Cha: Ma: (Part: [...]. Chap: 3. N. 19.) yourself (Pag: 408. N. 35) say: Protestants do not agree touching what Points are Fundamentall.

6. But in the meane tyme, what is your opinion? Or how do you defend Protestants, and yourself? In a very strang manner: Either by contradicting them, and plainly confessing, that no such Catalogue can possibly be given; or else by contradicting yourself, somtyme saying, that one can be given, somtimes that it cannot. Sure I am, you giue vs none, though certainly it is a thing very necessary to be done in the way of Protestants. (Pag: 201. N. 19.) you teach that to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls (because to some more is Fundamentall, to others lesse, to others nothing at all) is impossible. And Pag: 166. N. 59. We know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall. (And Pag: 134. N. 13.) that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one, which to another is not so. Which variety of circumstances, makes it impossible to set downe an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls, and proves your request as reasonable, as if you should desire vs to make a coate for the moone in all her changes. And [Page 443](Pag: 23. N. 27.) He that will go about to distinguish, what was written, because it was profitable, from what was written because necessary, shall find an intricate peece of business of it, and almost impossible, that he should be certaine he hath done it, when he hath done it. And then it is apparently vnnecessary to go about it. Are you not an excellent Advocate for the Protastants cause? Whose both sayings, and doings, or endeavours, to set downe a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points you contradict; and make good in fact, (while you giue vs no such Catalogue,) and affirme in express words, that it is not possible for them to do it. They, endeavoured and could not: You, both by reason, and experience of their fruitless paines, will not seeme to endeavour it. Their endeavours shewed their judgment, of the great importance, and reall necessity therof. You perceaving the impossibility, are necessitated to say, it is not of importance, but needless. They in actu exercito; you in actu signato, shew it impossible to be done. You, I say, teach it to be needless, because you find it to be impossible, as Protestants would make the world belieue, that Miracles are ceased, because they can worke none: which if they had hope to do, they would soone chang their Doctrine, as you and they would quickly teach a Catalogue to be profitable, and necessary, if you could make one. The truth is; such a Catalogue is necessary in the principles of Protestants who deny the Authority of the Church, and yet being indeed impossible to them (as we see by experience in their differences, and your express confession) it shewes in what desperate case they, and you are. But heere I must by the way note a contradictiō of yours. We haue heard you say (Pag: 134. N. 13.) that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one, which to an other is not so. Which is repugnant to what you say (Pag: 13 [...]. N. 20.) Points Fundamentall be those only which are revealed by God, and commanded to be preached to all, and believed by all. For if Fundamentall Points be such only, as must be believed by all, it is cleare, that they which are necessary to be believed not by all, but by some only, cannot be Fundametall. You also contradict Potter, who (Pag: 21 [...].) teaches that by Fundamentall Doctrines we meane such Catholique verities as are necessary to be distinctly believed by every (mark, every) Christian that will be saved.

7 Now, That such a Catalogue is needless, you would shew, as I sayd, because who soever believes the Scripture, which is evident in all necessary Points, and in many which are not necessary, shall be sure to belieue, all that is necessary, and more.

[Page 444]

8. This evasion I haue confuted allready; yet in this particular fit occasion, I must not omitt to say somthing.

9. First then in saying a Catalogue is needless, you contradict other Protestants, to whom I suppose you will deferr so much, as to thinke their opinion not voyd of all probability, and consequently your owne not to be certaine, which were only to any purpose. For, if the contrary chance to be true, and a Catalogue be really necessary, your Doctrine denying, both that it is necessary, or that it can be given, must be very pernicious to soules, deceaving them with an opinion, that that is neither necessary, nor possible, which yet is absolutely necessary for their salvation. In the very sentence or Motto before your Booke, you alledg Casaubon saying, Existimat ejus Majestas &c. His Majesty judges, that the number of things absolutely necessary to salvation is not great, and therfore that there is not any more compendious way to make an agreement, than carefully to distinguish between necessary and vnnecessary things, and that all endeavour be vsed to procure an agreement in things necessary. Do not these words signify, both a possibility and necessity of distinguishing between necessary and vnnecessary Points? And yet we haue heard you say, that it is both impossible, and vnnecessary; in direct opposition to your Motto. And you say in your Epistle Dedicatory to the King, that your Booke is in a manner nothing else but a superstruction vpon that blessed Doctrine where with you haue adorned and armed the frontispice of your Book, and which was recommended by King James, as the only hopefull meanes, of healing the breaches of Christendome. A strang cure, by that meanes only, which you hold to be vnnecessary, and impossible! And here, by occasion of mentioning Casaubon, I cannot omit to declare (for a warning to others) that I haue it vnder the hand of a person of great quality, and integrity, that that vnhappy man, finding himselfe in danger of death, dealt with the sayd worthy person, to procure the presence and help of a Catholick Priest: but his intention being discouered, or suspected, he was so besieged by his wife, and a Protestant English Minister, that it was not possible to be effected. A fearfull example for all such as check, or choak the Inspirations of the holy Ghost, and procrastinate their conversion, till they finde that common, but terrible, saying, when it concerns Eternity, to be true: He who will not when he may, shall not when he will.

10. [...], by this reason of yours, there is no necessity of giv [...] even a Definition or Description of [Page 445]Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall; or of even mentioning such a distinction; seing in practise you cannot by any such description or distinction, know when they offer themselves in particular, and you are sure not to misse of them, by believing all that is cleare in Scripture: Especially if we adde your words (Pag: 23. N. 27.) That Protestants giue you not a Catalogue of Fundamentalls, it is not from Tergiversation, but from Wisdome and Necessity. And when they had done it, it had been to no purpose; There being, as Matters now stand, as great necessity, of believing those Truths of Scripture, which are not Fundamentall as those that are. And yet all learned Protestants harpe vpon nothing more, than vpon this distinction of Points Fundamentall, and vpon the definitions, or descriptions of them, as particularly, may be seene in your client Potter (Pag: 211.213.214.215.) which is a needless paynes, if this your evasion be good, and solid.

11. Thirdly. Though one be obliged not to disbelieue any Truth revealed in Scripture, when it is knowne to be such, yet he is not bound to belieue explicitly all such Truths. For, by this Fundamentall and not fundamentall points are distinguished, as Potter (P: 213.) saith: Fundamentall properly is, that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith. In other Points that Faith, which the Card: Perron (Replique Liur: 1. Chap 10. calls the Faith of adherence, or non-repugnance, may suffice, to wit, an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all, or any thing revealed in Scripture, when it is sufficiently cleared. Now if I cannot sever or distinguish these two kinds of Points, I shall either be obliged to know absolutely all, and every Truth, contained in Scripture (which is a voluntary, and intollerable obligation) or none, (seing I cannot tell in particular what they be which I am obliged to know) and so be in danger to be ignorant of fundamentall Articles, without the actuall and express knowledg wherof, I cannot be saved. And this difficulty is encreased by the doctrine which you deliver (Pag: 195. N. 11.) That there is no Point to any man, at any tyme, in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same tyme, in the same circumstances, necessary to be believed. Seing then no point of Scripture, can at any tyme, in any circumstances, be disbelieved, it is necessary at all tymes, in all circumstances, to be believed: And much more this must follow, if we cannot know what points be Fundamentall, except by knowing every plain Text of Scripture: which, as I sayd, is an intollerable burthen.

[Page 446]

12. Fourthly; It imports very much to know summarily, and certainly, what points men are obliged to belieue explicitly, that they may with more facility, application, and perfection, learne them, and not be diverted by things not necessary, with prejudice to the knowledg of Articles Fundamentall, or necessary, by obliging every one to know every Text of Scripture. Neither can you answer; that this is done already in the Creed of the Apostles. For, we haue that forme of Creed, by Tradition only, and according to your principles, we cannot belieue any thing contained in the Creed, except we first know it to be contained in Scripture, from which if we cannot learne, what is Fundamentall, and what is not, we cannot be certaine that the particular points contained in the Creed. are Fundamentall; nor can you learne out of any text of Scripture that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points: to say nothing, that the Creed, without the Church and Tradition, is not sufficient to declare the meaning of itself; and so we see, Protestants cannot agree in the sense of any one Article therof, as I shewed hertofore. Besides, if the Creed containe all Fundamentall Points, why do you deny that it is possible to giue such a Catalogue? Or if you say, that even in the Creed, it is impossible to determine precisely, what Points are Fundamentall; my former Argument retaines its force, that by this meanes, one cannot tell what he is chiefly to study and learne, nor what he is bound explicitly to belieue in the Creed itself. Nay, since you can alledg no precept out of Scripture, that all men are obliged to know and belieue the Creed, the Creed of itself can be to you no rule at all, either for Fundamentall; or not Fundamentall Points, but still you are devolved to find in the whole Bible Fundamentall Articles of Faith, mixt with Points not Fundamentall; and so it availes Protestants nothing, to alledg the Creed as a summary of all Fundamentall Points. Lastly Potter (Pag: 241.) holds it only for very probable, that the Creed containes all necessary Points, and yourself (Pag: 194. N. 4.) say of Potter: he affirmed it not as absolutely certaine, but very probable; as also rhe Doctour pretends only, that all Articles of pure Faith, but not of practise are, contained in the Creed, and yet no man can be saved without believing all Fundamentall points, whether they be purè credenda, or belong to practise; and therfore we must conclude, that to alledg the Creed for solving this my Argument, can in no wise satisfy.

13. Fiftly; According to Protestants, we cannot be obliged to belieue explicitely any Object, vnless we find such an obligation evidently [Page 447]set downe in Scripture: And if such an obligation be evidently expressed in Scripture, it followes, that you may giue vs a Catalogue of such Points: If not; you cannot burden mens consciences with such an obligation not expressed in Scripture.

14. Sixthly; I oppose yourself to yourself. (Pag: 149. N. 37.) You speake of Protestants in this manner: Seing they ground their belief, that such and such things only are Fundamentalls, only vpon Scripture, and go about to proue their Assertion true, only by Scripture, then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutly and in all things, or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to belieue this thing, that these only Points are Fundamentall. Which words seeme to signify, that Protestants can proue out of Scripture, that such and such things only are Fundamentalls; and what is this, but to giue a Catalogue, so exact, that they may not only say; these Points are Fundamentall, but also that these only are such; that is, these, and neither more, nor fewer than these are Fundamentall Articles? And (Pag: 150. N. 40.) You say: They (Protestants) may learne of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God, and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamentall, others are not so. And (Pag: 408. N. 35.) You tell Charity Maintayned that he overreaches in saying that Protestants cannot agree what Points are Fundamentall, and yet you grant in the same place, that they do not agree; and what reason can be given of this their so constant and long continued disagreement, except because they haue no assured meanes, and rule how to do it? Also (Pag: 160. N. 53.) To these words of Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap: 3. N. 19.) Scripture doth deliver divine Truths, but seldome qualifyes them, or declares whether they be or be not absolutly necessary to salvation) You answer: Yet not so seldome, but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the essentiall parts of Christianity if it were necessary. What difference put you between an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity, and a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points? And how agrees this, with what we haue heard you say (Pag: 166. N. 59.) We know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall. And (Pag: 23. N. 27.) You say; He that will goe about to distinguish, what was written because it was profitable, from what was written because necessary, shall find an intricate peece of businesse of it, and almost impossible that he should be certaine he hath done it, when he hath done it. And (Pag: 22. N. 27.) A little before the words I cited last, treating whether it be possible and necessary to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls, you say; [Page 448] For my part, I haue great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other. What a confusion is here? First: It is possible, it is not possible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentalls. 2. It is possible to giue an abstract of the Essentiall parts of Christianity. 3. (Pag: 135. N. 14.) Perhaps we cannot exactly destinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary, from what is necessary consequently and accidentally, meerely because it is revealed. 4. I suspect that it is neither necessary, nor profitable to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points. 5. It is a business of extreame difficultie. 6. it is an intricate peece of business, and almost impossible that one should be certaine he hath done it, when he hath done it. By all which you can gather nothing but contradictions and ambiguityes, an Affirmation, a Negation, a Perhaps, a Suspicion, an extreme Difficulty, an intricate peece of businesse, a Possibility, an impossibility, an almost Impossibility, and finally, nothing certaine but this, that in this most important matter of Fundamentall Points, Protestants neither haue, nor can haue any certainty, but that it may be so, and so, it may be neither so, nor so; as we see by experience, that they do not only disagree in assigning what Points are Fundamentall, but some affirme certaine Points to be Fundamētall Truths, which others belieue to be Fundamentall errours. But now in an other respect also, I oppose yourself to yourself.

15. Seaventhly; For I must vpon occasion still put you in mynd, of your doctrine, that it is not a materiall object of our Faith, to belieue that Scripture is the word of God, and that men are not obliged to receaue it for such, yea and that they may reject it. This supposed; it followes, that I am not obliged, yea that I cannot belieue the contents of Scripture as divine Truths, whether they be Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall: And therfore by believing all that is evident in Scripture, I can in no wise be assured, to believe all Fundamentall Truths. Besides, according to Protestants, men can know by Scripture only, that there are any such things as Fundamentall Points of Faith, as yourself teach (Pag: 149. N. 37.) In these words; Protestants ground their belief, that such and such things only are Fundamentalls, only vpon Scripture, and go about to proue their Assertion true, only by Scripture. Seing therfore you hold, that men are not obliged to belieue Scripture, it followes, that you are not obliged to embrace that meanes by which alone you can attaine the knowledg of Points either Fundamentall or not Fundamentall, and consequently de facto the meanes to know all [Page 449]Fundamentall Poynts cannot be, to know and belieue all that is evidently contained in Scripture.

16. Eightly; and chiefly; I haue proved that all Points necessary to be belieued, are not evidently contained in Scripture; and therfore by only believing all that is evident in Scripture, a man is not sure to attaine, yea he is sure not to attaine, the knowledg and belief of all necessary Points. But let vs now see what you can object against vs.

17. Object: 1. You say (Pag: 134. N. 13.) That, As, Charity Maintayned (Chap: 3. N. 19.) Being engaged to giue a Catologue of Fundamentalls, insteed therof tells v [...] only in generall, that all is Fundamentall, and not to be disbelieved vnder payne of damnation, which the Church hath defined, without setting downe a compleat Catalogue of all things which in any. Age the Church has defined; so in reason we might thinke it enough for Protestants to say in generall, that it is sufficient, for any mans salvation, to belieue that the Scripture is true, and containes all things necessary for salv [...]tion; and to do his best endeavour to find and belieue the true sense of it, without delivering any particular Catalogue of the Fundamentalls of Faith.

18. Answer; 1. Charity Maintayned was not any way engaged to giue a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall Points, as Protestants are, for the reasons which I haue given; because without it, they cannot possibly know whether themselves, or their Brethren, or any Church at all belieue all Articles necessary to salvation: Yet voluntarily Charity Maintayned gaue such a generall Catalogue, as could not faile in bringing vs to the knowledg of all particulars, in all occasions. For this cause he sayd; do here deliver a Catalogue, wherin are comprised all P [...]n [...]s by vs taught to be necessary to salvation; &c: Which is most true, and puts a manifest difference between you and vs, concerning the necessity of every mans being able to giue a distinct Catalogue ofne [...]essary Points. For, seing we belieue an infallible Living Judg, who can, and infallibly will, propose divine Truths, and declare himself in all occasions for what is necessary; we are assured, that we shall in due tyme be informed of all that is necessary, and much more, if we be so happy as to submitt to such Information and Instruction. If I had one alwayes at hand, who would and could (yeā could not but) certainly instruct me, what I were to belieue, or say, or doe, were not all these actions in my power, no lesse than if I did not depend vpon any such prompter? Charity Maintayned had then reason to say, that in the Catalogue [Page 450]which he gaue, all necessary Points were comprised, and this in a way no less easy, intelligible, and certaine, then if we had before our eyes a Catalogue of all particular Points. For, our soule being disposed by this submission, and the Object proposed by such a Guide, we shall alwayes find a Catalogue made to our hands, by the Goodness of God, and Ministery of the Church. For the contrary reason of not submitting to any Living Judg of Controversyes, Protestants cannot possibly be assured, whether, or no they belieue all Fundamentall Points; which, yourself confess, cannot be done except by knowing all evident Texts of Scripture, to which taske no man can be obliged: To say nothing, that Scripture containes not all necessary Points, nor is sufficient to declare itself: Of which considerations I haue spoken hertofore. And by this is answered, what you object (Pag: 160 and Pag: 161. N. 53.) Where you pretend to assigne some generall Catalogues, but such, as by meanes of them it is impossible to know particulars, as we may by that generall one which Charity Maintayned gaue. Thus also is answered the Objection which you make (Pag: 158. N. 51. and Pag: 22. N. 27.) Where you demand of vs a Catalogue of all the Definitions of the Church. For, we haue told you, that it is sufficient for vs, to be most certaine, that the Church will not faile to instruct vs of all her Definitions, Decrees, and whatsoever els is necessary, as occasion shall require, according to the severall degrees of Articles more or lesse necessary, in different Circumstances; which Scripture alone cannot do, as hath bene demonstrated.

19. Object: 2. (Pag: 159. N. 52.) You say touching the necessity of Repentance from dead workes, and Faith in Christ Iesus, the Son of God, and Saviour of the World, all Protestants agree: And therfore we cannot deny, but that they agree about all that is simply necessary.

20. Answer. What? Haue we now a Catalogue of All that is simply necessary, and yet a Catalogue of necessary or Fundamentall points cannot be given? 2. If these be All the Points which are simply necessary; why do you so often exclaime against Charity Maintayned, for saying, that confessedly the Church of Rome believes all that is simply necessary? For, you grant (Pag: 34. N. 5.) and els where, that we belieue those Points.

21. 3. I desire you to consider, that Fundamentall Points are those, which we are bound to belieue actually and expressly, and as Potter sayth (Pag: 243.) are so absolutely necessary to all Christians, for attaining [Page 451]the End of our Faith, that is, the salvation of our soules; that a Christian may loose himself not only by a positiue erring in them: but by a pure ignorance, or nescience, or not knowing of them. Now if one cannot be saved, without explicite and actuall knowledg of these Points, he cannot haue true Repentance without actuall dereliction of the contrary errours, and express belief of such Points, in which. Ignorance cannot excuse; ād you say (Pag: 15. N. 29.) Errour against a Truth, must needs presuppose a nescience of it; And that Errour and [...]gnorance must be inseparable. Therfore whosoever erres in such Points, looses himselfe by such an Errour, seing even a pure ignorance cannot excuse him, and consequently he cannot be saved without actually relinquishing such an Errour, and embracing the contrary Fundamentall Truth, and so cannot be sure, that he hath true Repentance, vnless he know in particular what Truths and Errours are Fundamentall. And you deliver a very pernicious Errour, in saying; (Pag: 159, N. 52.) whosoever dyes with Faith in Christ, and contrition for all sinnes knowen and vnknowen (in which heape, all his si full Errours must be comprized) can no more be hurt by any the most ma [...]ignant and pestilent Errour, then S. Paul by the Viper which he shooke of into the fire. For, if he remayne in his Errour about Fundamentall Points, he wants the contrary actuall explicite belief of them, which is supposed to be absolutely necessary to Salvation; and so he will not cast that viper, but it will cast him, into the fire. His Errour then, which is supposed to be Fundamentall, must be knowen to him (and being knowen to be an Errour, eo ipso, it is rejected, since our vnderstanding cannot assent to a knowen falshood) and therfore cannot be comprized in the heape of sinfull Errours knowen and vnknowen, but must be distinctly knowen, and forsaken.

22. How can you say, that all Protestants agree touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works, and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God, and Savio [...]r of the wor [...]d? They may agree in the words or Grammaticall signification of them, as any boy, Turke, Jew, or Infidell, could not but doe, if they vnderstood the toung, wherin those words were set downe. But for the sense, you could scarcely haue picked out Articles of greater moment, and withall lesse agreed on among Protestants; since every word discovers their irreconciliable differences concerning them: and yet (which is well to be observed) they concerne points of practise, and things absolutely necessary to salvation, [Page 452]as we haue heard you confess, and therfore an errour in them, is damnable without all remedy.

23. Let vs cast an eye vpon every word. Repentance. Protestants are not agreed wherin true Repentance consists, as may be seene in Bellarmine (de Poenit: Lib: 1. Chap: 7. & Lib. 2 Chap: 4.) and you in particular hold a Dòctrine different from the rest, That Attrition alone is sufficient, and that, whether it be Attrition, or Contrition, it requires the extirpation of all vicious habits, which you say is a thing of difficulty and tyme, and cannot be performed in an instant; and what sinner, though repenting himself never so hartily at the houre of his death, can be saved with this your kind of Repentance, which at that houre is an impossible thing? From dead works. What will you vnderstand by dead works? You know, many chiefe Protestants hold, all our best works to be of themselves not only dead, but deadly sinnes; and so Repentance of dead workes must signify, Repentance that ever we haue done any good, that we haue believed, hoped, and loved God and our neighbour, obeyed our Parents, kept any of the Commandements &c: And if you consider the person from whom they proceed; in case he be predestinated, no sin can hurt him whatsoever he doe: To the former, Repentance is needless; to the latter, fruitless. How then do Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead workes, or in Repentance itself? For the second Point (Faith in Christ Iesus, the Son of God and Saviour of the world) there is not one word wherin Protestants agree, for the sense. Faith. You say; A probable Faith is sufficient: all others deny it, professiing, that Christian Faith necessary to salvation, must be infalible; and therfory you cannot be saved by your kind of Faith, even by the doome of Protestants; and in that respect, all men who haue care of their soules, ought to detest your Doctrine and Booke. But do those other Protestants agree among themselves, what Faith is necessary, and sufficient, for salvation? They do not. Some hold, that, Faith necessary and sufficient for Justification, is that wherby one believes certainly, that his sinnes are forgiven, and that they are forgiven even by believing so; according to which Doctrine, what necessity can there be of Repentance? Seing men are justifyed precisely by such a Faith: and how then did you tell vs, that Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead works? Of which strang kind of Faith, He whom you call the learned Grotius in his Discussio Riveriani Apologetici &c: (Pag: 2 [...]0.) saith very truly: Evangelij [Page 453]vox haec est: Resipiscite: Facite fructus dignos Poenetentiae: adhortamini vosmetipsos per singulos dies, donec hodie nominetur, vt non obduretur quis ex vobis fallacia peccati: Terra proferens spinas & tribulos, proxima est maledictioni, cujus consummatioin combustionem. At Riveti eique similium, longè alia agendiratio: remissa tibi sunt peccata. Vnde id sciam? Debes id credere. At quo Argumento, cum non remitantur omnibus? Remissa sunt credentibus. Et quid credentibus? Remissa sibi esse peccata. Mirus verò circulus. Ita, si istos sequimur, & remissio est causa credendi; nihil enim credi debet factum esse nisi quod factum est; & contra, credere, causa remissionis, quia conditio est requisita ad remissionem. Haec verè sunt inextricabilia. (Faith in Christ Jesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world.) Who is ignorant, how deeply Protestants disagree in these points? You Socinians absolutely deny Christ Jesus to be the Son of God and Consubstantiall to his Father, and Potter (Pag: 113.114.) cites the doctrine of some whom he termes men of great learning and judgment, that all who profess to loue, and honour Iesus Christ, are in the Visible Christian Church, and by Catholikes to be reputed Brethren. One of these men of great learning and judgment cited by Potter is Thomas Morton, who (in his Treatise of the Kingdome of Israel) teaches, that the Churches of Arians (who denyed our Saviour Christ to be God) are to be accounted the Church of God, because they hold the Foundation of the Ghospell, which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Son of God and saviour of the world. Which are your very words: Wherin appeares your hypocrisy, in calling. Christ the Son of God, which men will conceaue you vnderstand as all good Christians do (that he is consubstantiall to his Father) wheras you meane only, as the Arians did, that he was the Son of God, by conjunction of will, or some such accidentall way; ād so Protestāts do not, agree in a point: simply necessary (Saviour of the world▪) For, Sociniās deny Christ to haue satisfyed for the sins of the world, as may be seene in Volkelius, (Lib: 4. Cap: 2. and Cap: 22.) against other Protastants, who in an other extreme hold, that he alone satisfied so, as no satisfaction is required at our hands; though wee tell them, that such our satisfaction depends on, and taks all its valve from his. You are an excellent advocate for Potter seing you differ from him in this Point, which (Pag: 242.) he calls that most, important and most Fundamentall of all Articles in the Church that Iesus Christ the Son of God, and the Son of Mary, is the only Saviour of the world. Surely, one of you must be in such a most important and most Fundamentall [Page 454]errour, that you cannot both be saved, though you were inculpably ignorant of it, as we haue seene out of Potter, (Pag: 243.) even concerning this particular Article. And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresayd Articles of Repentance, and Faith in Christ Iesus the Son of God and Saviour of the world; which yet you confess to be simply necessary.

24. Object: 3. In the same (Pag: 159. N. 52.) You say; Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients, and he advising with Physitians should find them differing in opinion about it, some of them telling hem, that all the ingredients were absolutly necessary; some, that only some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse, lastly some, that some only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest superfluous, yet not hurtfull; yet all with one accord agreeing in this, that the whole receypt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made vse of it, he should infallibly find it successfull; what wise man would not thinke they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health? I ust so, these Protestant Doctours with whose discords you make such Tragedyes, agreeing in Thes [...] thus far, that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to salvation, and that whosoever believes it, and endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to conforme his life vnto it, shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation, and vndoubtedly be saved; what matters it for the divection of men to salvation, though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutly necessary, and what not?

25. Answer. You Socinians, who adore naturall reason, and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men, are much delighted in proposing similitudes, which make a faire shew, and may seduce the ignorant; but being examined, proue nothing against any, except yoursel ves. First; This similitude can proue nothing, vnless you begg the Question, and suppose one receypt to haue in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased mans health; that is, Scripture to containe all Points necessary to salvation, which you know we deny, and say you erre in Thesi. If with Scripture, you would joyne the Tradition, and Definitions of the Church, your suppositions were true, and your parity good; Otherwise your receypt cannot haue all necessary ingredients.

26. Secondly: Suppose the sick man had great reason to belieue, that the ground vpon which the Physitians build their opinion and agreement, [Page 455]were not good, nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit, what sick man, if he were also wise, could judg their agreement to be sufficient, for an vndoubted direction to the recovery of his health? Heere then, (as in other severall occasions) I must put you in mynd of your doctrine, that we are not bound to belieue, as an Object of our Faith, Scripture to be the word of God, but that we may reject it. What then availes it me, towards the belief of such or such Points, that they are evident in Scripture, if I do not belieue Scripture itself?

27. Thirdly: Suppose the ingredients were very soveraine and sufficient in themselves, but that it were not in the sick mans power to procure them, were the speculatiue agreement of the Physitians sufficient for his recovery? So here. It is impossible for most men to know all evidēt texts of scripture, which yet, according to your grounds, must make vp that number of Truths, wherin one shall be sure to find all Fundamentall Points; and so the agreement of Protestants, that all necessary Truths are evidently contayned in Scripture, is to little purpose, since they cannot distinguish them from Points not necessary; and for all men to know all Points evident in Scripture, but not necessary, is impossible; and though it were possible, yet being not of obligation for any man, even though he be learned, to know all such Texts, defacto he might without sinne be ignorant of necessary Points, which he can be certaine to know, only by knowing absolutly all cleare places of Scripture, and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutly necessary necessitate medij; which is a plaine contradiction, that some Points should be necessary to salvation, and yet that we are not bound to attaine the knowledg of them; or that the End, which is the knowledg of such Points, should be necessary, and the only meanes to attaine it, be either impossible, or at least not of obligation to any, as certainly no man is obliged to know precisely all and every particular evident Text of Scripture, which [...]et, in your way, is the only meanes to know all Fundamentall Points; as in your example, if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health, he must be obliged to make vse of that receypt which alone could be effectuall in order to that end.

28. Fourthly: Suppose I could not take such a receypt, without danger of drinking poyson, togeather with the wholsome ingredients, your similitude which goes vpon the contrary supposition, doth clearely [Page 456]proue nothing. Thus it passes in our case. Men left to themselves, without the Direction and Traditions of the Church (yea with direct opposition to her Definitions and Authority) cannot chuse, but by occasion of reading Scripture alone, fall into many errours against some Divine Revelation, delivered either in Scripture, or by Tradition; that is, in the written or vnwritten word of God; as we see by experience of old and new Heretikes, and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants, wherof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in Gods Word, either by detracting, from, or by adding, to the true sense therof. Now in divets places you affirme, that every errour contrary to any revealed Truth, is in its owne nature damnable without Repentance; and you add (Pag: 158. N. 52.) that for the most, part, men are betrayed into errours, or k [...]t in them by their fault, or vice, or passion: And therfore the true Conclusion will be, that men presuming to reade and interpret Scripture by their owne wit, without dependance on the Church, ought to conceaue, that they expose themselves to certaine danger, of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation; that is, to a thing in itself damnable: Neither can they hope for any helpe from Sectaryes, whom they see infinitly divided among themselves: And if they take such men for their Physitians, some of them will affirme some ingredients to be necessary or profitable, which others will sweare to be ranke poyson; and so every Protestant is left to himself, and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentalls is necessary for every one. All which is strongly confirmed, by calling to mynd, that even the most learned Protestants, haue no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture. Your supposition therfore in the consult of Physitians, that in the receypt, of which they spoke, though perhaps there might be some ingredients superfluoous, yet not hurtfull, cannot be applyed against vs, but retorted vpon yourselfe; that as in case the whole receypt did containe some things hurtfull, no man could in conscience take it; so [...] being in danger of falling into damnable errours, by occasion of interpreting Scripture, without dependance or relation to an infallible Guide, cannot without manifest danger of their soules hope to find all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture alone, and therfore must resolue to seeke a Living Guide, the true Church of God; which they shall be sure to find, if they seeke, with great instance, constancy, and humility.

59. Out of what hath beene sayd in this Chapter, these Corollaryes, [Page 457]are evidently doduced: That, there are certaine Fundamentall Articles of Faith, which vnless a man belieue actually and explicitly, he cannot haue the substance of Faith, nor can any Congregation be a true Church, nor can there be any hope of salvation; as all, both Catholikes and Protestants, affirme; That vnless there be some Meanes to be assured, what those Fundamentall Articles are, none can be certaine, that they haue the substance of Faith, or be members of the true Church, or oan [...]pect salvation; That hitherto Protestants, notwithstanding their [...]most endeavour could never declare, what those Points are; That the meanes which Mr. Chillingworth hath invented for being sure not to misse of them, is neither sufficient, nor possible; That indeed it is not possible for Protestants to assigne any such Catalogue; That Catholikes [...] a most certaine, and infallible way, to know such Points, and all other Truths, as occasion shall require, by submitting to a Living Judg of Controversyes: And therfore, That none can be sure, that he hath true Faith, is a member of the true Church, or is in possibility to be saved, vnless he belieue, profess, and obey such an Infallible Judg, the One, alwayes existent, Visible Church of God. From which Truth, this other evidently followes; That whosoever devide themselves from the Communion of that true Church, are guilty of the grievous sinne of Schisme. And that Protestants haue done so, shall be demonstrated in the next Chapter.

[Page 458]

CHAP: VII. PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY OF THE SINNE OF SCHISME.

1. THE Title of this Chapter having bene made good at large by Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap: 5.) against all that Dr. Potter could invent, in Defense of Protestants: If now I can confute whatsoever you alledg in Defence of the Doctour; the Arguments and Reasons of Charity Maintayned must in all right be adjudged to keepe their first possession, and this Truth remayne constant; That Protestants, and all others who separate themselves from the Roman Church, must needs be found guilty of the grievous sin of formall Schisme.

2. In the beginning Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chapt: 5. N. 4.) layes this ground; That the Catholique Church signifyes One Congregation of Faithfull people, and therfore implyes not only Faith to make them Faithfull Believers, but also Communion, or common vnion, to make them One in Charity, which excludes Separation and Division, or Schisme. This is a very evident and certaine Truth; and therfore Tertulian (de Praescrip: Cap. 41.) observes it as a property of heretiks, that they communicate with all. Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus miscent. Nihil enim interest illis, licèt diversa tractantibus, dum ad vnius veritatis expugnationem conspirent. Thus we see Protestants, will needs call all Brethren, who are not Papists. Yea many will not haue Papists make a Church distinct from them. S. Austine was of an other mynd from Protestants; who (de Uera Relig: Cap: 5.) condemnes Philosophers, because teaching different things of God, yet they frequented the same sacrifices; and adds; So it is believed and taught, that it is the principall point of mans salvation, that there [Page 459]is not an other Philosophy, that is, study of wisdome, and an other Religion, when they, whose Doctrine we approue not, communicate not in Sacraments with vs. Which Truth S. Austine judges to be of so great valve, and necessity, and the contrarie so pernicious, as he avoucheth. Si hoc vnum tantum vitium Christianâ disciplinâ sanatum videremus ineffabili laude praedicandam esse neminem negare oporteret. And (Lib: 19. cont. Faust: Cap: 11,) he sayth: Men cannot be joyned into any name of Religion, true or false, vnless they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments; Therfore Communion in Sacraments, is essentially necessary to vnite the members of One Church, and distinguish it from all other. In this manner, (Act: 2. 42. it is sayd of those first Christians: They were presevering in the Doctrine of the Apostles, and Communication of breaking bread, and prayer. Behold a Communication, not only in Faith, or Doctrine; but also in Sacraments and Prayers. Neither do Protestants deny this Truth. Molins (Lib: 1. cont: Perron: Cap: 2.) saith: The ancient Doctours are wont to vnderstand by the Church, (which oftentymes they call Catholike) the whole Society of Christian Churches, Orthodox, and sound in Faith, vnited togeather in Communion: and they oppose this Church to the Societyes of Schismatikes, and Heretiks, which we will not reject. By which words it appeares; That the Holy Fathers, and even Protestants, make vnity in Communion, against Schisme, no less essentiall to the Church, then in Faith, against Heresy. Field, (Lib: 1. Cap: 15.) The Communion of the Church consisteth in Prayers and dispensation of Sacraments. And (Lib: 2. Cap: 2.) Communion in Sacraments is essentiall to the Church.

3. The reason of this Truth is very cleare. For, without Communion in Sacraments, Liturgie, and publike worship of God, the true Church cannot be distinguished essentially from any Schismaticall congregation: Because seing Schismatiks, as they are distinguished from Heretiks, cannot be distinguished by a different Faith, wherin they are supposed to agree with Catholiks, they can be distinguished, only by externall Communion; which therfore must be essentiall to the Church, as being the thing which alone formally and essentially excludes Schisme S. Austine speakes excellently to this purpose (Epist: 48.) You are with vs in Baptisme, in the Creed, in the rest of Gods Sacraments: in the spirit of vnity, in bond of peace, finally in the very Catholique Church you are not with vs. Which words declare, that the spirit of vnity, and bond of peace, are necessary and essentiall to constitute [Page 460]men members of One Church. All agree, that to be one Church, there must be vnity in Faith; and seing Faith is ordaynd to the salvation of soules, (1. Pet: 1.9.) by the true worship of God; vnity in this worship is no less necessary, than vnity in Faith. The Militant true Church of Christ is a visible congregation; and therfore doth essentially require visible signes to distinguish it from all other companyes, by Sacraments, externall worship of God, and a publike Liturgie: which if you take away, you destroy the vnity of the Church. For, a Division of that which is essentiall, is a plaine destruction. Protestants teach, the true preaching of the word, and due administration of Sacraments to be so essentiall to the Church, that without them a Church ceases to be a Church: therfore if there be not agreement or Communion in them, they cannot be essentially one Church, but essentially different and divided one from another. This true Principle being setled;

4. The first reason which Charity Maintayned (Chap: 5. Part: 1. N. 12.) alledges to proue his Assertion, is this; Seing Schisme consists essentially in leaving the externall Communion of the Visible Church of Christ, and that Luther and his Associars did so (as he proves by evidence of fact, and by the confessions of Protestants, Luther saying (in Pràefat: Oper: suorum) in the beginning I was alone. And Calvin: (Ep: 141.) We were forced to make a separation from the whole world; besides the sayings of other Protestants: it followes that they cannot be excused from Schisme.

5. The Answer which may be gathered out of Dr. Potter to this Reason, is; That they left not the Church, but her Corruptions. Which evasion, Charity Maintayned confutes, by willing him to consider, that for the present we speake not of Heresy, or departing from the Church, but of Schisme, of leaving her externall Communion; which manifestly they did, by separating from all Churches, and consequently from the Vniversall Church, which is the most formall sinne of Schisme. And indeed they ought to inferr, that the Vniversall Church is not subject to any errour in Doctrine, and not tell the world, that they forsooke her Communion for her Errours; seing her Communion is never to be forsaken; and therfore it is not possible, that she can giue any cause of such a separation by falling into errour. This we learne of S. Austine (Cont: Parm: Lib: 2. Chap 11.) There is no just necessity to divide Vnity. And (Ep: 48.) It is not possible that any may haue just cause, to separate their Communion, from the Communion of [Page 461]the whole world, and call themselves the Church of Christ, as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause. And S. Irenaeus (Cont: Heres: Lib: 4. C 62.) They can not make any so important reformation, as the evill of the Schisme is pernicious

6. Secondly: Charity Maintayned proves them to be Schismatikes, by this Argument. Potter teaches, that the Catholique Church, cannot erre in points of Faith, Necessary to salvation; and therfore it cannot be damnable to remayne in her Communion, although she were falsly supposed to teach some Errours, seing they cannot be damnable, and consequently cannot yield any necessary cause to leaue her Communion; but it is cleare, that Luther, and the rest, left the whole vniversall Church, which was extant before them, vnder pretense of Errours, which cannot be Fundamentall; Therfore it is cleare, they left Her without any necessary cause. Which I confirme by your owne words, (Pag: 220. N. 52.) where you say; May it please you now at last to take notice, that by Fundamentall, we meane all, and only that which is necessary; and then I hope you will grant, that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation; vnless you will say, that more is necessary, than that which is necessary. And (Pag: 376 N. 57.) he that believes all necessary Truth, if his life he answerable to his Faith, how is it possible he should faile of salvation? Therfore, say I, seing the Church vniversall cannot erre in necessary Points, whosoever embraceth her Faith, for as much as belongs to Faith, cannot faile of salvation, vnless you will say, that more is necessary, then that which is necessary, which are your owne words: You say also (Pag: 33. N. 4.) If a particular man or Church may hold some particular Errours, and yet be a member of the Church vniversall; why may not the Church hold some vniversall Errour, and yet be shell the Church? This parity is none at all: yet seing you must make it good, I may say much more with all truth, and without any dependence vpon your false parity; if the Church vniversall may hold some vniversall Errour, (as you confess she may, which yet indeed is impossible) and be still the Church, why may not a particular man, or Church, hold some particular errours, and yet be a member of the Church vniversall; and consequently capable of salvation for as much as concernes his Faith? And therfore none can forsake the Church by leaving her Communion, and making himself no member of Her, for any such errours as are not opposite to a [Page 462]necessary Truth, into which kind of errours, it is confessed the Church cannot fall. To which I may add what yousay (Pag: 35. N. 7.) if some Controversyes may for many Ages he vndetermined, and yet in the meane while men be saved, why should, or how can the Churches being furnisht with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion, be necessary to salvation, the end itself, to which these meanes are ordayned, being as experience shewes, not necessary? O, how truly may we say; (and happy had your progenitors bene, if they had done so) If for so many; Ages before Luthers pretended Reformation, but true Schisme, men wrought Miracles, converted Nations, were eminent for Sanctity, attained salvation, and are esteemed Saints in Heaven by our Adversaryes; and this in the belief and profession of those Points, which Catholikes now professe, how could any Reformation, or separation, be necessary, since the end itself of salvation, to which all meanes are ordained, was not necessary, but was attained without any such Reformation or separation?

7. Like to this Argument of Charity Maintayned is another which (N. 22.) he tooke from these words of Potter, (Pag: 155.) It is comfort enough for the Church, that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers, and conserue her on earth against all enemyes; but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, tell she be in Heaven. If it be comfort enough to be secured from all capitall dangers, why were not the first pretended reformers content with enough, but rent the Church, out of a pernicious greedyness of more then enough, or a pretended desire to free men from all errour, which cannot be hoped for out of Heaven? If even the vniversall Church may not hope to triumph over all Errour, till she be in Heaven, much less can particular Churches, and men, conceiue any such hope, and so you must either grant, that Errours not Fundamentall, cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Churches Communion, or you must affirme, that all Churches may and ought to be forsaken, and that a man cannot lawfully be of any Church, yea and that every one is obliged to forsake himself, if it were possible, for avoyding errours not Fundamentall. Besides, as it is not lawfull to leaue the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners, because we cannot in this life hope to triumph over all sinne, as Potter speakes; so neither can her Communion be forsaken, for Errours not Fundamentall, seing the Doctor saith also, that the Church may not hope to triumph over all Errours.

[Page 463]

8. Another Argument Charity Maintayned (N. 25.) tooke from these words of Potter (Pag: 75.) There neither was, nor can be, any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ; no more than from Christ himself. But to depart from a particular Church, and namely from the Church of Rome, in some Doctrines and Practises, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. Marke what he saith. There can be no cause to depart from the Church of Christ, and yet he teaches, that the Church of Christ, the vniversall Church, may erre in Points not Fundamentall; therfore errours in Poynts not Fundamentall, cannot be judged a sufficient and just cause to depart from the vniversall Church; and for the same reason, if the errours of the Roman Church be supposed to be not Fundamentall, there can be no just cause to depart from Her: But here he expressly speakes vpon supposition that the Roman Church wanted nothing necessary to salvation, and consequently, that she did not erre in Fundamentall Points; therfore there could be no cause to forsake Her. And that Potter affirmes absolutly in other passages of his Booke, that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Articles, shall be demonstrated herafter; and consequently, that he contradicts himself, in saying, the vniversall Church cannot be forsaken, and yet that there might be just and necessary cause to forsake the Church of Rome, which erres only in Poynts not Fundamentall, as he holds the vniversall Church may erre: to say nothing for the present, That Luther did forsake all Churches, which is to forsake the vniversall Church; as also that indeed all Ortodox Churches agreed with the Roman, and so to forsake her, was to forsake all Churches, for which there can be no just cause.

9. Another evasion Potter (Pag: 76.) bring to avoyd the just imputation of Schisme: and it is, because they acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ, and not cut off from the hope of salvation. And this, saith he, cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme, whose property it is, to cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates.

10. This shift is confuted at large by Charity Maintayned, as a strange Doctrine, that men should be Schismatiks in for saking a Church, which they judge to want somthing that is necessary to salvation; and that they should be excused from Schisme, who forsake her, and yet profess that she hath all things necessary to salvation; as if a man should thinke it a [Page 464]sufficient excuse for his rebellion, to alledg, that he held the Person against whom he rebelled, to be his Lawfull Soveraine: And Dr. Potter thinkes himselfe free from Schisme, because he forsooke the Church of Rome, but yet so, as that still he held her to be a true Church, and to haue all necessary meanes to salvation. But I will no further vrge this most solemne foppery, and do much more willingly put all Catholikes in mynd, what an vnspeakeable comfort it is, that our Adversaryes are forced to confesse, that they cannot cleare themselves from Schisme, otherwise thā by acknowledging that they do not, nor cānot cutt off frō the hope of salvation our Church. Which is as much as if they should in plaine termes say: They must be damned, vnless we may be saved. Moreover this evasion, doth indeed condemne your Zealous Brethren of Heresy, for denying the Churches perpetuity, but doth not cleere yourself from Schisme, which consists in being divided from that true Church, with which a man agreeth in all Points of Faith, as you must profess yourself to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles. For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation, and so condemne yourselfe of Schisme. And lastly, even according to this your owne definition of Schisme, you cannot cleere yourselfe from that crime, vnlesse you be content to acknowledg a manifest contradiction in your owne Assertions. For, if you do not cut vs off from the Body of Christ, and the Hope of salvation; how come you to say (Pag. 20.) that you Judg a reconcilation with vs to be damnable? And (Pag: 75.) that to depart from the Church of Rome, there might be just and necessary cause, And (Pag: 79.) That they that haue the vnderstanding and meanes to discover their errour, and neglect to vse them, we dare not flatter them with so easy a censure of hope of salvation. If then it be (as you say) a property of Schisme, to cut off from the Hope of salvation the Church from which it separates, how will you cleare yourself from Schisme, who dare not flatter vs with so easy a censure? And who affirme, that a reconciliation with vs is damnable? But the truth is, there is no constancy in your Assertions, by reason of difficultyes which presse you on all sides, For, you are loath to affirme clearly, that we may be saved, least such a grant might be occasion (as in all reason it ought to be) of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church: And on the other side, if you affirme that our Church erred in points Fundamentall, or necessary to salvation, you know not how, nor where, nor among what Company of men, to find a perpetuall Visible Church [Page 465]of Christ before Luther. And therfore your best shift is, to say, and vnsay, as your occasions command. I do not examine the Doctours Assertion, that it is the property of Schisme to cut of from the Body of Christ, the Church from which it separates; wherin he is mistaken, as appeares by his owne example of the Donatists, who were formall and proper Heretiks (as he affirmes, because they denyed the perpetuity of Gods Church, which he saith, is in its nature a formall Heresy, against the Article of our Creed, I belieue the Catholike Church) and not Schismatiks, as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy. Besides, although the Donatists and Luciferians (whom he also al [...]edges) had bene meere Schismatiks; yet it were against all good Logicke, from a particular to inferr a generall Rule, to determine what is the property of Schisme. Thus farr Charity Maintayned. And indeed this might seeme a good Argument; The Church of Rome wants something necessary to salvation, Therfore it is lawfull and necessary to forsake Her; but not this. We haue forsaken the Church of Rome, but yet so, as we belieue she wants nothing necessary to salvation; Therfore we are not Schismatiques.

11. A third devise Potter hath to cleere Protestants from Schisme, saying; (Pag: 75.) There is a great difference between a Schisme from them, and a Reformation of ourselves. But this (saith Charity Maintayned N. 29.) is a subtility, by which all Schisme and sin may be excused. For, no body can intend evill, but for some motiue of Vertue profit, or pleasure. And since their pretended reformation did consist, as they gaue out, in forsaking the corruptions of the Roman Church, the Reformation of themselves, and their Division from vs, fall out to be one and the selfe same thing: and so if it was not lawfull to forsake vs, it was not lawfull to reforme themselves by forsaking vs. Besides, we see, the they disagree infinitely in the particulars of their pretended Reformation, and therfore the thing vpon which their first thoughts did pitch, was not any particular Modell, or Idea of Religion, but a conceipt, that their most necessary, and, as I may say, immediate Reformation, did consist in forsaking the Roman Church.

12. An other argument ( Charity Maintayned, N. 35.) sets downe in these words: It is evident that there was a division between Luther and that Church which was visible when he arose; but that Church cānot be sayd to haue divided herselfe from him, before whose tyme [...] was, and in comparison of whom she was a whole, and he but a Part: [Page 166]therfore we must say, that he divided himself, and went out of her; which is to be a Schismatique, or Heretique, or both. By this Argument, Optatus Milevitanus proveth, that not Caecilianus, but Parmenianus was a Schismatique, saying, (Lib: 1. cont: Parmen:) For, Caecilianus went not out of Majorinus they Grandfather, but Majorinus from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter, or Cyprian, but Majorinus, in whose Chayre thou sittest, which had no beginning before Majorinus. Since it manyfestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner, it is cleere that you are heyres both of the deliverers vp (of the Holy Bible to be burned) and also of Schismatiks. The whole Argument of this Holy Father makes directly both against Luther, and all those who continue the division which he began; and proves: That, going out, convinceth those who go out to be Schismatiks; but not those from whom they depart: That to forsake the Chayre of Peter is Schisme; yea, that it is Schisme to erect a Chayre which had no origen, or as it were predecessour, before it selfe: That to continue in a division begun by others, is to be heyres of Schismatiks; and lastly; that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church (as that of S. Cyprian was) is sufficient to make a man incurre the guilt of Schisme, and consequently, that although the Protestants, who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church, do thinke by that Heresy to cleere Luther from Schisme, in disobeying the Pope: Yet that will not serve to free him frō Schisme, as it importeth a division from the obedience, or Communion of the particular Bishop, Diocesse, Church, and Countrey, where he lived. Thus Charity Maintayned. And to this purpose, Optatus saith excellently, (Lib: 1.) The business in hand is concerning separation: In Asrica as in all other Provinces likewise, there was but one Church before it was divided by those who ordayned Majorinus in the Chaire vpon which by succession thou art sett. The matter therfore to be r, consider [...], which of the two partyes has remayned in the roote with the [...]le world? Which of them went out? Which of them is sett vpon a new Chayre which hertofore was not in being? Which of them has raysed an Altar against an Altar? Which of them made an Ordination during the life tyme of him who was before ordained? Lastly which of them is obnoxious to the sentence of S. John the Ap [...]e, who fortold that many Antichrists would goe out of the Church?

[Page 167]

13. In confirmation of this Argument, we may alledge Dr. Andrewes (Respons: ad Epist: 1. Molinaei Pag: 171.) commending Molinaeus in condemning Aërius for opposing the consent of the vniversall Church. The words of Molinaeus were, quod in re pridem & vbique recepta, ausus sit opponere se consensui Vniversalis Ecclesiae. Which the first Protestants did by opposing themselves, to the whole Church extant before them, and consequently to the consent of the Church vniversall. In like manner we haue heard Dr. Taylor (Pag. 327.) saying, That to separate from the Bishops makes a man at least a S [...]hismatick. And (Pag: 329.) that it is also Heresy. Now who does not see, that the first Protestants did separate themselves from all Bishops, and therfore must be both Schismatiks, and Heretiks? Let men therfore pretend as much as they please, to shed teares, and be ready even to shedd their bloud for procuring vnity amongst Christians; their thoughts, and endeavours will be in vaine, vnless they resolve to returne to that Body from which they separated themselves, and being but parts, made a Division from the Whole. A truth so cleare; that even the wisest of our adversaryes acknowledge it; and in particular, one of the most erudite, eloquent, experienced, and learned Protestants, Hugo Grotius, confesses that Vnion cannot be hoped for in the Church, except by being conjoyned with those who are Vnited with the Sea of Rome. His words are these, (Rivetiani Apologetici Discuss: Pag: 255.) Restitutionem Christianorum in vnum idemque corpus, semper optatam a Grotio, sciunt qui eum norunt. Existimavit autem aliquando incipi posse a Protestantium inter se conjunctione. Postea vidit, id plane fieri nequire; quia, praeterquam quod Calvinistarum ingenia, ferme omnium, ab omni pace sunt alienissima, Protestantes nullo inter se communi Ecclesiastico regimine sociantur: quae causae sunt, cur factae partes in vnum Prótestantium corpus colligi nequeant, imò & cur partes aliae atque aliae sint exsurrect urae. Quare nunc planè ita sentit Grotius, & multi cum ipso, non posse Protestantes interse jungi, nisi simul jungantur cum ijs, qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent; sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen. Ideo optat, vt ea divulsio, quae even it, & causae divulsionis tollantur. Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum canonas, fatente Melanctone; qui eum Primatum, etiam necessarium putat ad retinendam vnitatem. Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subijcere Pontificis libidine, sed reponere ordinem, sapienter institutum.

[Page 468]

14. And this Argument drawen from the grievous sinne and deformity of a Part in forsaking the whole, was of force to moue that bold and obdurate hart of Luther in the middest of his full cups, and sensuall pleasures; and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules, the Bloud of our Blessed Saviour, attentively to ponder, and vnpartially to apply to their owne conscience, what this man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his. How often saith he (Tom: 2. Germ: Jen: Fol: 9. & Tom: 2. Witt: of Anno 1562. de abrog: Miss: privat: Fol: 244.) did my trembling heart beate within me, and reprehending me object against me that most strong argument? Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds erre? Were so many ages ignorant? What if thou errest, and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee? And (Tom: 5. Annot: breviss:) he sayth: Dost thou who art but One, and of no account, take vpon thee so great matters? What, if thou, being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all (Mark all) to erre, why may he not permit thee to erre? To this belong those Arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Councells, the Customes, the multitudes and greatnes of wise men: Whom do not these Mountaines of Arguments, these clouds, yea these seas of examples overthrow? And these thoughts wrought so deepe in his soule, that he often wished and desired that he had (Colloq: mensall: Fol: 158.) never begun this businesse: wishing yet further, that his Writings were burned, and buried (Praefat: in Tom: German: Jen:) in eternall oblivion.

15. Another Argument to proue that Protestants are Schismatiks, at least for dividing themselves from one another, is delivered by Charity Mamtayned (Part 1. N. 38. Pag: 203.). For if Luther were in the right, those other Protestants who invented Doctrines farr different from his, and divided themselves from him, must be reputed Schismatiks: and, the like Argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions, and subdivisions. Which reason is confirmed out of Dr. Potter, (Pag: 20.) affirming, that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience, of the errours of the Roman Church, a reconciliation is impossible and damnable. And yet he teaches, as I shewe elswere, that their difference from the Roman Church, is not in Fundamentall poynts: and therfore seing Protestants differ in Points, at least not Fundamentall, a reconciliation between them must be impossible and damnable. Which yet may be further proved out of Potter, who (Pag: 69.) [Page 469]confesseth, that even among Protestants, the weeds, thistles, tares, and cockle, are not perfectly taken away, nor every where alike. Now I aske, whether by reason of these weeds, Ptotestants must separate from one another, or no? If they must, there will be no end of Schismes, and Divisions; and what a Church, or Churches, are those from which, one is obliged to divide himself? If they must not separate from one another by reason of errours or weeds, it was not lawfull for them to divide thē selves from vs; vnless they will returne to say, that Protestants are obliged to separate both from Catholikes, and from one another; making ēdless Schismes and Divisions, not only lawfull, but necessary. For which Chilling worth opens a fayre way, (Pag: 292. N. 91.) in these words: If the Church were obnaxious to corruption (as we, Protestants pretend it was) who can possibly warrant vs that part of this corruption might not get in, and prevaile in the [...] or 4. or 3. or 2. age? What is this but to say, that in those primitiue ages, for ought we know, men were obliged to forsake the Communion of the vniversall visible Church?

16. To these reasons we may yet add what Potter saith: (Pag: 131 and 132.): That the Donatists and Novatians were just branded for Schismatiks, for opposing the Church, and that it will never be proved, that Protestants oppose any Declaration of the Catholike Church, and therfore are vnjustly charged either with schisme or Heresy. But M. Doctor, I beseech you informe vs, whether Luther and his followers, did not oppose the doctrines and declarations of all Churches extant before them: and consequently of the vniversall Church? And therfore you are justly charged both with Schisme and Heresy according to your owne ground.

17. Other Arguments Charity Maintayned alledges, of which we shall haue occasion to treate herafter. Particularly that is to be observed which (N. 47, Pag: 221.) et seqq. he proves, to wit, that Luther, and the rest departed from the Roman Church, and were. Schismatiks for such their division from her Communion. And because some Protestants are wont to produce certaine persons, as members of their Church; harity Maintayned demonstrates, that the Grecians, Waldenses, Wickless, Huss, Muscovites Armenians, Georgians, cannot be of the same Church with Protestants: and therfore that Luther and his followers opposed the doctrine, and separated themselves from the Communion of all Christian Churches, which cannot be done without Schisme and Heresy, vnless men haue a mynd to deny that there are any such sins as Schisme, and Heresy. And here I must not omit, that [Page 470] Chillingworth thought it not wisdome to answer the discourse of Charity Maintayned proving that the aforesayd people, Waldenses, Wickleff &c: were Protestants, but dissembles that matter. A signe, that he judged those vulgar allegations of Protestants to be wholy false, and impertinent!

18. Now then, we having proved, that Potters evasions cannot cleare Protestants from Schisme, we must examine what you can say; whose answers being confuted, this truth will remaine firme: Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme.

19. Your mayne and capitall answer consists in three propositions, set downe (Pag: 264. And 265. N. 30.3 [...].32.) That not every separation, but only a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church, is the sin of Schisme. That imposing vpon men vnder payne of excommunication a necessity of professing known errours, and pract [...]sing known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation: And that this is the cause which Protestants alledge to justify their separation from the Church of Rome. That to leaue the Church, and to leaue the externall communion of a Church, at least as Dr. Potter vnderstands the words, is not the same thing: That being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to haue those requïsites which constitute a man a member of it, as faith, and obedience. This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her liturgies and publike worship of God.

20. These be his remembrances and memorandums, as he calls them, but indeed are conceypts borrowed out of a letter of Mr. John Hales of Eaton, written to a private friend of his, as I am most credibly informed, by a Person well knowen, to them both, at that tyme, and who sawe the letter itself: And further affirmes of his owne certaine knowledg, that Mr. Hales was of a very inconstant judgment, one yeare, for example, doubting of, or denying, the Blessed Trinity, the next yeare, professing, and adoring the same. The substance of all consists in the first; That only a causeless separation from the externall communion of any [...]hurch, is the sin of Schisme. For if you aske the cause excusing from Schisme their separation from vs, he will answer: The Church was corrupted, and it is not lawfull to communicate with any Church in her corruptions. This, I say, is his mayne ground, with which his other Momorandums must stand, or fall. For if either the Church cannot erre, or els her errours and corruptions be not such, as can yield just cause to leaue her externall communion, the Prelates of [Page 471]Gods Church, may impose vpon mā, vnder paine of excommuniation, a necessity to remaine in her communion, and by Ecclesiasticall censures, oblige them to doe that, which otherwise they are by divine Law most strictly obliged to performe: And further, if the separation be causeless, the separatists from the externall communion of the Church do jointly leaue the Church, either by professing a different Faith, or denying obedience, both to the Church, and to God, who commands vs not to forsake the communion of the Church, faith and obedience being those requisites which, say you, constitute a man a member of a Church: And so all is reduced to your Memorandum: a causeless separation from the externall communion of any Church, is the sin of Schisme. Yourselfe say expressly (Pag: 267. N. 38.) The cause in this matter of separation, is all in all: And why then would you entangle men with I know not what other vnnecessary, and vntrue remembrances? But necessity hath no Law. You cannot giue any reason why you leaue vs, ād yet why Protestants must not leaue one another (since it is cleare that they in disagree Points at least not fundamētall) and therfore you fly to other chifts besides the cause; which yet you say is all in all though (Pag: 267. N. 40.) you expressly say, that the cause or the corruption of our Church is not the only or principall reason of your not communicating with vs. A pretty congruity! the cause is all in all, and yet is not the principall reason

21. Now, to that pretended maine ground of yours; It is not lawfull to professe known errours, or practise known corruptions; I say, That either we may consider what is true in it selfe, or what in good consequence followes from the principles of Protestants, and in particular of Potter and Chillingworth, or, as the Logicians speake, ad hominem, which are two very differenr considerations; and yet by the assistance of Gods holy grace, I will shew, that according to both of them Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme.

22. For the first; It is most true in itselfe, that in no case it can ever be lawfull to dissemble, Equivocate, or Ly, in matters of Faith, and he shall be denyed in Heaven, who in that manner denyes God on earth. But, as I began to say aboue, from this very ground we proue, that the Church cannot erre in such matters. For, seing all Fathers, Antiquity, and Divines, haue hitherto proclaimed with a most vnanimous consent, that to forsake the externall communion of Gods Visible Church, is the sin of Schisme; it followes, that there can be no cause sufficient for [Page 472]such a division, and consequently, that she cannot fall into such errours or corruptions, as may force any to leaue her Communion. And therfore as we proue a priori, that the Church cannot fall into errour, because she is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost: So as it were a posteriori, or ab absurdo, we must inferr, that she is infallible, and not subject to errour, because otherwise we might forsake her Communion, and men could haue no certainty who be Heretikes or Schismatikes: but all would be obliged to leaue all Churches, seing none are free from errour, and so, remaining members of no Church on earth, could hope for no salvation in Heaven.

23. For this cause, in the definition of Schisme, our Forfathers never put your limiting particle (causless) well knowing, and taking it as a principle in Christianity, that there could be no cause to forsake the Communion of Gods Church; as, in proportion, if one should say, it is not lawfull to divide ones selfe from Christ without cause, he should insinuate, that there might be some cause in some case to do so: and yet Potter (Pag: 75.) affirmes, That there neither was, nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ; no more than from Christ himselfe. Durum telum necessitas. It could not be denyed that Luther departed from all Churches, and so there was no possible way to avoyde the note of open Schisme, but by inventing a new definition of that crime, and supposing the possibility of a thing impossible, that there may be just cause of separating from the Communion of the Church. But while they labour to avoide Schisme, they broach a most pernicious Heresy, that indeed there may be any such just cause; verifying what S. Hierome sayth vpon those words of the Apostle, which (a good conscience) some casting off, haue suffered shipwracke: Though schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from Heresy; yet there is no Schisme, which doth not faine some Heresy to itselfe, that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason: That is, that their divsion may not seeme to be a causless separation, as you speake in your new definition. But I pray you heare S. Austine (Lib: 2. Cont: Petil: Chap 16.) saying; I object to thee the sin of Schisme, which thou wilt deny, but I will straight proue. For thou dost not communicate, with all Nations. To which if you add what he hath (Epist: 48.) It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their communion from the communion of the whole world, and call themselves the Church of Christ, as if they had separated themselves from the communion of all Nations vpon [Page 472]just cause: and (Lib: 2. Cont: Parm: Cap: 11.) There is no just necessity to divide vnity. And (Lib: 3. Cap: 4.) The world doth securely judge, that they are not good, who separate themselves from the world, in what part of land soever. If, I say you consider these sayings of S, Austine, the conclusion must be, that Luther who divided himselfe from the communion of the whole world, and all Nations, was a Schismatike, seing it is not possible that any may haue just cause to do so, as S. Austine affirmes. Obserue also what this same glorious Doctour sayth (Lib de Vnit: Eccl: Cap: 4.) Whosoever belieue that Iesus Christ came in flesh, in which he suffered, was borne, &c: yet so differ from his Body, which is the Church, as their communion is not with the whole, whersoever it is spread, but is found separate in some part, it is manifest that they are not in the Catholike Church. Was Luthers communion with the whole, which was not with any one place, or person? Dr. Lawd (Pag: 139.) sayth plainly: The whole Church cannot vn [...]versally erre in absolute Fundamentall Doctrines. And therfore t'is true that there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church. Which must be vnderstood, that absolutely there can be no cause at all. For it were ridiculous to say; There can be no just cause to make a causeless Schisme or division, seing if there be cause, it is not causeless. And it is to be observed, that the Reason he gives why there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church, is, because she cannot erre in absolute Fundamentall doctrines, which supposes both that she may erre in Points not Fundamentall, and; that errours in such points cannot yeild sufficient cause to forsake her communion; which is directly against all those who teach that the Roman Church doth not erre Fundamentally, and yet that they had cause to forsake her communion, by reason of her errours. We must therfore conclude, that seing there can be no just cause to depart from the communion of the Church, and yet that there might be just cause to do so, if she were subject to corruption or errour, we must absolutely belieue her to be infallible, and that they who teach the contrary, and vpon that pretence forsake her communion, are guilty of Schisme, and heresy.

24. And this is a fit place to put you in mynd of your doctrine, that the Apostles, after the receaving of the holy Ghost, and the whole Church, with them, erred in a point clearly revealed, and commanded by our Saviour Christ, about preaching the Gospells to gentils. For, this false doctrine supposed; I aske whether or no, it had been necessary, [Page 473]or lawfull to leaue the communion of that most primitiue Church. If it were not lawfull; then errours even in Faith, affoard not a just cause to forsake a Church. If you say it was lawfull to forsake the Apostles, and the whole Church of their tyme, you blaspheme: And yet if the Apostles, and the whole primitiue Church did erre, they, that is all Christians, might and ought to haue been forsaken; and therfore if it were but to avoide this gross absurdity, we must say, that neither the Church of that, nor of consequent ages, could erre.

25. Thus much be sayd in the first way: That, considering things as they are in themselves, the Church might be forsaken, if she could erre, and therfore because it is most certaine that she can never be forsaken, we must firmely belieue that she cannot erre; though indeed I must add, that if she could erre, she might, and might not be forsaken; it being no strang thing, that vpon a false supposition, contradictoryes may follow: wherof more herafter.

25. Now let vs see, what may be sayd in the second way, or consideration, that is, in order to Protestants, and their grounds, or ad hominem: though I must confess, this to be a nice and difficult vndertaking, by reason of their inconstancy, saying, and vnsaying as they are forced by different, or contrary occasions, which make them doe as they can, not what they should, and never hold constantly what they ought.

27. First then, we suppose, that the Church out of which Luther departed, was a true Church for substance (whether it were the Roman, or any other Church:) Otherwise we must say, that Christ had no true Church on earth: which you; Potter; and all chiefest Protestants, deny, and expressly teach, that alwayes there hath been, is, and ever shalbe such a Church, as we haue seene aboue. In so much as D. Lawd (Pag: 141.) saieth: All Divines Ancient, and Moderne, Romanists, and Reformers agree in this, That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into generall Apostasy. And (Pag: 142.) he saieth: that otherwise falshood in the very Article (of the Creed, that the Church is Holy) may be the subject of the Catholike Faith, which were no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme.

28. Secondly; Hence it followes, that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point, every one wherof, vtterly destroyes the Church, but that her (falsly) supposed errours were only in Points not Fundamentall, or not absolutely necessary to salvation.

29. Thirdly; That if such errours in Points not Fundamentall do [Page 474]not exclude salvation, men may be saved without profession of the contrary truths, it being impossible that one belieue an errour, and also the truth contrary to that errour: and therfore, if the errour be not destructiue of salvation, it is impossible that the contrary truth be necessary therto.

30. Fourthly; If therfore we can shew that according to Protestants, errours in Points not Fundamentall, destroy not salvation, it will follow of it selfe, that, in their grounds, they might, and ought to haue remayned in the externall communion of the visible Church, notwithstanding such errours; since by so doing, they had wanted nothing necessary to salvation; nor done any thing incompatible therwith. For which, we take your owne words (Pag: 272. N. 53.) It concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion, even as much as his salvation is worth, to looke most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary: For, vnless it be necessary, it can very hardly be sufficient. And, say I, how can it be necessary, if one may be saved without it? Let vs now see what Protestants hold in this matter.

31. I grant, that somtyme in words they will seeme to teach, that it is necessary to belieue, whatsoever is revealed by God, if it be sufficiently proposed. But if we respect their deeds, and consider other grounds of their Doctrine, it will appeare, that they must hold the contrary; ād that in express words they somtyme actually declare so much. Neither ought this to seeme any strang thing: since Heretiks must say and vnsay, to helpe a bad cause, as well as their witts will serue them. In which respect, I could never much approue the great paines which some Catholike Divines imploy, to proue that Heretiks hold this, or that, because somtyme they deliver expressions contrary to that of which it is disputed, whether or no it was their Opinion. For, all that can be inferred from such their different sayings, is (not that they held determinately this, and not that, but only) that indeed they contradicted, and by Gods just judgment destroyed themselves

32. Well then, that it is necessary to beleeue whatsoever is revealed by God, and sufficiently propounded, Potter (Pag: 245. affirmes in these words: It seemes Fundamentall to the Faith, and for the salvation of every member of the Church, that he acknowledge and belieue all such Points of Faith, as wherof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of Iesus Christ. For he that [Page 475]being sufficiently convinced, doth oppose, is obstinate, an Hereticke, and finally such a one as excludes himselfe out of Heaven, wherinto no willfull sinner can enter. And (Pag: 250.) It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he belieue all revealed truths of God, wherof he may be convinced, that they are from God. And herupon Chillingworth (Pag: 11.) speaks to Charity Maintayned in this manner: It amazed me to heare you say, that he (Dr. Potter) declines this question, and never tells you whether or no there be any other Points of Faith, which being sufficiently propounded as divine Revelations may be denyed and disbelieved. He tells you plainly there are none such. Againe it is almost as strang to mee, why you should say, this was the only thing in question, whether a man may deny or disbelieue any Point of Faith, sufficiently presented to his vnderstanding as a truth revealed by God. Produce any one Protestant that ever did so, and I will giue you leaue to say, it is the only thing in question. Thus hee.

33. To which I answer: That the state of the Question being, whether both Catholiks and Protestants be capable of salvation, in their severall Faiths and Religions (and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith, though of themselves they be not Fundamentall) and Protestants judging vs to be very vncharitable in saying they cannot be saved, seing they hold the Creed, and all Fundamentall Points (as they conceaue) and therfore if they be in errour, it is only in Points not Fundamentall; Charity Maintayned said, that Potter never answered to this Point clearly, directly, and constantly, as he ought to haue done; that is, he never declared, whether different beliefe in Points not Fundamentall, doth so destroy the vnity of Faith in persons so disagreeing, as that they cannot be sayd to be of one Faith for the substance, or of one Church and Religion, in such manner as one might absolutly say, Catholiks and Protestants are of one Faith and Church, and capable of salvation in their severall beliefs and professions of Faith. This, Potter never did, nor in policy durst doe, because saith Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 3.) He was loath to affirme plainly, that generally both Catholiks and Protestants may be saved: And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to haue any true Church before Luther, except the Roman, and such as agreed with her, and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation, if they deny it to vs, he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language, and to fill vp his Booke with Points which make nothing to the purpose. Besides, if once he grant, that difference of belief, though [Page 176]it be only in Points not Fundamentall, destroy the true Faith, Church, and Religion, he could not pretend, that Protestants disagreeing among themselves, could be all of one Church, or substance of Faith, and Religion, and capable of salvation. What remedy then, but that he must contradict himselfe, accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity, or contrariety, of difficultyes; and so by vttering contradictions, say Nothing at all to the maine question; (or els speak equally in favour of both Contradictories.) For, what implyes contradiction, implyes only nothing. But let vs go forward, and add to what we haue already cited out of Chillingworth, his other words (Pag: 21.) If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in any errour, by any sin of his will, (as it is to be feared many millions are) such errour is, as the cause of it, sinfull and damnable. The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Booke; wherby it seemes that both he and Potter hold (in words) that to belieue any errour against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded, is sinfull and damnable, and destroyes the fundation of Faith, being as Chilling: saith (P. 11.) no less, than to giue God the ly.

34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds, yea and in express profession, they and other Protestants, do, and must, maintayne the contrary, vnless they haue a mynd to contradict themselves, in Points of heigh concernment for their cause. This I proue by these considerations.

35. First: The World knowes, that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants, than that they all hold the same substance of Faith, and retaine the essence of a true Church, because they agree in Fundamentall Points, which they are wont to proue, because they belieue the Apostles Creed, and the foure first Generall Councells; and Potter in particular (Pag: 216.) teaches, that the Creed of the Apostles, as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emerfent Heresyes) in the other Catholike Creeds of Nice Constantinople, Ephepsus, Chacedon, and Aranesius containes all fundamentall truths; and from thence inferrs (Pag: 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentalls: and (Pag: 241.) he saith, the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths, wherin consists the vnity of Faith, and of the Catholique Church. But these assertions were very false, and impertinent, if it be damnable, and even Fundamentall against Faith, to belieue any errour repugnant to. Divine Revelation, though in a Point not Fundamentall of itself. For, what imports [Page 477]it, to belieue all the Articles of the Creed, if in the meane tyme, they deny some other truths revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed for such; for example, innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters, Fundamentall of themselves? As certainly some Protestants must doe, seing two contradictoryes cannot be true. Or why do they deceaue men, in telling them, that by believing the Creed, they cannot erre Fundamentally; seing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamentall errour? If therfore they will keepe this ground, that they haue the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation, because they agree in Fundamentall Points, they must affirme, that disagreement, or errour in a Point not Fundamentall, doth not destroy the substance of Faith, or depriue men of hope to be saved, nor is a Fundamentall errour, as Potter and Chilling: somtyme say it is, as we haue seene; and Chilling: saith in particular, (Pag: 131. N. 9.) If Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall, then they are not members of the same Church one with another, no more than with you (he meanes, vs Catholikes.) Wherfore vpon the matter, if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamentall sufficiently propounded, be a Fundamentall errour, de facto Protestants are not members of the same Church one with another, according to Chillingworths owne words. If it be not a Fundamentall errour, the contrary Truth is not necessary; and so one may be saved, though he deny some revealed Truth sufficiently propounded; which is the thing I intended to proue.

36. Secondly. Learned Protestants are very desirous, and even ambitious, that the world should belieue them to be of the same Church with the Roman; and this meerly vpon necessity, and for their owne sake; least otherwise they should be necessitated to affirme, that before Luther there was no true Church vpon earth, but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing; from which, Potter vtterly disclaimes (Pag: 59.) saying; Protestants never intended to erect a new Church, but to purge the old; the Reformation did not change the substance of Religion. And (Pag: 63.) The most necessary and Fundamentall truths, which constitute a Church, are on both sides vnquestioned: And for that reason, learned Protestants yield them the name and substance of a Christian Church, though extremely defiled with horrible errorurs and corruptions: And adds, that, The very Anabaptists grant it. But how can they be of the same Church for substance with vs, who, they say, [Page 478]are defided with horrible errours and corruptions, if every errour in any Point of Faith, though not Fundamentall, destroyes the substance o Faith and Church, and possibility of salvation? If then they will speake with consequence to themselves, they must affirme, that, errours in Points not Fundamentall, do not exclude salvation.

37. Thirdly: Protestants teach, that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall, and yet remaine a Church, but cannot erre in Fundamentalls without destruction of herselfe. Now, if sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall, be damnable, Fundamentall, and destructiue of salvation, they also destroy the essence of the Church; and therfore Protestants must either say, that the Church cannot erre in any Point though not Fundamentall, as she cannot erre in Fundamentalls; or else must affirme, that sinfull errours not Fundamentall, are not damnable, or Fundamentall, or destructiue of salvation, according to their grounds.

38. Fourthly; Protestants are wont to say (and by this, seeke to excuse their Schisme) that they left not the Church of Rome, but her corruptions; and that they departed no farther from her, than she departed from herselfe: But if every errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed, be destructiue of the substance of Faith, and hope of salvation, the Roman Church (which you suppose to be guilty of such errours) hath ceased to be a Church, and is no corrupted Church, but no Church at all, nor doth exist with corruptions, but by such corruptions hath ceased to exist; and so you departed not only from her corruptions, but from herselfe, or rather she ceasing to haue any being, your not communicating with her, was totall, and not only in part, or in her corruptions: and if you departed from her, as farr as she departed from herselfe, seing she departed totally from herselfe, you also must be sayd to haue departed totally from her, which yet you deny; and therfore must affirme, that sinfull errours not Fundamentall, destroy not the Church, nor exclude hope of salvation. If therfore Protestants will not destroy their owne assertions, v.g. That they left not the Church, but her corruptions; that they departed no farther from her, than she departed from herselfe; that they left not the Church, but her externall Communion; that Protestants agree in substance of Faith, because they agree in Fundamentall Points; that their Church is the same with the Roman; that the Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall, but not in Fundamentalls; if, I say, Protestants will [Page 479]overthrow these, and other like assertions, they must grant, that sinfull errours in Points not Fundamentall, destroy not the substance of Faith, nor exclude salvation, and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary; ād so are guilty of Schisme, which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary, as we haue seene out your owne words, (Pag: 272. N. 53.)

39. But yet let vs see, whether Protestants do not confesse, that sinfull errours not fundamentall are compatible with salvation, as we haue proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles. You say (Pag 307. N. 106.) That it is lawfull to separate from any Churches communion, for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith, is not vniversally true, but with this exception, vnless that Church require the beliefe and profession of them. And (Pag: 281. N. 67.) We say not, that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errours vnfundamentall, vnless it exact withall either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious; or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience, if they be meere errours. And (N. 68.) Neither for sin, nor errours, ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoyne them. Therfore, say I, we must immedintly inferr, that errours not Fundamentall, do not destroy Faith, Church, salvation. For if they did, ipso facto the Church which holds them, should cease to be a Churche, and so she must necessarily leaue all Churches, ād all Churches must leaue her, shee loosing her owne being, as a dead man leaves all, and is left by all. And here let me put you in mynd, that while (Pag: 307. N. 106.) aboue cited, you seeme to disclose some great secret or subtilty, in saying, that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errours not appertaining to the substance of Faith, is not vniversally true, but with this exception, vnless that Church requires the beliefe and profession of them; you do but, contradict yourselfe. For if the Church erre in the substance of Faith, or but does not impose the belief of them, why are you (in your grounds) more obliged to forsake her, than a Church that, erres in not Fundamentalls, and does not impose the belief of them? Especially if we call to mynd your doctrine, that one may erre sinfully against some Article of Faith, and yet retaine true belief in order to other Points in which why may you not communicate with such a Church (Also Pag: 209. N. 38.) you say: You must giue me leaue to esteeme it a high degree of presumption, to enioyne men to beleeue, that there are, or can be any other Fundamentall Articles of the Gospell of Christ, than what himselfe commanded his Apostles [Page 480]to teach all men; or any damnable Heresyes, but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes. Therfore we must inferr, that seing errours in Points not Fundamentall, are not repugnant to those prime verityes, they cannot, in your way, be esteemed damnable Heresyes; and if not damnable Heresyes, they cannot be damnable at all; since we suppose their malice to consist only in opposition to Divine Revelation; which is a damnable sin of Heresy. Potter (Pag. 39.) saith, Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolves not the vnity of Faith. And (P. 40.) Vnity in these matters (Secondary Points of Religion) is very contingent and variable in the Church, now greater, now lesser, never absolute in all particles of truth. From whence we must inferr, that errours not Fundamentall exclude not salvation, nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church, or els that men must still be forsaking all Churches, because there is never absolute vnity in all particles of truth. Whitaker also (Controver: 2. Quest: 5. Cap. 18.) saith; If an Heretike must be excluded from salvation, that is, because he overthroweth some foundation. For vnlesse he shake or overthrow some foundation, he may be saved. According to which Doctrine, the greatest part of Scripture may be denyed. But for my purpose, it is sufficient to observe, that so learned a Protestant teaches, that errours in Points not Fundamentall, exclude not from salvation. Morton in his imposture (Cap: 15.) saith: Neither do Protestants yeild more safty to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case, then they doe to whatsoever Heretiks, whose beliefe doth not vndermine the fundamentall Doctrine of Faith. Therfore he grants some safety even to Heretiks, if they oppose not Fundamentall Articles; and yet they must be supposed to be in sinfull errour against some revealed truth; otherwise they could not be Heretiks. Dr. Lawd (Pag: 355.) teaches, That to erre in things not absolutly necessary to salvation, is no breach vpon the one saving Faith which is necessary. And (Pag: 360.) in things not necessary, (though they be Divine Truths also) men may differ, and yet preserue the one necessary Faith. And (Pag: 299.) he saith; I do indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of salvation in the Roman Church; but so, as that which I grāt to Romanists, is, not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they belieue the Creed, and hold the foundation, Christ himselfe, not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the grosse superstitions of the Roman Church? Behold a cleare confession, that the pretended errours of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation, and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths! Therfore [Page 481]errours in Points not Fundamentall, are not repugnant to salvation.

40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises, that errours in Points not necessary or Fundamentall, are not damnable, but that one may be saved in them. Dr. Lawd hath done it for vs (Pag: 133.) in these words: The whole Church cannot vniversally erre in absoute Fundamentall Doctrines, and therfore there can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church. And (Pag: 196.) he teaches, that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be setled Vnity and Certainty of Beliefe in Necessaryes to Salvation; and in Non necessarijs, in and about things not necessary there ought not to be a Contention to a Separation. And (Pag: 129.) That the whole Church cannot vniversally erre in the Doctrine of Faith, is most true, (so you will but vnderstand its not erring, in Absolute. Fundamentall Doctrines.) And therfore tis true also, that there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church. Certainly Luther did not follow this advise, who began, and maintayned, a Contention to Separation from the whole World, from which, Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schisme. But this is not all. For, (Pag: 226.) he sayth: Suppose a Generall Councell actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth, I hope it will not follow that this Errour must be so gross, as that forthwith it must needs be knowne to private men. And doubtless till they know it, Obedience must be yielded: Nay when they know it, (if the Errour be not manifestly against Fundamentall Verity in which case a Generall Councell cannot easily erre) I would haue all wise men consider, whether externall Obedience be not even then to be yeelded. For if Controversyes arise in the Church, some end they must haue, or theyil teare all in sunder. And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit. Why then, say a Generall Councell Erre, and a Erring Decree be ipso jure, by the very Law itself invalid, I would haue it wisely considered againe, whether it be not fit to allow a Generall Councell that Honour and Priviledge, which all other Great Courts haue. Namely, that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees, as well as of the Lawes of other Courts, before priuate men take Liberty to refuse Obedience. For till such a Declaration, if the Councell stand not in force. A. C. Sets vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells; which is the thing he so much cryes out against in the Protestants. Therfore it may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome, that a Generall Councell thus erring, should stand in force, till Evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare, as that another Councell of equall Authority, reverse it. For, as for Morall Certainty, thats not strong enough in Points of Faith. How many Points do these words [Page 482]containe in favour of Catholikes, against Protestants?

41. 1. That knowne Errours in Points not Fundamentall, are not only to be tolerated, but that Obedience is to be yeelded to the Church, or Councell, even concerning such Points and Errours. How then can Luther be excused from Schisme, who was so farr from yielding Obedience to the Church, that he opposed himselfe to, and made a publike Separation from all Churches? And how can Protestants be now excused from Schisme, who follow his example, defend his doctrine, and persist in the Separation, and breach which he made?

42. Secondly: That to profess externally errours in Points not Fundamentall, excludes not salvation. For, to do any thing repugnant to salvation, I am sure no wisdom can thinke fit, to vse his owne Words: And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church, for avoyding the profession of Errours not Fundamentall; and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schisme.

43. Thirdly; He doth not only affirme, but endeavours to proue, that externall Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Councells, because if Controversyes arise in the Church, some end they must haue, or theyil teare all in sunder: Which he sayth no wisdom can thinke fit. Which proues very well, that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary; and is directly opposite to Chillingworth, who affirmes, that there is no necessity of such a Judg, because it is not necessary that all Controversyes be ended. But then,

44. Fourthly: It followeth evidently, in true Divinity; that, if such a Judge be necessary, He must be infallible in all things belonging to Faith and Religion. For, seing to dissemble in matters of Faith, or profess one thing, and belieue the contrary, is a grievous sin, and a most pernicious ly; no man can yield externall Obedience against the judgment and dictamen of his Conscience; and yet it being also true, that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of Generall Councells, we must of necessity affirme, that they are infallible, and cannot Decree any Errour in Faith: Otherwise, I must either disobey, or speake against my Conscience in matters of Faith, which is intrinsecè malum, and can never be excused from a damnable sin. To these straights Protestants are brought, by denying the infallibility of Gods Church. May Councells be disobeyed? Then there will be no [Page 483]meanes to end Controversyes, and theyil teare all in sunder? Must they be obeyed? Then in case they decree an Errour against Faith, as they may doe if they be fallible, men must proceed against their Conscience. What then remaynes, but to belieue that they are infallible? and so we securely may, and necessarily must, obey their Decrees, because I am sure that they haue both infallibility not to erre, and Authority to command. Thus our beliefe and proceeding is cleare, smooth, and most consequent; wheras our Adversaryes denying the said infallibility, are forced to great impietyes against God, and manifest contradictions with themselves. Besides seing he confesses, that Morall Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith, the Judge of Controversyes in such Points, must be absolutely infallible; otherwise we cannot receiue from him Certaintyes strong enough for Points of Faith. And if Controversyes must be ended by Generall Councells, as he affirmes, their Decrees must be of more than Morall Certainty.

45. Fiftly; Wheras he sayes, that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Errour be manifestly against Fundamentall Verity, he ought to consider, that the chiefest malice in Heresy, consists not in being against such or such a materiall Object, or Truth; great; or little; Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall; but in the opposition it carryeth with the Divine testimony, which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points, Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall: And therfore he must either say, that Obedience is to be yielded in both, (which were most absurd) or in neither: And, that it may be securely yielded in both, we must acknowledg a Judge endued with infallibility. Neither doth A. C. Set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells, which Catholiks belieue to be infallible; but that absurdity flowes out of the doctrine of Protestants, affirming them to be fallible, even in Fundamentall Points, and consequently private men are neither obliged, nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith, for which, Morall Certainty is not strongh enough, but may Judge as they find cause out of Scripture, or reason, and may oppose their Decrees, nor can ever obey them against their Conscience. And if all Councells be fallible, what greater certainty can I receaue from the second, than from the first, if we meerly respect their Authority. For, if I be mooved with some new reason or Demonstration, I am not mooved [Page 484]for the Authority of the Councell, but for that Reason which seemes good to mee. And is not this to set vp private men and Spirits to controll Generall Councells?

46. Sixthly: He saith, A Generall Councell cannot easily erre manifestly against Fundamentall Verity: From whence I inferr, that seing Luther opposed the whole Church, and so many Generall Councells, held before his tyme; he is to be presumed, to haue opposed them, not for any manifest Fundamentall, but at most for Errours not Fundamentall; (to speake as Protestants do: For indeed Councells cannot erre in either kind) in which Points not Fundamentall, he sayth men are to yield Obedience, and therfore He, and all those who formerly did, and now do, follow his example, are to be judged guilty of Schisme.

47. Seaventhly; He saith, It may seeme very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendome, that a Generall Councell thus erring, should stand in force till evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration make the Errour to appeare, as that another Councell of equall Authority reverse it. In these words he gives vs Catholikes no small advantage against the Capitall principle of Protestants; that, Scripture alone containes evidently all necessary Points. For if evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration may be so inevident, or obscure to a whole lawfull Generall Councell, that it may fall into Fundamentall Errours, which, in the grounds of Protestants, are opposite only to some Truth evidently contained in Scripture, it is evident that he and other Protestants say nothing, when they talke of evidence of Scripture, but that indeed every one makes and calls that evident, which he desires should be so: And how is it possible that a true Generall Councell should be so blind, as not to see that which is evident? And this indeed is to set vp private Spirits to controll Generall Councells. I will not vrge, what he meanes by a Demonstration, when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture. A Demonstration implyes an vndeniable, and as I may say, an Evident Evidence; and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture, which according to Protestants containes evidently all necessary Points of Faith, it must be evidence of naturall Reason, which is common to all men: And how can a Generall Councell erre against such a kind of Evidēce? But as I sayd, Evidēce with Protestāts is a voluntary word, which they make vse of to their purpose. Besides, Scripture is no lesse evidēt in innumerable points not fundamētall, than it is in some which are [Page 485]Fundamentall: and therfore, all who belieue Scripture, are obliged to belieue those no less than these, vnless men will say that it is not damnable, to belieue, and professe somthing evidently knowne to be against Scripture; and therfore in this, there can be no distinction between Fundamētall ād not fundamētall Points; ād so a Generall Councell may as easily erre against Fundamentall Articles, as against Points not Fundamentall clearly delivered in Scripture; in which case, it is destructiue of salvation to erre against either of those kinds. I haue beene somwhat long in pondering his words, because I vnderstand the booke is esteemed by some; and I hope it appeares, by what I haue now said out of it; that we may be saved; that a Living judg of controversyes is necessary; that, Luther, and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schisme. Three as mayne and capitall Points in fauour of vs, against Protestants, as we can desire, and they feare!

48. Herafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths words for our present purpose; who speaking of Generall Councells, saith (Pag: 200. N. 18.) I willingly confess, the judgment of a Councell, though not infallible, is yet so farr directiue, and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least, not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake. As also we will consider Potters words: (Pag: 165.) speaking thus: We say, that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called, and proceed orderly are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique; that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on Earth; that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ; that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction; that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience, and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason, nor reversed but by an equall authority: that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good Meanes for finding out the truth, it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them, that they shall not erre, at least, not Fundamentally

49. But let vs proceed in proving, that Protestants hold Points not Fundamentall, not to be of any great moment, and much less to be destructiue of salvation. It is cleare, that Protestants differ among them selves in many Points, which they pretēd to be only not Fundamētall, ād say they do not destroy the ubstāce of Faith, nor hinder thē from being Brethren, and of the same Church. And why? because such Points are small matter, as Whitaker speakes (Cont: [...]. Quest: 4. Cap: 3.) Things in different and tittles, as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle: Matters [Page 486]of no great moment, as Andrewes (Respons: ad Apolog: Bellarmin: Cap: 14.) No great matters, Apology of the Church of England. Matters of nothing, as Calvin calls them Admonit: Vlt: (Pag: 132.) Matters not to be much respected if you believe Martyr (in locis, Classe 4. C. 10. §. 65.) Formes and phrases of speech, as Potter speaks, (Pag: 90.) a curious nicity (Pag: 91.)

50. Out of all which, we must conclude both out of the words, deeds, and principles of Protestants: First that errours against Points not Fundamentall are not destructiue of salvation, being but matters of small consideration in their account. Secondly; That they can not be excused from Schisme, who forsooke all Churches for Points not Fundamentall, and of so small moment, in which they disagree amongst themselves, and in diverse of which, many of them agree with vs, against their pretended Brethren; which is to be well observed. Thirdly, that, Chillingw [...] had no reason (Pag: 11) to say to Charity Maintayned; produce any one Protestant that ever did so (that is, affirme that every errour not Fundamentall is not destructiue of salvation) and I will giue you leaue to say, It is the only thing in Question; seing I haue proved out of many chiefe Protestants, that, for which he sayth no one can be produced; yea and I can yet produce a full confession of Mr. Chillingworth himself, that, Errours in not Fundamentalls, are not destructiue of salvation, nor such as may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace, or renounce the Communion of a Church. Thus he speakes in his Answer to the Direction, (N. 39.) Though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true, (which with reason cannot be required of me, while they hold contradictions) yet I hold it free from all impiety, and from all Errour destructiue of salvation, or in itselfe damnable. For the Church of England, I am perswaded, that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to it, vndoubtedly he shall be saved, and that there is no errour in it, which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace, or renounce the communion of it. Here I obserue; first; If the doctrine of Protestanss (whom he expressly confesses to hold contradictions, and consequently some of them to hold errours at least in Points not Fundamentall) be free from all errour destructue of salvation, or in itselfe damnable; it followes, that errours against Points not Fundamentall, are not destructiue of salvation, nor in themselves damnable, which is the thing I intended to proue. 2. What he saith of the Errours among Protestants, that they are not destructiue of salvation, he [Page 487]must also say of our pretended errours: both because commonly, of disagreeing Protestants one part agrees with vs, as also because, as I sayd, diverse of them stand directly with vs, against the common course of the rest; and finally, because the reason of being, or not being damnable, is common to all Points not Fundamentall, which are supposed to contradict some divine revelation sufficiently propounded; which to doe, if it be destructiue of salvation, must be so for all such Points; if not; in none at all. 3. If the constant doctrine of the Church of England be so pure, that whosoever believes it and lives according to it, vndoubtedly he shall be saved; and that there is no errour in it, which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace, or renounce the communion of it, you must say; seing Luther and his followers did, and do, disturbe the peace, and renounce, the communion of the whole Church of God before his tyme, which must be supposed to haue erred only in Points not Fundamentall, (otherwise it had beene no Church) they did, and do, that, for which there was no necessity, and for which they had no warrant, and therfore cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme. For the same reason also (that the Church erred only in points not Fundamentall) you must grant, that whosoever believes as the Church did, and lives accordingly, vndoubtedly shall be saved. For I am sure you belieue the Church of England to haue erred in diverse Points, and in particular in her 39. Articles, which was her constant doctrine, if she had any constant at all. In particular, your conscience tells you, that you belieue not the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and much less, that our Saviour Christ was true God, and consubstantiall with his Father: to say nothing of other Points, of those 39. articles. And is it not ridiculous, to heare you talke of purity of doctrine of the Church of England, which you belieue to be stayned with such Errours? But you wrote for Ends! If then salvation may be so assured in the Church of England, you must grant the same of that Church which Luther and his associates forsooke, and that therfore they certainly exclude themselves from salvation by forsaking the communion of them, amongst whom salvation was so certaine: and remember your words (Pag: 272. N. 53.) it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his salvation is worth, to looke most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary. For vnless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient. To which proposition, if we subsume; but it cannot be necessary to separate, for avoyding that errour, [Page 488]or attaining that Truth, which to avoyde, or attaine, is not necessary to salvation; therfore Luther who separated from the Church for Points not necessary, cannot pretend any necessary or sufficient cause for such his separation, ād consequētly was guilty of the sin of Schisme. 4. But yet you will still be making good, that in these matters, Protestants, and yourself in particular, haue no constancy, but say and vnsay, as may best serue their turne. You tell vs; the doctrine of all Protestants is free from all Errour in it selfe damnable; which agrees not with what you say of Protestants (Pag: 19.) If we faile in vsing such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence, and ordinary discretion shall advise, in a matter of such consequence, our Errours begin to be malignant, and justly imputable, as offenses against God, and that loue of his truth which he requires in vt. And (Pag: 306. N. 106.) For our continuing in the Communion (of Protestants) notwithstanding their Errours, the justification hereof, is not so much, that their Errours are not damnable, as that they require not the belief and profession of these Errours among the conditions of their Communion. And (Pag: 279. N. 64.) The visible Church is free indeed from all Errours absolutely destructive, and vnpardonable, but not from all errour which in itselfe is damnable; not from all which will actually bring damnation vpon them that keepe themselves in them, by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault. If the visible Church be not free from errour which in itselfe is damnable, how could you say that the Protestant Church of England is free from all errour damnable in itselfe? But why do I cite particular passages? You giue a generall Rule concerning all Errours, (Pag: 158. N. 52.) in these words: If the cause of it (an errour) be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull, and consequently in its owne nature damnable; as if by negligence in seeking the Truth, by vnwillingnes to find it, by pride, by obstinacy, by desiring that Religion shoudl be true which sutes best with my ends, by feare of mens [...]ll opinion, or any other worldly feare, or any other worldly hope, I betray my selfe to any errour contrary to any Divine revealed truth, that errour may be justly stiled a sin, and consequently of it self to such a one damnable. And if he dy without Contrition, this errour in it selfe damnable, will be likewise so vnto him. I haue set downe your words at large, that Protestants may learne by them, how to examine their conscience, about what care they vse, to find the true Church ād Religion, which imports them no less, then the eternall salvation, or Damnation of their soules: And that every one may clearly see, that you do not only grant more than once, the errours of Protestants to be in [Page 489]themselves damnable, but also a reason for it; namely, because all errours in Faith are contrary to some Divine Revelation; which reason is common to Protestants, to the Church of England, and to all who erre in matters of Faith. And then with what sincerity could you affirme, that whosoever holds the doctrine of the Church of England, and lives according to it, vndoubtedly he shall be saved? Can one who is in an errour damnable of itselfe, be vndoubtedly saved, without repentance? Haue we not heard you say; To him who dyed without contrition, the errour in itselfe damnable, will be likewise so vnto him? Do you not say (Pag: 138. N. 23.) For ought I know, all Protestants, and all that haue sense, must grant that all errours are alike damnable, if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different? Therfore you must grant, that as errours against Fundamentall Truths sufficiently propounded, are damnable; so also errours against not Fundamentall Truths, are damnable, if both be equally proposed. How then are the Errours of all Protestants, and of the Church of England in particular, not damnable?

51. Thus we haue sufficiently confuted your first Memorandum; and shewed, that the separation of Protestants was causeless, both in reality, and ad hominem, or according to the principles, and professions of Protestants themselves. In reality; because there can never be just reason to separate from the Church of God (which therfore must be infallible, and free from all corruptions and errours.) Ad hominem; because according to the principles of Protestants, errours not Fundamentall, being not destructiue of salvation, cannot yield sufficient cause of separation, nor free any from yielding obedience, even in the supposed vnfundamentall errours, as they confess ours to be; and if somtyme Protestants say the contrary, at other tymes they contradict themselves; which serves only for their greater condemnation, in leaving the communion of all Christian Churches, vpon vncertaintyes in which themselves do waver, somtyme affirming, somtyme denying. And vpon this very ground of vncertainty, I go forward to proue more, and more, that their separation was causlesse.

52. For, (Pag: 308. N. 108.) you do not disallow the saying of Cha: Ma: (Part: 1. Pag: 207.) In cases of vncertainty, we are not to leave our Superiour, nor cast of his obedience, nor publikly oppose his decrees. And Hooker cited by you in your (Pag: 310. 311. N. 110.) teaches two things to our present purpose. The one: That an Argument necessary [Page 490]and demonstratiue is such, as being proposed to any man, and vnderstood, the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent. The other; that in case of probability only, or vncertainty, Lawes established, are to be obeyed, and men are bound (not to obserue those Lawes which they are perswaded to be against the law of God, but) for the tyme to suspend their perswasions to the contrary, and that in otherwise doing, they offend against God by troubling the Church. This ground being layd, I subsume; (besides what hath now been sayd of the variousness ād vncertainty of Protestants about Points not Fundamentall) Protestants cannot possibly haue evidence or certainty against Catholiks, therfore they offended against God by dividing theselves from vs, and troubling the peace of all Churches. The subsumption, or Minor I proue diverse wayes (abstaining from examination of particular Controversyes) and:

53. First in this manner; An Argument necessary and Demonstratiue is such, as being proposed to any man, and vnderstood, the mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent, saith Hooker. If therfore the arguments of Protestants against vs were necessary and demonstratiue, learned Catholiks could not chuse but inwardly assent; and vnless they were extreme wicked dissemblers against their conscience, would also publikly professe. And yet we see, that all Catholiks, in all Ages, and places, learned, holy, wise, and such as God vsed for instruments, in working many great and evident Miracles, and in converting nations to the Faith of Christ, all these, I say, did, and do, and ever will, dissent from the Arguments and conclusions of Protestants: therfore it is cleare, that their reasons against vs, are not necessary nor demonstratiue, and so according to Hooker, the Lawes established were to be obeyed and Protestants were bound to suspend their perswasions to the contrary. Truly, this is an Argument which must convince any man, of a mynd not perverse, and resolved to persever in his errour.

54. Secondly I prove that they cannot produce against vs any necessary or demonstratiue Argument; in regard of the Antiquity of our doctrine confessed even by our Adversaryes, as may be seene in Brierley (P. 129. & seqq. Edition: Ann. 1608.) now how could these doctrines haue passed the search and examine of so many learned men, and watchfull Prelats, for the space of so many ages, if any necessary or demonstratiue argument, to which men cannot but assent, could haue been produced against them?

55. Thirdly; Learned Protestants confess, that the Fathers hold [Page 491]with vs, against them, in many and chiefest Points of Doctrine controverted in these dayes, as we haue seene hertofore: which could not happen, if the Arguments of Protestants against the Fathers and vs, were necessary and demonstratiue.

56. Fourthly; In all our chiefest differences, diverse most learned Protestants, agree with vs, against their pretended Brethren, as we haue also demonstrated hertofore. Now these men, being learned could not but see and assent to necessary and demonstratiue Arguments; if any could haue been alledged against vs; and being Adversaryes, would not haue fayld to make vse of them; nor would they haue ever left their Brethren, and joyned with vs, if evidence of truth, and reason had not forced them therto; or if they could haue espyed any even probability, in the grounds and Doctrines of their Brethren: wherby it appeares, that the tenets of Protestants are so farr from being evident or their Arguments necessary and demonstrative, that they are not so much as probable. Who, I pray, will belieue, that you could haue any necessary demonstratiue Arguments for your so many changes of Religion, and for your ending in Socinianisme, which you never durst openly profess, and yet men are not wont to be ashamed of truths, proved by necessary, and demonstratiue Reasons? One demonstration or evidence cannot be contrary to another, and yet no doubt but you pretended evidence for all your alterations to contrary opinions; which still makes it more and more evident, that with Sectaryes, evidence affects rather their will, or fancy, than their vnderstanding. And here you ought in all reason to apply to the Ancient Fathers, and learned Protestants agreeing with vs, against their Brethren, what you say, (Pag: 40. and 41. N. 13.) in favour of Protestants in generall to proue, that there is no necessity of damning all those that are of contrary beliefe; in these words; The contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous, and with probability capable of diuerse senses: and in such cases it is no mervaile, and sure no sin, if seuerall men go seuerall wayes. Also, the contrary beliefe may be concerning Points wherin Scripture may with so great probability be alledged on both sides, (which is a sure note of a Point not necessary) that men of honest and vpright hearts, true louers of God and of truth, such as desire aboue all things, to know Gods will and to do it, may without any fault at all, some goe one way, and some another, and some (and those as good men as either of the former) suspend their judgments. Now whatsoever you judge of vs, yet I hope you will not deny, [Page 492]the Ancient Fathers, and your owne Protestant Brethren, to be so qualifyed as you describe, men of honest and vpright hearts, true lovers of God and the truth &c: And therfore seing they vnderstood the word of God as we doe, you ought to absolue them, yea and vs, and conceiue that Luther had no necessary cause to forsake the whole Church, for Points maintayned by men of so great quality in all kinds, whose authority you cannot deny to be sufficient for making a doctrine probable, and for devesting the contrary of certainty: and therfore according to Hookers rule, they ought to haue suspended their perswasion, and they offended against God by troubling the whole Church.

57. Neither can you object against the Fathers what you say against vs (Pag: 280. N. 66.) that, what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough &c: For, besides that it, is I know not whether more ridiculous or impious, to say the Fathers were men in ignorance, and the whole Church in errour; at least you will not deny, but those Protestants who agree with vs are knowing men, and haue all the meanes of knowing the truth, which other Protestants haue, and they being supposed (by you I hope) to be men of honest and vpright hearts, may without any fault at all dissent from their Brethren, according to your owne rule. And since you must excuse them, it were manifest injustice to condemne vs, who defend the same doctrine with them.

58. Fifthly; It is a principle of nature that no private person, much lesse a Community, and least of all the whole Christian world, should be deprived of that good name, of which they were once in peaoeable and certaine possession, without very cleare, and convincing evidence. Seing then, even Protestants grant, that for divers Ages, the Church, and the Roman Church in particular, enjoyed the good Name, and Thing, of being Orthodox, and Pure, she cannot be deprived of them without evidence; neither can probability or vncertainty, be sufficient to forsake her Communion, as noxious. O of how different a mynd are our Novelists, from the Ancient Doctours of Gods Church, who against all Heretiks opposed the Tradition and Succession of the Bishops of Rome! as Tertuilian, the SS. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Optatus and Austine, as Calvin confesses (L. 4. Instit. C. 3.) and thinkes to saue himselfe, with this Answer, (Sect. 3.) Cum exrra contoversiam esset &c. Seing it was vndoubtedly true, that nothing was altered in doctrine from the beginning till that Age, they did alledg that which was sufficient to overthrow all new errours, namely, that they were repugnant to the Doctrine [Page 493]which by vnanimous consent was constantly kept from the very tyme of the Apostles themselves. But this Answer, can serue, only to shew that the Argument of the Fathers against Heretiks, was plainly of no force at all. For, if the Tradition and succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome, were not assured of the particular assistāce of the holy Ghost, no argument could be taken to proue any doctrine true because it had been taught in that Sea, in regard that without such assistance, Errour might haue crept in, and tradition might haue delivered a falshood. Therfore the Fathers alledging the Doctrine of the Roman Church, for a Rule to all other, must suppose such an assistance, without which their adversaryes might haue rejected the Tradition of that Sea, with as much facility, as the Tradition, and Authority, of any other. And to say, the Fathers grounded their Argument meerly vpon matter of fact (that de facto the Church of Rome had delivered otherwise, than those Heretiks held) and thence had inferred the falshood of their Heresyes, would haue beene directly petitio principij, as if they had sayd; The Church of Rome de facto (without any certaine assistance of the Holy Ghost) holds the contrary of that which you Heretiks teach, but that which she holds, is true; therfore your Doctrine is false. For, this Minor (that which she holds, is true) had been a meere begging of the Question, without any proofe at all, and had been no more in effect, then if the Fathers had sayd; The Doctrine of the Roman Church, and our Doctrine which is the same with Hers, is true, because we suppose it to be true, and therfore yours is false. Wherfore we must giue glory to God, and acknowledg that the Fathers believed that the Roman Church was assisted by the Holy Ghost above other Churches, not to fall into errour in matters of Faith and Religion. Howsoever, let vs take what Calvin grants, that at least the Church of Rome conserved the Truth and purity of Faith till the tyme of S. Austine, that is, between the fourth and fift Age after our Saviour Christ; and Heretiks commonly grant, that the Church of Rome was pure for the first fiue hundred yeares. Now let any man of judgment consider, whether it was probable, or possible, that immediatly after so great purity, and Sanctity, so huge a deluge of superstitions, Idolatryes, Heresyes, and corruptions, could haue flowed into the Church of Rome, within the space of one hundred yeares, that is, till the tyme of S. Gregory the Great, without being noted or spoken of, or contradicted by any one: Especially [Page 494]if we consider, that other doctrines, which both Protestants and Catholiks profess to be Heresyes, were instantly observed, impugned, and condemned: and to say, that those only of which they hold vs guilty, did passe without observation of any, can be judged no better than a voluntary, affected, foolish fancy. I beseech the Protestant Reader, for the Eternall good of his owne soule, to pause here a little, and well ponder this Point. Besides, S. Gregory himselfe, was a most holy, learned, and Zealous Pastour; in so much that in those respects, his Feast is solemnly kept in the Grecian Church, and all the Orthodox Bishops of the whole World, never ceased to hold their Communion with Him; his Predecessours; and Successours; which they neither would, nor could haue done, if they had discovered any one, and much more, if so many, and so enormious Errours, and corruptions, had appeared in that Sea, which was not any private, obscure, and, as it were, invisible Church, but was ever visible, and conspicuous, and like a beacon to all Nations: And therfore what she taught and professed, could not be hidden vnder a bushell, but being placed vpon a candlesticke, did so shine to all, that all must needs see it, and either contradict, which none did, or approue it, as they did. And here we may alledg the saying of King James ad Peron: (Pag: 388.) Durst one but lightly corrupt the Faith approovea through the World? It was easy for a child to discover the new Maister by his Novelty. And the beliefe of truth being found, all the Pastours of the whole World, if need were, were mooved, and being moved did not rest, till they had removed the ill, and provided for the security of the sheepe of Christ. How then is it possible, that, this heape of pretended Errours, in the Roman Church, could appeare without being discovered, till Luther, an Apostata from his Faith, and Religious Order, did sacrilegiously marry a vowed Nunne, and in the middest of his shamefull carnall pleasures, receaue revelations from the Divell, as himselfe doth openly confess? Wherfore we must conclude, that these Points which Protestants would needs miscall Errours, were indeed the Orthodox Doctrines of the Ancient Fathers, and whole Church of all precedent Ages: of the Possession of which Truths, and good Name, we ought not to be deprived, without most certaine evidence, which is impossible for any Heretike so much as pretend to doe with any modesty or shew of truth, as I haue proved, and will saie more hereafter.

59. Sixthly; Protestants can proue nothing against vs, with evidence, [Page 495]but by Scripture alone; which is impossible for them to do, as I haue shewed at large (Chap 2.) For, seing words are capable of diverse senses, it is impossible, by the words al [...]e, to convince that they are vnderstood in such or such a particular, determinate sense, and not in some other, of which they are capable; and what is possible, for ought we know, doth actually happen; and Gods free Decrees in this matter of vsing words in some set meaning, are not evident, either in themselves, or are notifyed to vs by any certaine Rule: and therfore Protestants cannot with any evidence, proue out of Scripture, that our doctrine containes any Errour Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall. And it is well to be considered, that the same Arguments, which Protestants object against vs now, were observed and answered by Catholike Divines, before Protestants appeared to the world, as they answered objections made against Christian Religion, or Catholike Verityes, by Pagans, Turks, Jewes and such Heretiks, as Protestants detest; and it is therby apparent, that they did not dissemble difficultyes but did propose them with no less candor and sincerity, than they answered them with truth, learning, and solidity. They alone were the men, who opposed themselves murum pro Domo Dei, against all the enemyes of Christianity, and the world believed, that they gaue at that tyme as true solutions of those very objections of old Heretikes, which now happen to be made by Protestants, as they did to those difficultyes, which were vrged against Christian Religion, or against Catholique Verityes, by old Heretiks, whom even Protestants condemne, Wherfore, to come now, and tell the world, that the Answers of those Catholike Doctours, against some few Points, were not solid, must needs breed a huge scandall, against Christian Religion, and Orthodox doctrine impugned by Pagans, Jewes, Turks, and old condemned Heretiks. Certaine it is, that the enemyes of Christian Religion, may object greater difficultyes against Christianity, than any Heretike can invent against vs. It is therfore cleare, that Protestants can haue no necessary or demonstratiue Argument, to proue that the Church hath degenerated into any least falshood, in matters concerning Faith; and so we must conclude with these words of Hooker (cited by Chilling: Pag: 311.) As for the orders established, sith equity and reason favour that which is in being, till orderly judgment of decision be given against it, it is but justice to exact of you, and perversnes in you it should be to deny thervnto your willing Obedience. Doth not every word of Hooker condemne [Page 496]Luther and his followers: Sith equity and reason favour that which is in being, and no orderly judgment of decision had been given against the orders which they found established in all Churches; it was but justice to exact of them, and worse then perversness in them to deny therunto willing obedience, and a formall sin of Schisme, by such disobedience to forsake the Communion of the whole Church.

60. Seventhly; As the Roman Church, and all Churches of Her Communion could not be despoyled of the Possession they held of being accounted true and pure Churches; so also the Pope, Bishops, and other Prelats, and Pastours vnder Him, could not without Sacriledge, and injustice be disobeyed and deprived of the Right, which they did peaceably possesse, when Luther first appeared. And for the Popes Primacy in particular, it is acknowledged by Protestants to haue beene ancient, and taught by Holy Fathers, even with in the compass of yeares which Protestants admit for Orthodox; and by some chief Protestants is held as a thing indifferent, yea and profitable. And I desire the Reader for his satisfaction in this behalfe, to see Brierlyes Index Verbo Peters Primacy, and Popes Primacy, and turne to the places which there he shall find cited See also Charity Maintayned (Pag: 1. Cap: 3. N. 19.) of this matter. If then this Point be maintayned by Ancient Fathers; if believed and practised in those incorrupt Ages; if acknowledged by Protestants for a thing profitable; who will so much as pretend any evidence of Scripture, or necessary demonstratiue reason against it? And consequently who will not inferr, that the separation of Protestants from the whole Church was causeless, and so according to your owne Memorandum, sinfull, and Schismaticall?

61. Let vs now come to examine your second evasion (Pag: 265. N. 31.) The imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours, and practising knowne corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation: And that this is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation from the Church of Rome. But,

62. First; It is manifest that Protestants departed from the Roman Church voluntarily, before they were forced by Excommunication, or by any other meanes. For, they voluntarily professed a Faith contrary to that of the whole Church, which most carefully and even sollicitously endeavoured by all meanes possible to reclaime them, as appeares in the life of Luther; Cardinall Caietan being [Page 497]sent to Germany for that very purpose, a safe conduct being assured to them. And for Communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and Obedience to Prelats; they did separate from them, as well as from profession of the same Faith; one of their Errours being, that our worship of God being corrupted, they could not communicate with vs in Liturgy, publike prayers &c. Therfore they first did separate themselves: Fugitivi, non fugati, the contrary wherof they are wont to affirme. And not only they ceased to communicate with vs, nor were content to hold their peace, bearing with patience the corruptions of the tymes (as they falsely styled them) but also drew men to conventicles of their owne, pretended to erect new Churches, and set vp aultar against aultar, and the like; and this against the commands of Bishops and Princes, both Ecclesiasticall, and Temporall. You profess hightly to esteeme Hugo Grotius. If in this you beleeue not me, beleeve him (in voto pro pace Ecclesiastica, Pa: 5.) Intelligebam, saith he, ex seniorum relatu, & ex perscriptis Historiis, extitisse postea homines, qui illā, in qua majores nostri fuerant Ecclesiam deserendā omnino dicerent: neque tantum ipsi desererent, nonnulli etiam priusquam excommunicati essent, sed & novos caetus facerent, quos vocabant & ipsi Ecclesias, nova ibi facerent presbyteria, docerent, Sacramenta administrarent, idque multis in locis, contra edicta & Regum, & Episcoporum, dicerentque, vt haec defenderent, planè quasi de caelo mandatum haberent quale Apostoli habuerant, obediendum Deo magis esse quàm hominibus. Which refractary proceeding, how much he disliked, is declared by him (Pag: 31.) Novum caetum, & vt nunc loqui mos est, Ecclefiam colligere mihi, etiamsi liceret, non liberet, video quàm malè id aliis cesserit: Multiplicarunt numerum, & non laetitiam. If you ponder the words of Grotius, you cannot chuse but see, how perfectly they agree to Luther and his followers, and clearely confute this your Memorandum. And indeed, whosoever considers this Point, will find it to be no better then nonsense, and a contradiction, to alledg this cause for justifying your separation; since before any Excommunication, men leaue the Church by professing a contrary Faith, and in vertue of that new Faith forsake Her Communion, and yet say, that they leaue it, because we require, as a condition of our Communion, that they leaue not that which necessarily, and as I may say, essentially, and antecedently, they of themselves do leaue, whether we require it or no; and therfore [Page 498]our requiring it, cannot be the cause of that Effect, which is preexistent before that, which you say is the cause therof, and would be the same, whether we required it or no; and we may say, that Heretiks are the first, as it were to excommunicate, and divide themselves, before the Church can excommunicate them: Therfore this allegation of imposing vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity &c: is plainly impertinent; and all must be reduced to the cause it selfe; whether our doctrines be sufficiently and clearly convinced to be Errours; and then, whether such Errours being not Fundamentall, can be sufficient to cause a separation. And so I retort this ground and say, that since you confess our Errours alone not to be a sufficient cause, to excuse your separation from vs, (and for this reason you say Protestants are not obliged to separate themselves from one another) you must also acknowledg, that indeed they had no sufficient cause to divide themselves from all Churches.

63. Secondly; Yourselfe contradict this Memorandum. For, (Pag: 276. N. 59.) You say: Though your corruptions in doctrine, in themselves (which yet is false) did not, yet your obliging vs, to profess your doctrine vncorrupted against knowledg and Conscience, may induce an obligation to depart from your Communion. Now if our corruptions in themselves, induce an obligation to depart from our Communion, this obligation is induced before the imposing vpon men vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours; and why then do you say, that imposing vpon men vnder payne of Excommunication a necessity of professing knowne Errours, is the cause which Protestants alledg to justify their separation? Since there is another cause precedent to that, and such a cause, as without it, this other of imposing vpon men &c: cannot subsist. For, if our Errours, in themselves, do not impose vpon you an obligation to forsake vs, it is a signe, that they are not damnable in themselves, nor necessarily to be avoided; and consequently, you may, and ought, to remaine with vs, notwithstanding such Errours; and if you ought to do so, the Church may justly command it vnder payne of Excommunication, as a punishment of precedent obstinacy, and a medicine to prevent it for tyme to come; and so yourselfe overthrow this memorandum, wherby you would excuse your division from the Church. Yet on the other side, if our pretended errours do in themselves induce an obligation to forsake our Church, different Sects of Protestants must, for the same reason, forsake one another, because you deny not their Errours to be in [Page 499]themselves damnable, and therfore you put a difference between them and vs, only because they exact not of others a profession of their errours, and we do; and so you reduce all, to this exacting, or not exacting, a profession of known errours; and not to the errours in themselves, and yet we haue heard you say, that our Errours, (in diverse of which, chiefe learned Protestants agree with vs against their Brethren) in themselves induce an obligation vpon you to forsake vs. What is here but contradicting, saying, and vnsaying, the same thing? Which shewes, that with you nothing is certaine, except that you are certaine of nothing; And consequently could haue no necessary and certaine reason, to forsake all Churches.

64. Thirdly; To bring you out of the cloudes, and to vnderstand things as they are: The separation we meane (when there is speech of division by Schisme and Heresy) is not that separation which is caused by the Ecclesiasticall censure of Excommunication, which deprives men of the publike suffrages of Gods Church, of vse of Sacraments, and conversation with faithfull people, and may consist with the Grace of God and Charity, not only when it is vnjust, but also when the party censured, repents himselfe by perfect contrition of the sin for which the Censure was imposed, though he be not actually absolved from it, in regard of some cause or invincible impediment, which is not in his power to alter or remooue, but hartily desires to be absolved, and so is vnited to the Church in voto. And this Censure of Excommunication, is wont to be inflicted, not only for Schisme, or Heresy, but for other offences also, against God or our neighbour. But Luther and his fellowes, voluntarily put themselves vpon another kind of separation, to wit, from the profession of the same Faith, and externall communion in Sacraments, Liturgy &c. vpon pretence of Errours in the Faith, and corruptions in the discipline of the Church; and were so farr from repenting themselves of such their proceedings, or admitting any votum or desire, to be vnited with the Church, that they held all such repentance to be a sin; wherby they certainly exclude themselves from Gods Grace, and Charity: and so it appeares, that by meere Excommunication, one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatike is; nor is a Schismatike first separated because he is excomunicated, but is excommunicated, because he is a Schismatike, and had been divided from the Church, though he had never been excommunicated, or though the excommunication [Page 500]were taken away. Besides as I touched already, it is ridiculous to say, that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion, the profession of her errours in Faith, and externall Communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and other publike worship of God. For profession of the same Faith, and communion in Sacraments &c. is the very thing, wherin Communion consists, or rather is the Communion itselfe, and therfore is not an extrinsecall or accidentall condition, voluntarily required by the Church, or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion; and so you speake, as if one should say, Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith. It was therfore no condition required by vs, that made Protestants leaue our Communion; but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving vs, which essentially is incompatible with our Communion. This whole matter will appeare more clearly by the next Reason.

95. Fourthly; Either there was just cause for your separation from the Communion of the Church, or there was not. If not; then by your owne confession you are Schismatiks, seing you define Schisme to be a causeless separation: in which case, the Church may justly impose vnder paine of Excommunication a necessity of your returne, and then your Memorandum cannot haue place, nor can excuse you from Schisme, since such an imposing a necessity, would, vpon that supposition, be both lawfull, and necessary. If there were just cause for your separation; then you had been excused from Schisme, though the Church had never imposed, vnder payne of Excommunication, a necessity of professing knowne errours; because you, say, Schisme is a Causless separation; and surely that separation is not causelesse, for which there is just cause. Wherfore your Memorandum about imposing vpon men a necessity &c: is both impertinent, and incoherent with your first Memordium; That not every separation, but a causeless separation is the sin of Schisme. And yet (P. 282. N. 71.) you say expressly: It is to be observed, that the chief part of our defence, that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine, cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants: who grāt their communion to all who hold with them not all things, but things necessary, that is, such as are in Scripture plainly delivered: So still you vtter contradictions. Wherfore the confessed chife part of your defense, being confuted, both by evident reason, and out of your owne sayings, it remaines that you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of Schisme.

[Page 501]

66. Fiftly; How can you maintayne this your Memorandum, and not giue full scope, to all other Protestants, who belieue not all the 39. Articles of the Church of England to be true (of whom I am sure you are one,) to forsake her communion, seing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirme, that the 39 Articles are in any parte superstitious or erroneous. Is not this the very thing, which you say is the cheef part of your defence for your separation from vs? O Approbators! Is it conforme to the doctrine, and discipline of the Church of England, to say, Her communion may, and must, be forsaken? And with what conscience could you Mr. Chillingworth, communicate with English, and other Protestants in their publike service, corrupted with errours about the Trinity, the Creed of S. Athā &c: as you belieue it is. Or why could you not communicate with vs? Or how will you excuse Luther who left vs?

67. Yet I must not here omitt to obserue some Points: First; what a thing your Religion is, which can so well agree, and hold communion with innumerable Sects, infinitly differing one from another? and yet you conceiue yourselfe to be obliged, to parte from vs Catholiks. But so it is. The false Gods of the Heathens, and their Idolaters, could handsomly agree amongst themselves, but in no wise with the true God, and his true worshippers! An evident signe, that the Catholique Roman Religion is only true, and teaches the right worship of God, and way to salvation. Falshoods may stand togeather, but cannot consist with truth.

68. Secondly: If, as you tell vs, things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly deliuered, points not Fundamentall of themselves, become Fundamentall, because they are revealed in Scripture, and it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue all Truths sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God, as Potter expressly grants. Seing then, Protestants differ in points, which one part verily believes, to be plainly delivered in Scripture, and consequently in things necessary, according to your assertion; they cannot grant their communion to those, who hold not with them in such necessary points, that is in effect, in all things wherin they disagree. For, every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture. How then can they be excused from Schisme, in their separation from vs, while they hold Communion with other Protestants, and thinke they may, and ought to do so, and that in doing otherwise they should be Schismatiks? Which Argument still presses them more forcibly, if we reflect that many of [Page 502]the most learned Protestants, in divers chiefe Articles of Faith, stand with vs Catholiks, against their pretended Brethren; and therfore they must either parte from them, or not parte from vs,

69. Thirdly; it appeares by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary, must divide from one another, though neither part impose vpon the other a necessity of professing known Errours: and since every one thinks his Doctrine to be necessary, that is, plainly dedelivered in Scripture, he cannot communicate with any of a contrary Faith, though they do not pretend to impose a necessity &c: And so your memorandum about imposing a necessity &c: Which, you say is the chiefe part of your defense, comes to nothing, even by your owne grounds: and therfore you haue indeed no defense at all, to free yourselves from Schisme.

70. Fourthly; When we speake of Points of Faith not Fundamentall, it is alwayes vnderstood, that they be sufficiently proposed, and therfore are alwayes Fundamentall per accidens, and the contrary Errours certainly damnable, and consequently a necessary cause of separation, no lesse then Errours against Points Fundamentall of themselves: and seing according to Protestants, there can be no damnable Errour against Faith, vnless either it be, or be esteemed, repugnant to some Truth plainly delivered in Scripture, which you say is a necessary point, the conclusion must be, that, Protestants differ in necessary Points, and therfore according to your owne assertion, are obliged to forsake one another, without expecting any Imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours; and that this your Memorandum or condition is both impertinent and false: or if, as I sayd, they are not obliged to parte one from another, they could not without Schisme depart from vs.

71. Fiftly; to come to the Point, and strike at the roote. Tell me, whether you may be seriously present, as members of one community and, as I may say, parts in the Quire, with any sort of people, in their Liturgy, and publike service, or worship of God, as long as they do not expressly demand of you, a profession of those particular Points, wherin you disagree? If you may; then you may joyne yourselfe with Turks, Jewes, or even Pagans, if they exact not of you such a profession; which to any Christian must needs appeare most absurd and impious. If you cannot communicate with those of a belief different from yours, though they do not exact a profession of their Faith, against your owne belief and conscience; it still followes clearly, that your [Page 503]Memorandum of imposing a necessity of professing knowne Errours, is impertinent; seing you cannot communicate with those of a different Faith, though they impose it not vpon you; and also that either Protestants cannot communicate one with another, since they differ in Faith, or els that they could not forsake vs vpon pretence, that we impose vpon you a necessity of professing knowne Errours; Seing that Condition of imposing &c: is impertinent. Into how many difficultyes and contradictions do you cast yourself by impugning the Truth? But enough of this Memorandum, or condition.

72. Your last Memorandum was: That, to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church, is not the same thing: That being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it, as Faith and obedience: this by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgyes, and publike worship of God.

73. Answer, I wish you had declared yourself better. First: (Pag: 271. N. 51.) you say: We are not to learne the difference between Schisme and Heresy. For, Heresy we conceiue an obstinate defense of any Errour, against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith: And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another. I haue not tyme to examine what you meane by a necessary Article of the Christian Faith. Is not every Article of Christian Faith necessary to be believed, vnder paine of damnation, if it be sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God? And is it not Heresy to deny any such Article? If it be so, then your necessary Article of the Christian Faith implyes no such Mystery, as one would haue expected in those so limited words: and besides, if it be Heresy to deny any Point, though in itselfe never so small; of Protestants differing in any Point of Faith, some must be Heretiks, and in state of damnation, and they must be obliged to separate from one another as from formall Heretiks. If it be not an Heresy, nor damnable, to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, Errours in Points not Fundamentall are not damnable: Neither could you, for such Errours, divide yourselves from the Communion of all Visible Churches. If you will needs say, that no Errour is Heresy, vnless it contradict some Article of itselfe Fundamentall: What in particular is Heresy, or who is an Heretik you cānot knowe, seing you professe that it cannot be determined in particular, what Points be Fundamentall; and therfore you must retract your former words; we are not to learne the [Page 504]difference between Schisme and Heresy. For, if you cannot possibly tell what Heresy is, you will for ever be to learne the difference between Schisme ād Heresy; to say nothing for the present that Potter (Pag: 212.) acknowledges, that whatsoeuer is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense Fundamentall, that is, such as may not be denyed, or contradicted without Infidelity: therfore it is Heresy at least, to deny Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, though they be not Fundamentall in themselves. And (Pag: 250.) he declares expressly every Errour against any Point revealed, to be Heresy; in these words: Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded; there he that opposeth is an Heretike, and heresy is a worke of the flesh, which excludeth from Heaven: (Gal: 5: 20.21.) therfore if you will not contradict Potter, and yourself, in severall places, you must confess, that Heresy may be committed, by Errour not Fundamentall in itselfe. But to our purpose, you say, Schisme is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from an other: and (Pag: 264. N. 30.) you teach that a causeless separation from the externall Communion of any Church, is the sin of Schisme. Put these togeather: Schisme is a separation of one part of the Church from an other: And Schisme: is a separation from the externall communion of any Church, the Consequence will be this: A separation from the externall communion of any part of the Church, is a separation from the part itselfe, and then, proportionally, a separation from externall communion of the whole Church, or of all Churches, must be a separation from the whole Church it selfe, or from all Churches; and so your distinction, that to leaue the Church and to leaue the externall communion of a Church, is not the same thing, is confuted by your owne doctrine▪ And though it make little to our present purpose, whether Schisme be defined, A separation of one part of the Church from an other, as you speake (for, as I sayed, if a separation from the Externall Communion of one parte be a separation from the parte it selfe, a separation from the externall communion of the whole church, must be a separation from the whole Church itselfe, which is the thing I intended to prove against your Memorandum) yet you must giue me leaue to say, that your definition overthrowes itselfe. For, the Nature and Essence of Schisme, being to separate one from the Church, necessarily it is cause that the party so divided, is no more a member or part of that Church, nor a part of any Church; and so Schisme is not a separation of one part from another, but the Church which remaynes after such a sparation made in externall Communion, is one whole Church [Page 505]and Totum est cujus nihil est extra, and so he who is cut off from the Church, as Schismatiks are, is no part of it but a non ens, or nothing, for as much as belongs to the Denomination, of being a part of the Church; in which respect, your definition, as I sayd, destroyes itselfe, as if one could be cut off from the Church by Schisme, and yet remaine a part therof. A man divided from the Church, remaynes a man, and is part of the Community or number of men, but is not a part or member of the Church; as you will not deny, but that if, for example, one should forsake all Christianity, yea and fall into Judaisme, Turcisme, or Paganisme, he should still be a part of the number of men, but not a member, or part, of any Christian Church: And it is ridiculous to say, that Luther and his associats, did not separate from themselves; seing by their very separation, they ceased to be any part of the Church, and the Church remayned one whole, and so by their not separation from themselves as men, you cannot inferr that they did not separate from all Churches, and from all true members, and parts, of all true Churches. Yea, if they be considered as members of the Church, they did in some sort separate even from themselves, by ceasing to be now, what once they were, that is, true members of the Church. But we shall say more of this herafter. Only I obserue now, if (as you say Pag: 264. N. 30.) the sin of Schisme be a causelesse separation from the externall communion of any Church, much more grievous must that sin be, in him, who separates from the whole Church, or from all Churches, as Luther professed to doe.

74. Secondly; When you say, The requisites which constitute a man a member of the Church, are Faith, and Obedience. What Faith, or what Obedience meane you? That Faith wherby one believes, and that Obedience, wherby one obeyes all the Definitions, and Decrees of the Church? If so; then you suppose him to be vnited with the Church, not only in Faith, but also in externall Communion; because nothing is more strictly commanded, than such an vnion and Communion; but then, you are out of our case, of being separated from the Church. If you meane, Faith and Obedience to God; it is impossible, even by your owne confession, that one should obey God, and divide himselfe from the externall Communion of all Churches without cause, ād therfore he cannot by any such imaginary Obediēce be a member of the Church. You say (Pag: 272. N. 53.) It concernes every man who separates from any Churches Communion, even as much as his salvation is [Page 506]worth, to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary: For, vnless it be necessary it can hardly be sufficient: Therfore you suppose, there is a strict command not to separate from any Churches Communion, without necessary cause. And then, as for Faith, you say (Pag: 134. N. 13.) Among the conditions which Christ requires for salvation, one is, that we belieue what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared to haue been revealed by him: Therfore, say I, whosoever opposes a Point, though not Fundamentall in it selfe, yet sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, failes in the condition of Obedience required for salvation, and so wants one of the requisites, which constitute a man a member of the Church; therfore he leaves the Church, and Protestants erring in such Points, divide themselves from the Church; and certaine it is, that some of them must erre in Points at least not Fundamentall.

75. Thirdly; The Church essentially implyes not only Faith, but also externall Communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and publike worship of God; therfore whosoever leaves the externall Communion of a Church, he cannot but leaue the Church, as being divided from it, in a thing essentiall to the Church, and consequently without which one cannot be a member thereof (Moulin Lib: 1. cont: Peron: Cap: 26.) saith plainly; That is the true Church, which is vnited togeather in profession of true Faith, and Communion of Sa [...]rament [...]. And Calvin (Lib: 4. Institut: Cap: §. 4.) saith; We cannot haue two or three Churches, but Christ must be divided. Wherby it appeares, that men cannot be of one Church, vnless they be vnited in one common mysticall Body; for example, John hath a head, a hand, &c: and so hath Thomas; but they are not said to communicate in one head, or hand, because the parts of their Body are not vnited in one common linke, or whole Body. Different Kingdomes, and Commonwealths, may chance to haue the same Lawes, Customes, Statutes, yea and the same forme of Government; yet that is not enough, to denominate them one Kingdome, or Common wealth; because they haue not any such vnion, or Communion, as may make them one mysticall Body. Dr. Lawd, (Pag: 300.) Affirmes, that the Donatists agreed in Faith with the Catholike Church, and yet grants that they were Schismatiks, and divided from the Church; which Division being supposed, they could not be properly said to communicate with Her even in Faith, because similitude alone without a common vnion in some Whole, cannot make one a member [Page 505] [...] [Page 506] [...] [Page 507]or part of one Church. But what need I proue, a thing evident in it selfe? The very Definition of Schisme, taken properly, as it is distinct from Heresy, implyes an agreement in Faith, and that supposed, it is a separation in externall Communion only; therfore similitude in Faith, is not sufficient to make that one be not truly said to forsake the Church. Jewes and Turks belieue one God, and so do Christians, and yet they cannot be sayd to be in Communion with Christians, even in that Point which all of them belieue; in regard they make not on mysticall Body. I may eate the same meate, which an excommunicate person eates, but I may not eate with him, not he with me: So Jewes and Turks belieue some Truth which we belieue, yet properly speaking, they belieue not with vs, because they themselves are divided from vs. One thing therfore it is, to belieue the same Point, and another to be vnited in the beliefe therof. Neither is there in this particular, any difference between Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall Points. For, though one belieue all the same Fundamentall Points, which another believes, yet he believes them not with him, because, as I sayd, the believers themselves, are divided in Communion, one from another. Otherwise, if you will needs haue all those to be of one Church, who belieue all Fundamentall Points; it will follow, that there is no Schisme at all, as it is distinguished from Heresy. For, that doctrine being supposed, if one belieue all Fundamentall Points, he is no Schismatike. If he erre in any Fundamentall, or Necessary Point, he is an Heretike: Therfore Schisme, in this way, shall never be distinguished from Heresy, which yet is contrary to your owne doctrine; which we cited aboue out of your (Pag: 271. N. 51.) Where you say; We are not to learne the difference betweene Schisme and Herely. For, Heresy we conceaue, an obstan [...]te defence of any errour against, any necessary Article of the Christian Faith: And Schisme a causless separation of one part of the Church from another. You do, not declare, wherin this separation of one part of the Church from another, consists. But seing you distinguish Schisme from Heresy, and affirme, that separation by Heresy, consists in Errours against any necessary Article of Faith, Schisme must consist in a separation from the externall Communion of that Church, with which one agrees in all necessary Articles of the Christian Faith, and consequently, agreement in Fundamentall Articles, is not sufficient to constitute men members of one Church, seing it may stand with Schisme, taken in the most proper sense, which you say separates [Page 508]one part of the Church from another: And therfore whosoever divides himselfe from the externall Communion of the Church, is divided from the Church it selfe; and so your Memorandum that to leaue the Church, and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church, is not the same thing, is a meere vngrounded speculation. Here also that which I haue often told you, offers it selfe to be insinuated; that Errours in Points not Fundamentall, sufficiently propounded as testifyed by God, become Fundamentall, that is, damnable, and are true Heresyes, as Potter grants; and, as I shewed out of your owne words, they who are guilty of such Errours, obserue not that Obedience, which is required as a Condition for remission of sins, and salvation; and yet you require Obedience as one of those requisites which constitute a man, a member of the Church, and therfore a separation by Errours in Points not Fundamentall, is not pure Schisme, but more; it is Heresy; and separates a man from the Church, though he beleeue all Points which are Fundamentall of themselves; so that, as I saied, agreement in such Points which are Fundamentall of themselves, is in no wise sufficient, to make one a member of the Church; yea and beside agreement in beliefe, both of Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall Points, it is essentially required, that he be not divided from her externall Communion; and yourselfe say (Pag: 264. N. 30.) A causlesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the sin of Schisme; which were not true, if the same beliefe of all Fundamentalls (yea and vnfundamentalls also) were of it selfe, sufficient to denominate, and conserue one a member of the Church. For, then he should remaine such a member by that beliefe alone, though he did causelesly divide himselfe from the externall Communion of the Church. And therefore we must conclude out of your owne grounds against your last Memorandum, that to leaue the Church, and to leaue the externall Communion of a Church, is the same thing. And thus, having confuted your Remembrances, wherby you pretended to excuse yourselfe from Schisme, let vs now see what you can object against vs.

76. Object: 1. You say (Pag: 132. N. 11.) If you would at this tyme propose a forme of Liturgy, which both side shold lawfull, and then they would not joyne with you in this liturgy, you might haue some colour then to say, they renounce your Communion absolutely.

77. Answer. What a Chimera do you fancy to yourselfe, and [Page 509]propose to vs? First: you must suppose, that the Roman Church holds all essentiall, and Fundamentall Points of Faith: otherwise, she should cease to be a Church, and so you could not communicate with Her, as with a Church, neither could there be any Liturgy common to her and Protestants; and then, why do you so often blame Charity Maintayned for affirming, that Potter acknowledged vs, to hold all substantiall and Fundamentall Points of Faith, which now yourself must suppose: and also (Pag: 269. N. 45.) you say: That men of different opinion, may be menbers of the same Church: Provided, that what they forsake, be not one of those things wherin the essence of the Church consists. And therfore no forme of Liturgy, can be sufficient to warrant your joyning with vs, if we erre in Points Fundamentall of themselves.

78. Secondly; Seing no Forme of Liturgy could be lawfull, in case it did containe any Fuudamentall Errour, and that you confesse it impossible, to know, what Points in particular be Fundamentall, it followes, that you cannot know what forme of Liturgy is lawfull, and so in practise, you cannot communicate with one another, nor with vs, nor with any Church, at all, as not knowing, whether in their Liturgy there be not contained some Fundamentall Errours; yea no man can frame any set Forme to himselfe, but may feare least it containe some such Errour. Neither can you avoide this difficulty, by saying, as you are wont to doe, that whosoever believes all that is evident in Scripture, is sure to belieue all Fundamentall Points. For, we speake not now in generall, of what every one believes for himselfe, but in practise, of a particular Forme of Liturgy, wherin he communicates with others, which cannot be lawfull, if it containe any Fundamentall Errour, as well it may, for ought you can know, who profess not to know, what errours be Fundamentall; vnless for a short Forme of Liturgy, you will propose the whole Bible, which in your grounds is the only way to know all Fundamentall Points.

79. Thirdly; Some Points may be necessary for the constitution of a Church, which are not necessary for every private person, as for example, to know who are lawfull Governous of, and Ministers in the Church, and consequently, by whom the publike Liturgy, is to be lawfully read to the people. For, seing we belieue your pretended Bishops in England, to be no more then meere Lay men (as those Protestants who stand for Episcopacy, must hold the same of Ministers not ordayned by Bishops) what Liturgy, can be found common to Catholiks, [Page 510]and Protestants, or to Protestants, among themselves, seing there can be no agreement, who be Lawfull Ministers, for celebrating the Liturgy, officiating, reading publike Service, and preaching to the people?

80. Fourthly; I must put you in mynd, that you and Potter affirme (and the thing in it selfe is very certaine, and cleare) that it is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith, not to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, though in it selfe not Fundamentall; and therfore there can be no Communion, with any Church, which denyes any such Point, because she ceases to be a Church. Seing then, you say we erre in such Points, and diverse learned Protestants hold with vs, against their pretended Brethren, and Protestants say, that different Sects among themselves, disagree in such Points; all these must hold, that all the rest disagreeing from them, are no Church, and consequently not capable of their Communion. How then shall all such no churches, agree in one Forme of Liturgy, common to all Churches? Since they differ in the very essence, and being of a Church, which is prerequired to all Communion of Churches, in any lawfull Forme of Liturgy. They may be a company of men, but not one community, Communion, or Church of faithfull Believers.

11. Fifthly; You teach, that, minimum vt sic, is to belieue, That God is, and is a rewarde [...]. Would you haue a Liturgy so short as to containe only this point, for feare of Errour, if it should containe more? And yet even in this one point, there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves, or with vs. For, in the sense, I haue shewed elswere, that Protestants disagree about Faith, or what to belieue signifies; and about the Attributes, and perfections of the Deity; and his Title of a Rewarder; and about our Saviour Christ, whether he be true God? Whether he be to be adored? Whether to be invoked (Vid: Volkel: Lib: 4. Cap: 11.) Whether reverence to be done to his sacred name, Jesus? And many other such points. And then I pray, what Communion could there be in a worship of God, consisting only in words or in prating like parrots, with infinite difference in the meaning of them; and such a difference, as one part holds the contrary to belieue damnable errours, even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree, as in a Forme common to all; in Errours, I say, damnable, as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God, whom they pretend to worship? Jewes and Turks, belieue that God is, and [Page 511]that he is a rewarder, and Philosophers believed that there is a God, and some of them, in generall, that he is a rewarder. What a sight would it be, to behold all these in one Church, or Quire of Christians, as agreeing in this generall Liturgy? Of which, Jewes, Turks, and Philosophers might say in your owne words; Behold we propose a Forme of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawfull: Why then do you not joyne with vs? If you answer them, because they erre in other points; they might reply, what is that to the purpose, as long as a necessity of professing those Errours, is not imposed vpon you? Or if it be not lawfull, to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion, though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ, how can Catholiks communicate with you, or Protestants with one another? or how can you say (If you would propose a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull, and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy, you might haue some colour then to say, they renounce your Communion absolutely) seing men of different faith cannot communicate togeather, even in a Forme of Liturgy which both sides hold lawfull? Or if they may; you cannot refuse your Communion to Jewes and Turks, in such a common Forme of Liturgy. I therfore conclude, that either you may communicate with Jewes, Turkes &c. or els you must confess, that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy, and publike worship of God, whatsoever imaginary Forme be proposed, and that you renounce our Communion absolutely; which you deny against all Truth, and your owne grounds, and the common grounds of Christianity, (vnless you will make vp one Church of Jewes, Turks, Philosophers, condemned Heretiks, and whatsoever different Sects) and therfore you cannot avoide the just imputation of Schisme.

82. Morover, we know, you disliked diverse Points, in the publike Service of the Protestants Church of England, as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, the Creed of S. Athanasius, &c: Now I aske, whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service, or no? If you say, you could, because your intention was carryed only to that which was good and true, and not to those particulars, which you did belieue to be false, and errours; why may not Protestants, on their part, be present at Masse, and our publike worship of God? And why do they alledg, as a cause of their forsaking our externall communion in Liturgy, the corruptions thereof? Or why do you require, a Forme of Liturgy, which all sides hold lawfull, if one may be present, at some [Page 512]corrupt worship of God, so that he intend to participate, and communicate, only in what is good? And you cannot deny, but that in our Liturgy, there are many good, and holy things out of which, the Protestāt church of Englād transcribed divers things, into their booke of cō mon prayer wherby they proue thēselves true Heretiks, or chusers, accepting or rejecting what they please; ād deceyving simple people, as if there were small differēce betwixt English Protestants and Catholiks. Or how could you wickedly perswade Catholiks, to go to Protestant Service, which you know we belieue to containe Errours against our Faith and Religion, and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy &c. Or if they were not obliged to forsake vs, how can they be excused from Schisme in doing so? If you could not be present at the English Service, (which was the other part of my demand) the reason must be, because men of different Faith, cannot communicate in one publike worship of God, or Liturgy: And the further reason of this, because such a communicating, or Communion, were indeed a reall, and practicall approbation of such a Communion, and of such a Church, stayned with Errours, and consequently, how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they belieue to erre in points of Faith, and yet thinke they are obliged not to communicate with vs? Truly they cannot possibly giue any reason for this their proceeding, and, as I may say, acception of persons, the merit or demerite of the cause being the same. For, this Rule (it is not lawfull for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy, and publike worship of God) is vniversally true, and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion, stisle all zeale, overthrow Religion, and is of its owne nature, intrinsecè malum, though there were no scandall, danger of being perverted, and the like, as really alwayes there are. Certainly, if in any case a Catholike can be sayed to approue, and participate with Heretikes, as such, it is by communion in the same Liturgy, and divine offices; and never more, than when it happens to be with such Heretiks, as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholiks, as superstitions, and corrupted, and framed an other, as proper to themselves, which happened in England in direct opposition to our Liturgy; to which proceeding of theirs hee in fact consents, and gives approbation, who refuseth not, to be present at their Service so opposite [...]o our Liturgy. Whosoever considers the zeale of all Antiquity, in abhorring the least shaddow of communion with Heretiks, will haue [Page 513]just cause to lament the coldnesse of them, who seeke by distinctions, and speculations, to induce a pernicious participation of justice with Iniquity, a society between light and darkness, an agreement with [...]hrist and Belial, a participation of the faithfull with the infidell, as we haue heard our adversaryes confess, every Errour against a Divine Truth sufficiently propounded, to be Infidelity. Holy Scripture (Num: 16.26.) speaking of Core, Dathan, and Abiron, saith, Depart from the tabernacles of the impious men, and touch you not those things which pertaine to them, least you be enwrapped in their sin. What then shall we say of those, who will not depart, I say not, from the tabernacles, but even from the publike Service of Heretiks, and will touch, and be of the same communion with them? If the Apostle sayd to Titus, who was a Bishop, and in no danger of being perverted, avoide an hereticall man; could he haue sayd, Fly the man, but not communion with him? If in any case, certainly in this, we must call to mynd our Blessed Saviours saying, He that denyes me, I will deny him. And, what doth it availe a man to gaine the whole world if he loose his owne soule? To which purpose, Tertullian saieth (de Coron: Mil: Cap 11.) Non admittit status Fidei allegationem necessitatis. Nulla est necessitas delinquendi quibus vna est necessitas non delinquendi. The condition of Christian Faith cannot admitt for excuse of a thing not lawfull, to say, they were necessitated therto. There can be no necessity of sinning, for them, who acknowledg one only thing to be necessary, namely, not to sin. What is that one thing, which our saviour saith is necessary, except, not to sin? Come loss of goods, liberty, and life: let vs remember; It is not necessary, that we be rich, or at liberty, or enjoy a long, and prosperous life, but, One thing is absolutely necessary; that we do not offend our God. If in a morall affaire, we would guide soules by metaphysicke, the next step will be, to take the Zuinglian supper, not, forsooth, as it is receaved by them, in nature of a Sacrament, but intending only to eate it, as it is no more than bread, and wine; or as Christians may weare the apparell which Infidels vse according to the civill custome of their country. But in matters of this nature, middle wayes are most dangerous, and next to precipices; and you must remember those words, (3. Reg: 18. V. 22.) If our Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, follow him. Upon which place the Doway Testament, makes this profitable Annotation; Such zealous expostulation is necessary to all Neutralls in Religion, who are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarme: such as [Page 514]Angells detest. (Apoc: 3.) Less harme it is (if we respect the mischiefe which may accrew to others) for a man to profess Heresy, than professing himselfe a Catholike, to be cause, that others follow his Doctrine, and example, in communicating with Heretiks, in that which they are wont to call, Divine Service. What a monster may it justly seeme for Catholiks; at home, abroad, in their pulpits, and all other occasions, to impugne and speake against Heresyes, and the next day to be seene in the same Church, at the same publike service, with Heretiks? This Doctrine of the vnlawfulness for Catholiques to be present at the service, or sermons, of Heretiques, is taught by those incomparable, holy, zealous, and learned Authors of the Annotations vpon the Rhemes Testament; Cardinal Alane; Richard Bristo; Willyam Raynolds; Gregory Martin; in Matth: 10. N. 32. Marc: 3. N. 13. 2. Cor: 6. N. 14. Ad Tit: 3. N. 10. Joan: 2. N. 10. And who will not prefer the Authority of these men, who opposed themselves against the Heresy, Policy, and Cruelty of those tymes, before any who now should presume to teach the contrary? Vpon the whole matter therfore, I conclude, that it is impossible to propound any Forme of Liturgy, in which both sides can hold it lawfull to communicate. And, therfore Luther and his fellowes did absolutely renounce the Communion of all Churches, by professing a contrary Faith, and ceasing to communicate with them in Liturgy, and publike worship of God; which is the thing you denyed in your Objection.

83. Object: 2. (Pag: 263. N. 26.) You say to your Adversarie; That although it were granted Schisme, to leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church, in what state or case soever it be, and that Luther and his followers were Schismatiks, for leaving the externall Communion of all visible Churches: Yet you faile exceedingly of clearing the other necessary Point vndertaken by you, that the Roman Church was then the visible Church. For, neither doe Protestants (as you mistake) make the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the Sacraments, the notes of the visible Church, but only of a visible Church: Now these, you know, are very different things, the former signifying the Church Catholique, or the whole Church: The latter, a particular Church, or a part of the Ca [...]holique. And therfore suppose we should grant what by Argument you can never evince, that your Church had these notes, yet would it by no meanes follow, that your Church were the visible Church, but only a visible Church: Not the [Page 515]whole Catholique Church, but only a part of it. But then besides, where doth Dr. P [...]tter acknowledg any such matter as you pretend? Where doth he say that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word or due administration of the Sacraments? Or where doth he say, that (from which you collect this) you wanted nothing Fundamentall, necessary to salvation?

84. Answer. Your conscience could not but tell you, that Charity Maintayned had evidently cleared this Point, and answered your Objections (Part: 1. N. 47. Pag: 221.) in these words: that the Roman Church (I speake not for the present, of the particular Diocese of Rome, but of all Visible Churches dispersed through the whole world, agreeing in Faith with the Chayre of Peter, whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome, or in any other place:) That, (I say) The Church of Rome, in this sense, was the visible Catholique Church, out of which Luther departed, is proved by your owne confession, who assigne for Notes of the Church, the true Preaching of Gods word, and true administration of Sacraments, both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church, since you confess, that she wanted nothing Fundamentall, or necessary to salvation; and for that very cause, you thinke to cleare yourselfe from Schisme, whose property, as Potter sayeth (Pag: 76.) is to cut off from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates. Now, that Luther and his fellowes were borne and baptized in the Roman Church, and that she was the Church, out of which they departed, is notoriously knowne: And therfore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ, and hope of salvation, vnless you will acknowledg your selfe to deserue the just imputation of Schisme. Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholique by reason of (pretended) corruptions, not Fundamentall. For, your selfe avouch, and endeavour to proue, that the true Catholique Church may erre in such Points. Morover, I hope you will not so much as goe about to proue, that when Luther rose, there was any other true Visible Church, disagreeing from the Roman, and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines: And you cannot deny, but that England in those dayes agreed with Rome, and other nations with England: and therfore either Christ had no Visible Church vpon Earth, or els you must grant, that it was the Church of Rome. A truth so manifest, that those Protestants who affirme the Roman Church to haue lost the Nature and Being of a true Church, do by inevitable consequence grant, that for diverse [Page 516]Ages Christ had no Visible Church an earth: From which Errour, because Dr. Potter disclaimeth, he must of necessity maintaine, that the Roman Church is free from Fundamētall, ād damnable Errours, and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ, and Hope of salvation. And if, (saith he ibidem) any Zealops amongst vs haue proceeded to heavyer Censures their zeale may be excused, but their Charity and wisdome cannot be justifyed. Thus Charity Maintayned in that place; and then immediatly proves clearly; that the Grecians, Waldenses, Wicklef, Huss, Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Aethiopians, or Abissines, either held damnable Heresyes, confessed to be such both by Catholiks, and Protestants, or els that they agree with vs Catholiks, in the particular doctrines, wherin Protestants haue for saken vs. This being so; who can deny, but that if Luther and his followers were Schismatiks for leaving the externall communion of all visible Churches (which for the present you are content to suppose) the Roman Church taken in this sense, which you haue heard Charity Maintayned declare, was that visible Church; seing there was no true Church of Christ, but the Roman in that sense, in which she is not a particular, but the vniversall Church, including all true Churches. And yet by way of supererogation Charity Maintayned said (N. 55. Pag: 229.) that Luther and his followers had been Schismatiks, though the Roman were but a particular Church; because Potter (Pag: 76.) saith, Whosoever professes himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole. Since therfore in the same place he expressly acknowledges, the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ, and that it is cleare they forsooke Her, and professe to haue done so; it followes evidently, that they forsooke the whole, and therfore are most properly Schismatiks, for leaving the Roman Church, whether you take it for a particular, or for the vniversall, Church; that is, for all Churches which agreed with Her: and so your instance (P. 263. N. 27.) that the foote might say to the head, I acknowledg there is a Body: and yet that no member besides you, is this Body: nor yet that you are it, but only a part of it) hath indeed neither head nor foote: Because when we say, the Roman Church is the vniversall Church, we speake not of Her as a particular Church, or part of the whole, but taken with all other Churches, and consequently as a Whole; and then you are not to aske, whether the foote be the whole Body, but whether head, foote, and all other parts taken together, [Page 517]be not the whole Body: which if you cannot deny, you must confess that your owne instance is against yourself, and for vs.

85. By this also is answered, what you say; that, Protestants make not the true preaching of the word, and due adminstration of the Sacraments, the Notes of the visible Church, but only of a visibble Church▪ Not of the Church Catholique, or the whole Church; but of a particular Church, or a part of the Catholique. But out of what we haue sayd, this appeares to be a plaine contradiction. For if they be Notes of every particular Church, or of every part of the whole, they must also be Notes of the whole, which is nothing but every part as joyned with all the rest, or the parts taken collectiuè, that is, the whole number of parts, which is nothing but the whole Body consisting of such parts: As if vitall actions, be a Note or signe of the presence of our soule, or life, in every part of our Body, it must also be a signe of life in the whole Body, consisting of all its parts. Will you haue the whole, an Idaea Platonica, separate from all parts? how then can the true preaching of the word be a signe of every part of the Church, and not of the whole? Or will you haue the whole or vniversall Church want an essentiall note of a true Church? But as every where, so here you take more vpon you in behalfe of Protestants, than you haue commission from them to doe. The English Protestant Church (Artic: 19.) saith; The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministred. Where you see, the visible Church is called a congregation; and therfore no such necessary difference passes between the Church, and a Congregation or Church, as you confidently affirme. Will you say, that the Church which you will haue to signify the vniversall or whole Church, is a congregation, that is, a particular Church? And yet the sayd (19. Article) saith, The Church of Christ is a congregation that is, according to your Divinity, a particular Church? Or by what Logick can you say, that the Subjectum in a proposition can be of a larger extent than the Praedicatum, and the vniversall Church affirmed to be a particular Church? Also, if preaching of the word be not a Note of the visible Church, how comes it to be put in the very definition of it? Willet in his Synopsis (Pag: 71.) saith, These markes eannor be absent from the Church, it is no longer A true Church, than it hath these markes. And (Pag: 69.) The only absence of them doth make a nullity of the Church. Behold, Preaching of the word &c: Markes both of [Page 518]the and a Church; And these markes are sayd to be essentiall to both; yea both the and a, are applied to the same Church: And, as I sayd, it is strang in you, to imagine that what is essentiall to every part, must not necessarily be essentiall to the whole; or, that the whole must participate of the parts, and not of that which is essentiall to them: or, that the parts by being vnited to compound one whole, must loose that which was essentiall to them before such an vnion or composition, that is, that they must loose themselves, by loosing that which was essentiall to them. But if these cleare reasons will not serve, at least be content to be convinced by your owne words (Pag: 294. N. 93.) Where you must suppose, that, it is a good Argument to make an inference from every one of the parts to the whole: What is, say you, this Catholique Church, but the society of men, wherof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company is, or may be guilty of many sins dayly committed against knowledg and conscience? Now, I would fame vnderstand, why one Errour in Faith, especially if not Fundamentall, should not consist with the holyness of the Church, as well as many and great sins committed against knowledg and conscience? And why then do you not make the like consequence, and say; the visible Church is but a society of men consisting of diverse Churches wherof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company hath for essentiall Notes, the true preaching of Gods Word, and due administration of Sacraments? This instance convinces ad hominem, and vpon supposition, that you will make good your owne inference, which indeed is in it selfe of no force, in regard, that to sin or erre, is not assentiall to every part of the Church, as preaching of the word is essentiall to every particular, and consequently to the whole Church; and therfore God may giue his assistance, to keepe men from sin and errour, as he shall be pleased; and having promised, that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the whole Church, and not having made any such generall promise to private persons, which neither are, nor do represent the whole Church, you cannot inferr, that the whole Church, or a Generall Councell, may fall into Errour, because every particular private person, taken apart, may be deceived. Your parity also between sin and errour, is vnworthy of a Divine. Faith externally professed, or the exteriour profession of Faith, is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church; but justifying grace, or sanctity, or Charity is not. Yourselfe grant, that Errour in Fundamentall Points, destroyes a Church, [Page 519]and that every particular person ceases to be a member of the Church, by every such errour. I hope you will not say the same of every, or any grievous sin. You grant (Pag: 274. N. 57.) that corruptions in manners, yield no just cause to forsake a Church, and yet you excuse your leaving the Communion of our Church, vpon pretence of corruptions in Her doctrine, even in Points not Fundamentall of themselves. It appeares then, that errours in Faith, though not Fundamentall, preponderate any, or all, most grievous corruptions in manners, in order to the maintayning or breaking the Communion of the Church. Do you not expressly say (Pag: 255. N. 6.) Many members of the Visible Church haue no Charity? Which could not happen, if Charity were as necessary as Faith, to constitute one a member of the Church. This is also the Doctrine of other Protestants. Field (Of the Church, Lib: 2. Cap: 2.) saith: Entire profession of those supernaturall verityes which God hath revealed in Christ, is essentiall to the Church. Fulke (Joan: 14. Not: 5.) The true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy. It is an impudent slander to say, we say so. Whitaker; Contron: 2. Quest: 5. Cap: 17.) The Church cannot hold any hereticall doctrine, and yet be a Church; mark heere also, that the, and a are applied to the same Church. Dr. Lawd (Sect: 10. Pag: 36.) Whatsoever is Fundamentall to Faith, is Fundamentall to the Church, which is one by vnity of Faith. It is then apparent, that there is great difference, between Faith, and charity, for as much as concernes the constituting one a member of the Church, and the contrary is of dangerous consequence, as if by deadly sin, every Bishop, Prelate, Pastour, Priest, Prince &c. must necessarily cease to be members of Christs Church.

86. But here I must obserue two things. First; If entire profession of those supernaturall verityes, which God hath revealed in Christ, be essentiall to the Church: If the true Church cannot fall into Heresy, and that it is an impudent slander to affirme that Protestants say so; if the Church cannot hold any Hereticall Doctrine, and yet be a Church, as we haue heard out of Dr. Lawd, Whitaker, Fulke, and Field, respectivè, it followes, that the Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth, sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, whether it be of itselfe Fundamētall or not; because every such errour is Heresy, as contrarily we exercise a true Act of Faith, by believing a Truth, because it is testifyed by God, though the thing, of itselfe, might seeme never so small. And (Pag: 101. N. 127.) you speake to this very purpose, saying, [Page 520] Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an oppōsition to the Faith. And Potter (Pag: 97.) saith; The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written Word. And therfore whosoever willfully opposeth a judgment so well grounded, is justly esteemed an Heretik [...], not properly, because he disobeyes the Church, but because he yields not to Scripture sufficiently propounded, or cleared vnto him. And (Pag: 250.) Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded; there he that opposeth, is convinced of errour, and he who is thus convinced, is an Heretike. And (Pag: 247.) If a man by reading the Scriptures, or hearing them read, be convinced of the truth of any such Conclusion: This is a sufficient proposition, to proue him that gain-saieth any such truth, to be an Heretike, and obstinate opposer of the Faith. Field (Lib: 2. of the Church, Cap: 3.) sayth; freedome from Fundament all errour, may be found among Heretiks. From whence it followes, that errour against any Point of Faith, though not Fundamentall, is Heresy; and yourselfe (Pag: 23. N. 27.) say; There is, as matters now stand, as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture, which are not Fundamentall, as those that are. If then every errour, against any Truth sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God, be Heresy, and that, according to Fulke, the true Church of Christ can never fall into Heresy, and that, as Whitaker saith, the Church cannot hold any Hereticall doctrine, and yet be a Church, it followes, that either the Church cannot fall into any errour, even not Fundamentall, and so Protestants are Schismatiks, for leaving Her vpon pretence of errours; or that, it is no impudent slander to say, that Protestants say, the Church may fall into Heresy, as Fulke affirmes it to be, seing she may fall into errours against Faith, and all such errours are Heresyes. Besides, seing we haue heard Potter confesse (Pag: 97.) that the Catholique Church is carefull to ground all Her declarations in matters of Faith vpon the Divine Authority of Gods written word; how can they avoide the Note of Heresy, by opposing Her Declarations; or of Schisme by leaving Her Communion? By all which it is manifest, that Heretiks haue no constancy in their doctrine, but are forced to affirme and deny, and by perpetuall contradictions overthrow their owne grounds, and Assertions. Howsoever, for our present purpose, we haue proved, even out of Protestants themselves, that your parity between errours against Faith, and sins against Charity, is repugnant to all Divinity, seing externall profession of Faith, is necessary to constitute [Page 521]one a member of the Church, but Charity is not; and chiefly I inferr that the Catholique Church is not subject to any errour, though not Fundamentall, since it is confessed that shee cannot fall into Heresy, and every errour against any revealed Truth, is Heresy.

87. The second thing I was to obserue breifly is this. Charity Maintayned speaking expressly of errours in Faith, which are incompatible with the being of a true Church; you to disguise the matter, aske why errour may not consist with the holyness of this Church as well as many and great sins. Wheras Charity Maintayned did not speake of holyness, but of true Faith, which is essentiall to the Church, and every member therof, as justifying Grace, and Charity, and Holyness (in this sense) are not; since many grievous sinners are true members of the Church. We profess, I grant, in the Creed, The Holy Catholique Church, yet not so as every member of it must needs be holy by justifying Grace, but for many other important reasons; which are excellently declared in the Roman Cathecisme ad Parochos, vpon that Article of the Creed.

88. You aske: Where doth Dr. Potter acknowledg any such matter as you pretend? Where doth he say, that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word, or due administration of the Sacraments? Or where doth he say, that (from which you collect this) you wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to salvation?

89. Answer: It shall be proved herafter, to your small credit, that yourselfe, Potter, and other Protestants, acknowledg the Roman Church to be a true Church, and not to erre in any Fundamentall, and Essentiall Point; and it is cleare, that she could not be a true Church, vnless she had for the substance the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the Sacraments, which to be essentiall Notes of the Church, and without which, the Church ceases to be a Church, we haue proved out of Protestants; and then, how can the Roman Church conserve the Essence of a Church, if it want what is essentiall to a Church? Indeed you are inexcusable, to aske in this place this Question, seing in that very place which you cite, Charity Maintayned expressly alledges Potter seeking to free himselfe and other Protestants from Schisme, because they do not cut off from the Body of Christ, and hope of Salvation, our Church; which certainly they must doe, vnlesse they belieue that shee wanted nothing Fundamentall [Page 522]or necessary to Salvation.

90. In your next Page (264. N. 27.) you speake thus to your Adversary: In vaine haue you troubled your selfe in proving, that we cannot pretend, that either the Greekes, Waldenses, Wickleffists, Hussites, Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Abyssines were then the visible Church. For all this discourse proceeds from a false and vaine supposition, and beggs another Point in Question between vs, which is, that some Church of one denomination, and one Communion (as the Roman, the Greeke &c:) must be always, exclusively to all other Communions, the whole visible Church.

91. Answer. Charity Maintayned being to proue, that the Church of Rome, that is, all Visible Churches, dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chayre of Peter, (as he expressly declares himselfe) was that visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed; beside other reasons, proves it by a sensible Argument, ab enumeratione partium, that there was no true Christian Church or Churches, before Luther, except either those which agreed with the Roman, or which held wicked errours, condemned by Protestants themselves, which therfore they must deny to haue been members of their Church: and therfore we must either say, that Christ had no true Church on earth, or els that it was the Roman, and such as agreed with Her, and consequently, that Luther departed out of the Roman Church, taken in that sense, that is, out of the Catholique Church, there being then no other true Church. Now what thinke you, was this labour in vaine? Certainly it was not; whether we consider the end which I haue declared, or another of no small moment, connected with this; which is, as I touched aboue; That wheras Protestants were wont to make ignorant persons belieue, that before Luther they had some visible Protestant Church, and to that end would be naming, the Waldenses, Wicklefists, Hussits, and such others, Charity Maintayned demonstrated, that those men held damnable Errours, against both Catholikes and Protestants, and in many Points agreed with vs against Protestants, and therfore could not be Protestants, though they casually agreed with them in some Points. In the meane tyme, Protestants haue no reason to giue you thanks, for leaving them, and in fact acknowledging, that Charity Maintayned had evident reason for what he sayd, and that the old plea of Protestants, had no ground of truth.

92. You say, Charity Maintayned begs a Point in Question between [Page 523]vs, which is that some Church of one denomination must be always, exclusively to all other Communions, the whole visible Church. But with what modesty can you say this? Seing Charity Maintayned was so farr from supposing or affirming some particular Church of one denomination to be alwayes, exclusively to all other, the whole visible Church, that as you haue heard, he expressly, and purposely, declared himself to speak of all true Visible Churches, and not of the Roman Church, as it is taken for the particular Diocesse of Rome, and therfore that not any particular Church, but all true Churches, are the whole Visible Church.

93. Object 3. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 151. N. 2.) saith: Because Schisme will be found to be a division from the Church, which could not happen, vnless there were always a visible Church, we will proue, that in all Ages there hath been such a visible congregation of faithfull people. Against this, you object (Pag: 254. N. 2.) That, although there never had been any Church visible or invisible before this Age, nor should be ever after, yet this could not hinder, but that a Schisme might now be, and be a division from the present visible Church.

94. Answer. Charity Maintayned said truly, That seing Schisme is a division from the Church, it cannot happen (for that is his express word) but when there is a Church: not always, vnless there be always, a Church; never, if never there were a Church. If then for many Ages there was no Church, there could not happen a Schisme in all those Ages. The Fathers, Doctours, and Divines of all Ages, speake and treat of Schisme, as of a subject and sin, which morally and ordinarily, and always might happen, (and which de facto did happen too often, as Heresyes did, and were inpugned by the writers of every Age) which they could not haue done, if they had not supposed the Existence of a Church, through all Ages and Tymes: And much less would they haue done so, if they had ever imagined, that of sixteene hundred yeares and more, there was to be no true Church for the space of a thousand, within the compass of which tyme, many of those Divines did liue, and never dreamed that in Defining, and frequent treating of Schisme, they spoke of a thing only possible, and not incident to their present occasions, and so they had not in winter defined a rose, (which is your example (Pag: 260. N. 22.) to proue that a thing may be defined, though it be not existent) which they were sure to see the next ensuing summer, but rather a conceit little [Page 524]better than a Chimaera, or a non ens, which had once existed, though they could not tell how short a tyme, and then disappeared as if it had never been. And by this is answered, what you object in the sayd Page 260. against the saying of Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 165. N. 11.) That, all Devines by defining Schisme to be a division from the Church, suppose, that there must be a knowne Church from which it is possible for men to depart.

95. Object 4. (Pag: 254. N. 4.) you cite Charity Maintayned as saying thus: That, supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church, were guilty of Schisme, it is certainly consequent, that all who persist in the division must be so likewise; which, say you is not so certaine as you pretend. But the word certainly which you set downe as the word of Charity maintayned, and vpon which you ground your Objection, is not to be found in his words (Pag: 151.) which you pretend to alledge. Yet because the thing in it selfe is certainly true, let vs heare what you can object to the contrary. You say, they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall, do committ a great fault; wherof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration, and no the vtmost of their power oppose a chang, though to the former state, when continuance of tyme hath once setled the present.

96. Answer. It is no less then great prophaness in you, to make a parity between a Schisme from Gods Church, which is intrinsecè, and essentially vnlawfull, and alterations in a Civill or Ecclesiasticall state, for things accidentall, and of their nature indifferent. For, if you suppose those alterations to be of their owne nature vnlawfull, and sinfull, they can never be innocent, who continue them, nor can any continuance of tyme establish them. Luther and his followers, separated themselves from the Church, by sinfull profession of Faith, contrary in many Points to the beliefe of all Churches (for you suppose, for the present, that their separation was causeless and sinfull, which is to be noted) and will you say, it is lawfull to continue in a false profession of Faith, against ones conscience, because others haue begun it? How oftē do you profess, that it is alwayes damnable to dissemble, or speake against ones conscience in matters of Faith? Well then, if (vpon supposition) he be obliged to profess the whole Catholique Faith, he must among other Points belieue, that it is absolutely vnlawfull to communicate with Heretiks in their Sacraments, and that there can be no just [Page 525]cause, to liue out of the Communion of the Church, and that it is vnlawfull, either to begin or continue a division from Her, and that they are obliged to returne to Her Communion. And this I proue out of your owne words (Pag: 312. N. 112.) (it should be 113.) where you speake to Charity Maintayned in this manner: You spend a great deale of reading and witt, and reason against some men, who pretending to honour and belieue the Doctrine and Practise of the visible Church (you meane your owne) and condemning their forefathers who forsooke her, say they would not haue done so, yet remaine divided from Her Communion. VVhich men, in my judgment, cannot be defended. For, if they belieue the doctrine of your Church, then must they belieue this doctrine, that they are to returne to your Communion. And therfore if they do not so, it cannot be avoyded but that they must be a'vtocatacritoi. Behold, whosoever believes as we do, must also belieue, that they cannot continue this Schisme begun by others. I wish all would reflect vpon this grant, which evidence of truth hath drawne from you, though it hath cost you a contradiction against your saying, that a Schisme with vs might be begun with sin, and yet they be innocent who continue it. Your captious Words, that, Charity Maintayned should not haue written against these kind of men, in a worke which he professes to haue written meerly against Protestants, shall be answered in their proper place.

97. Object 5. Charity Maintayned (Part 1. Pag: 152. N. 3.) said Charity vniteth all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body, VVhich you say, (Pag: 255. N. 6.) is manifestly vntrue; for many of them haue no Charity.

98. Answer. Some would say, that it is hard to determine whether this objection hath more of the insolent, or proud, or malicious: But I abstaine from censures. What Charity Maintayned saied, was not his alone, but the Doctrine of all Divines, and in particular of the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas, whose express words he cited, wherin (2.2. Quest: 39. Art 1. in Corp:) he defines Schisme; A voluntary separation from the vnity of that Charity, wherby all the members of the Church are vnited. Peccatum, saith he, Schismatis propriè, est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intenditse ab vnitate separare, quam Charitas facit. In which words of this holy Doctour, you haue both the affirmation of Charity Maintayned and the reason therof; That as Heresy is opposite to Faith, so Schisme to Charity: and for that cause, Heresy and Schisme are two distinct vices. Otherwise, how will you [Page 526]distinguish them? In the same place, as also (N. 7.) Charity Maintayned alledges S. Austine, (Lib. 1. de Fid: ad Simp: Cap 10.) saying, Heretiks corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things: but Schismatiks by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity, although they belieue what we belieue. And (Lib: 1. de Serm: Dom: in Mon: Cap. 5.) Many Heretiks, vnder the name of Christians deceaving mens soules, do suffer many such things: but where there is not sound Faith, there cannot be justice. Neither can Schismatiks promise to themselves any part of this reward (Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice) because likewise where there is no Charity, there cannot be justice. The loue of our neighbour doth not worke evill: which if they had, they would not teare in peeces the Body of Christ, which is the Church. Do you not see that this Saint still opposes Heresy to Faith, and Schisme to that Charity, which vnites the members of Gods Church, in one mysticall Body which Schisme divides? Also the same Saint sayes (Ep: 204.) Being out of the Church, and divided from the heape of vnity, and the bond of Charity, thou shouldest be punished with eternall death, though thou shouldest be burned aliue for the name of Christ. Now if many of the members of the Church haue no Charity, as you say, they must be Schismatiks; or if they be not, they haue that Charity which Schismatiks want, and consequently it is vntrue, that they haue no Charity. Will you haue them be members of the Church, because they are not divided from her by Schisme, and yet not be members of the Church in regard they haue no Charity? Potter (Pag: 42.) saith; Though faith be kept entire, yet if Charity be wanting, the vnity of the Church is disturbed, her vnton dissolved. Schisme is no lesse damnable than Heresy. Why do you not object against your client, That, many members of the Church haue no Charity, and therfore that it is manifestly vntrue, that if Charity be wanting, the vnity of the Church is disturbed, her vnion dissolved, seing, men may be members of the Church, though they want all Charity, and consequently, if Charity be wanting, it is not necessary that the vnion of the Church must be dissolved? Or if you grant to Potter, that Charity is the cause that the vnity of the Church is not disturbed, and Her vnion not dissolved, what is this but to say with Charity Maintayned; That, All the members of the visible Church are by Charity vnited in one mysticall Body? Why is Her vnion dissolved, if Charity be wanting, but because by Charity it is conserved? You say (Pag: 273. N. 56.) That if we suppose a visible Church extant before, and when Luther arose [Page 527]conformable to him in all Points of Doctrine, necessary and profitable, then Luther separated not from this Church, but adjoined himselfe to it: Not indeed in place, which was not necessary, not in externall Communion, which was impossible, but by the vnion of Faith and Charity. If one should aske; how do you know that Luther had Charity; or whether he might not haue been a member of that imagined Church, though he had been in deadly sin? what would you answer? sure I am, whatsoever you answer for Potter, ād yourselfe, will confute your objection against Charity Maintayned, and shew how familiar Contradictions are with you; as in our present case you must either grant that Luther, if he chanced to be in deadly sin, could not vnite himselfe to that imaginary Church, or els that Charity is not necessary to constitute one a member of a Church; and consequently, that one may be a member of the Church, and free from the sin of Schisme, though he want that Charity, which is incompatible with deadly sin, and inseparable from justifying Grace, vpon condition, that he be innocent of that vice against Charity, which we call Schisme, and puts a man so farr out of Charity with the Church, or with his neighbour, as a member of the Church, as not to communicate with him in Sacraments, Liturgy, and publike Worship of God. Neither is there any necessity, that whosoever offends against a vertue, for example, Charity, must offend in all Excesses or Defects, or other offenses, that may be committed against it. To be a good Man, a good Citizen, a good Magistrate, are considerations very different, and separable one from another: And therfore Charity Maintayned (Chap: 5. N. 3.) told you, that our neighbour may be considered, either as one private person hath a single relation to an other, or as all concurre to make one company or congregation, which we call the Church: And who sees not, that a man who is in state of deadly sin, and therfore loves not God aboue all things, may loue his neighbour in such a degree, as not to wish or procure his death; as also one may want Charity to an other, as a private person, without separating from him as a member of one Church, in which they agree ād communicate.

99. Object: 6. (Pag: 255. N. 5.) You cite the words of Charity Maintayned as if he sayd: All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours, do coucurre to make one company, which is the Church. And then you add these words: Which is false: For, a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours, who are not members of the true Church.

100. Answer. It were strang, if you did not know, that in this [Page 528]particular, we haue no common or vniversall Tenet; neither can there be any difficulty in the thing it selfe, but the Question must haue much, only de nomine; and Bellarm: teaches, Faith to be necessary that one may be sayd to be vnited by internall vnion to the Body of Christ, which is the Church: And though he holds that secret infidells belong to the Church, yet he expressly declates, that some other Catholique Writers are of a contrary opinion; and (Lib: 3. de Eccles: Cap: 10.) He saith; We follow the manner of speaking of the greater number, declaring therby, this Question to be only de modo loquendi, of the manner of speaking. So farr is he from judging, the contrary to be repugnant to our grounds, as you intolerably overlash! But suppose it were, as you say: Where, I pray you, doth Charity Maintayned say, that the Catholike Church signifyes one company of Faithfull people; faithfull, I say, by internall Faith, and not only by the externall profession of it? He saith no such thing, as appeares by his words cited in the beginning of your Objection. And therfore, seing he doth not express, whether they must be faithfull by true internall Faith, or only by externall profession of the true Faith, but his words being generall, they are certainly true in all opinions; to witt, that Faith is required to make one a member of the Church, not determining, whether that Faith must be internall, or whether an outward profession be sufficient to that effect. Sure I am this is no faithfull dealing in you.

101. Object: 7. In this same (Pag: 255. N. 5.) You alledge Charity Maintayned as if he sayd: All those which a Christian ought to esteeme neighbours, do concurre to make one company, which is the Church: And then you add these words: which is false: For a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours, who are not members of the true Church.

102. Answer. Charity Maintayned never said, that all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours, do make one company which is the Church. But these be his words (Part: 1. Pag: 152. N. 3.) Our neighbour may be considered either as one private person hath a single relation to another, or as all concurre to make one company or congregation, which we call the Church. Is not all this evidently true? May not our neighbour be considered, either as he is a private person, or as a member of the Church, concurring with other members to make one congregation? De facto diverse persons concurre to make one Church, and therfore they may be so considered. But where doth Charity Maintayned say, [Page 529]all those which a Christian is to esteeme his neighbours, do concurre to make one Church? This particle (all) and the words (is to esteeme) are your falsifications not the words of Charity Maintayned, who spoke of Heresy, and Schisme, which can happen only amongst Christians: And therfore allthough even Pagans and infidells ought to be esteemed our neighbours, yet they cannot concurre to make one congregation which we call the Church, which were the words of Charity Maintayned. And so they could not enter into this consideration, but we may say in this case, what is it to me to judge of them that are without, (. 1. Cor: 5.12.?

103. Object: 8. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1 Pag: 154 N. 4.) saith: The Catholique Church signifyes one Congregation, or Community of faithfull people, and therfore implyes not only Faith, to make them faithfull believers, but also Communion, or common vnion, to make them one in Charity, which excludes separation and Division. Which words signify, that all the members of the Catholique Church must be vnited in such manner, as that they be not voluntarily divided one from another in Communion, against Charity, as we haue declared both out of Catholique, and Protestant Divines. You, (Pag: 255. N. 9.) cite him thus: All the members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be vnited in externall Communion: Which, say you, certainly cannot be perpetually true. For, a man vnjustly excommunicated, is not in the Churches Communion, yet he is still a member of the Church: And diverse tymes it hath happened, that particular men, and particular Churches, haue vpon an overvavalued difference; either renounced Communion multually, or one of them separated from the other, and yet both have continued members of the Catholique Church.

104. Answer. I haue declared aboue, the difference between separation from the Church by excommunication, even when it is valid, and just, and Division from it by Schisme. But if the Excommunication be vnjust and invalide, the party censured remaynes still a member of the Church, and partakes of all common suffrages, being really in her Communion, though he may be obliged to abstaine from some actions in foro externo and to be haue himselfe, as if he were truly excommunicated. But Schisme is a voluntary disobedience ād separation from the Communion of the Church against Charity. Separation by excommunication is voluntary only in causa, in the sinne for which it is imposed: Division by Schisme is voluntary in itselfe, as being the very Division [Page 530]itselfe from the externall Communion of the Church. You speake very confusedly in saying, That, particular men, and particular Churches either renounced Communion mutually, or one of them separated from the other, and yet both of thē continued members of the Catholique Church. If you meane only a verball separation, as I may tearme it, wherby one saith, or threatens, that he will haue nothing to doe with the other, you do but trifle, if afterward no effect follow vpon such threates, or words. For in that case we may say Protestatio contra facta nihil valet. But if really one part separate from the other in Sacraments, Liturgy, publike prayers and worship of God; then, for preventing further inconvenience, or a Schisme among faithfull people, the supreme Pastour vicar of Christ, and Successour to S. Peter, must interpose his Authority, giue Sentence, and command the erring party to submit; which if he refuse to do, he will grow to be divided not only from the particular Church which he opposed, but from the vniversall Church, whose Pastour he stubbornly disobeyes, and so becomes a formall Schismatike. For which cause Charity Maintayned (N. 5.) saied; The guilt of Schisme may be contracted not only by division from the vniuersall Church, but also by a separation from a particular Church, or Diocess, which agrees with the vniversall. Put case twoe particular diocesses or Churches refuse to communicate one with an other, when occasion offers it selfe, those twoe are neither members one of another, nor agree in externall Communion; yet they may agree with the Vniversall Church, and soe agreeing in a third, come to be vnited amongst themselves. One parte of a community is not a member of another part, but of the whole Body, with which it is supposed to communicate, and so you will find, that to be a member of a Community, and to participate in externall Lommunion of the same, do goe pari passu; and that therfore your Objection had no force, except to proue, as indeed it doth, the necessity of a living Judge in Gods Church to prevent Schismes, and command Vnion, and to giue vs a Rule to judg, what true Schisme is, and when it happens: For which cause S. Hierom (Lib: 1. contra Jovin:) affirmes that S. Peter was chosen to be Head of the Church, to take away occasion of Schisme, Inter duodecim (saith he) vnus eligitur, vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio.

105. Object 9. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Cap: 5. N. 3.) saith; Euery heretike is a Schismatike: which you say (N. 8.) he must acknowledg false in those, who, though they deny, or doubt of some Point professed [Page 531]by your Church and so are heretiks; you continue still in the Communion of the Church.

106. Answer. It is a shrewd signe, you want better matter, who object such triffles. First; though we should suppose Charity Maintayned to haue sayd, every Heretike is a Schismatike; and that Mr. Chillingworth saith the same, as indeed he doth (Pag: 339. N. 20.) in these words; Heretiks, I confesse do alwayes separate from the Visible Church; Either you must absolue Charity Maintayned from your owne accusation, or else condemne yourselfe, and answer your owne Argument. For, if every Heretike do alwayes separate from the Visible Church, every Heretike must be a Schismatike. But yet, Secondly; Charity Maintayned in the place you cite, affirmes nothing of his owne, but only alledges S. Thomas (22. Quest 39. Ar. 1 ad 3.) And therfore you cannot blame him if he cite that Saint aright, as I am certaine he doth; for I haue the Booke vnder my eyes at this present, and find the citation to be very punctuall. Neither is your objection of any force against S. Thomas. For, whosoever denyes or doubts of any Point defined by the Church (as you will say the same of any Point evidently contained in Scripture) and professes exteriourly such his errour, ceases to be a member of the Visible Church, and of our Communion, not only in Faith, but also in Sacraments, and Liturgy, from which he is excluded, by such a profession, as I proved aboue, that persons of different Faith cannot communicate in the publike worship of God. Besides, Excommunication inflicted vpon every Heretike, divides him from the Church, by a particular new title. If you suppose his Heresy to be meerly internall; as it is incompletly Heresy, in order to a Visible Church, of which we speake; so also inchoatiuè, it excludes him from externall Communion, that is, it deprives him in the sight of God, of merit to communicate in Sacraments, and if he approach to them, it is to his owne dānation; and if the Church could judge de occultis, he might be expelled from thē: In the meane tyme he does as a theefe, making vse of stolne goods; and so still there runs such a proportion between Heresy and Schisme, as that every heretike is a Schismatike, completely, or incompletely, perfectly, or inchoatiuè, according to the degree of his being an Heretike.

107. Object: 10. (Pag: 274. N. 56.) you say: Though the whole Church were corrupted, yet properly speaking, it is not true, that Luther and his followers forsooke the whole corrupted Church, or the externall Communion [Page 532]of it: but only that he forsooke that part of it which was corrupted, and still would be so, and forsooke not, but only reformed another Part, which Part they themselves were, and I suppose you will not go about to perswade vs, that they foorsooke themselves or their owne Communion. And if you vrge, that they themselves joyned to no other Part, therfore they separated from the whole: I say it followes not, in as much as themselves were a part of it, and still continued so: and therfore could no more separate from the whole, than from themselves. Thus, though there were no part of the people of Rome to whom the plebeians joyned themselves, when they made their secession into the Auentine Hill, yet they divided themselves from the Patritians only, and not from the whole people, because themselves were a part of this people, and they divided not from themselves. The like evasion you haue (Pag: 295. N. 94.)

108. Answer. How many shifts to decline a true confession? First, Protestants had cause to separate. 2. they are not excused by reason of the cause, or corruptions. For then, differēt Sects of Protestāts must separate from one another, no less than from vs, which sequele you deny. 3. They did not separate from the Church, though they did separate from the externall Communion of all Churches. 4. They separated not from the whole Church, because they separated not from themselves. Of the former evasions we haue spoken already. This last is not hard to be confuted.

109. First, it contradicts yourselfe. For (Pag: 273. N. 55.) you say As for the externall Communion of the visible Church, we haue without scruple formerly granted, that, Protestants did forsake it, that is, renounce the practise of some observances, in which the whole visible Church before them did communicate. Now, if the whole visible Church did communicate in corruptions, or was corrupted; by leaving those who were corrupted, they left all, or the whole Church, for those corruptions, which according to Protestants, happening de facto to be in the Liturgy, publike worship of God, vse of Sacraments, and the like, in which externall communion cōsists they left the externall communion of the visible Church, as we haue heard you grant in your owne words now cited.

110. Secondly: This evasion is but a begging of the Question, while you suppose, they who divided themselves from the rest, continued a Part of the Church, to the vnion and Communion wherof, externall Communion is essentiall, and therfore that being altered, it is impossible, that it remaynes the same Church, in order to all Parts, or [Page 533]that the dividers continue to be a Part of that former Church, but they become a whole Schismaticall conventicle, of their owne. Your errour proceeds, from not distinguishing between being a man, and being a member of the Church, as I declared hertofore. Suppose Luther and his followers, had denyed some Fundamentall Point of Faith, they had, even in your opinion, ceased to be a Part of the Church, but not of the Community of men, who before their separation, were also members of the Church; as Pagans, Turkes, Jewes &c: may be Parts of one Commonwealth, but not of one Church: Therfore it is one thing to remayne a Part of a Community of men, and another to be still a Part of Gods Church, whatsoever that Church be supposed to be, whether Roman, or any other. For, this principle, That agreement in externall Communion is necessary to make men members of the same Church, is vniversally true. Wherby is confuted your example of the Roman Plebeians: who, if they did separate from the rest, not only materially, in place, or the like, but also formally, in the Lawes, customes, and Government, they remained not Parts of the former Commonwealth, for as much as belonged to them; seing they wholy divided themselves, erecting a new Community, or Commonwealth, of their owne; though still they be Parts of the whole member of men, consisting of Patritians, and Plebeians, as you call them, which is the thing affirmed by vs; namely, that Luther and his fellowes ceased to be a Part of the former Church, and erected a new whole Community of their owne; and so your Argument comes to be retorted against yourselfe.

111. Thirdly. Wheras you suppose, that we will not go about to perswade you, that Luther and his followers forsooke themselves, or their owne Communion: I answer; I haue small hope to perswade you any truth, that may seeme to favour vs Catholiks; And, for others, I need not perswade them, to belieue that, which is evident of itselfe; namely that you will needs remaine in a perpetuall equivocation, not distinguishing, between being a man, and being a member of the Church, or between substance and accidents, or between the same man, considered phisically, and morally: Which even in your Principles, is cleare in one, who falls into any errour repugnant to some Fundamentall Article, and so instantly ceases to be a member of the Church, as he was before, and in that respect, is morally divided from himselfe, as much as, est, and non est, are opposite. If of the same reall common subject not destroyed, for example, of Socrates, we could [Page 534]say, existit & non existit, though for different tymes, we might truly say, that he were physically and really divided from himselfe: Now, the same subject is really capable of being and not being a member of the Church successively: Therfore we may say, he is divided from himselfe, and from his owne Communion. For, as S. Ambrose saith most elegantly (Lib: 7. in Cap: 15. Lucae,) of the prodigall Child: Peregrè profectus est in regionem longinquam. Quid long inquius est, quàm a se recedere; nec regionibus sed moribus separari; (not only in place, but in relation to a different and contrary mysticall Body, Community or Church) studiis discretum esse, non terris; & quasi interfuso luxuriae saecularis aestu (we may say in our case, charitatis defectu, & proximorum odio) divortia habere Sanctorum? (to be divided from the Church, the only seate of Saints on earth.) Etenim qui se a Christo separant (and Potter confesses, that whosoever separates himselfe from the Church, is divided from Christ) exul est patriae, civis est mundi. He is separated from the Church, and becomes a member only of the world, both as the world is taken for wicked men, divided from Christ, or as it signifyes the number of all men, as men; of which a Schismatike remaines a part, though not a part of the Church, as hath beene sayd.

112. Besides: in the Opinion of those Calvinists who teach that the whole Church could, and did perish (which is a damnable heresy, yet for explicating the nature of things, we may for the present suppose it, ad hominem) they who first separated themselves from the primitiue pure Church, and brought in corruptions in Faith, Practise, Liturgy, and vse of Sacraments, may truly be sayd to haue beene Heretiks, by departing from the pure Faith; and Schismatiks, by dividing themselves from the externall Communion, of the true vncorrupted Church, though it be supposed to be destroyed: therfore one may depart from his owne Faith, and remaine no more a part of that Body of which he was once a member, whether we suppose, that former Mysticall Body to be still existent, or to haue perished: which consideration of existing, or not existing of the Community from which one departs, is only materiall, and accidentall to Schisme consisting formally in division from the Communion of the Church, whether only preexistent, or existent also for the present. If it be sayd (Genes: 1. V. 5.) Divisit Lucem a tenebris, he divided the light from the darkness, by taking away, phisically or, as I may say, destroying one of the extremes (seing light, and [Page 535]darkness cannot stand together) much more may we say, that morally one may be divided from a Church, and from himselfe, though that Church cease to be, or still remayne; and he shall cease to be a member of it, even by that Division, though he cease nor to exist, or be a man, or himselfe.

113. And now appeares, that, what Charity Maintayned (Part 1. P: 204. N. 39.) sayd (That a Protestant may be a Schismatike from himselfe, because the selfsame Protestant to day is convicted in Conscience, that his yesterdays opiniō was an errour, with whō therfore a reconciliatiō according to Dr. Potters Ground (Pag: 20.) is both impossible ād damnable; is no strāg saying in itselfe, though yet, to make it appeare so, you (Pag: 303. N. 103.) do egregiously falsify his words, which are: From a mans selfe &c. (as much as is possible) which words (as much as is possible) you leaue out. And by the way, I wonder with what conscience you can pretend to inferr out of the words of Cha: Ma: That, they that hold errours, must hold them fast, and take speciall care of being convicted in conscience, that they are in errour, for feare of being Schismatiks. For, Ch: Ma: said only; with whom therfore a reconciliation according to Potters grounds is impossible and dānable: which is a cleare inference out of Potter, to shew, that a man may be irreconciliable with himselfe, and divided frō himselfe, in regard of his owne repugnant opinions, ād consequently a Schismatike from himselfe, if other conditions of Schisme do concurre, as for Exāple, that he leaue a revealed Doctrine by falling into Heresy, or forsake the Communion of that true Church, of which he was once a member, and so morally divide himselfe from himselfe.

114. Fourthly; Your speculation is directly against the holy Fathers. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 153. N. 3.) cites S. Hierome vpon these words (ad Titum 3. A man that is an Heretike, after the first and second admonition, avoyde) saying; Schisme doth separate from the Church, which you must say is not true, because they who separate are Part of the Church, and they separate not from themselves. And (N. 7.) the alledges S. Austine de gest: cum Emerit: saying; Out of the Catholique Church one may haue Faith, orders, and in summe, all things except salvation. This you will controle, and tell S. Austine, that none can be out of the Catholique Church, because they themselves are Part of that Church, and they cannot be divided from themselves. And N. 11. the same Saint is alledged, saying (in Psalm: 30. Conc: 2.) The Prophets spoke more obscurely of [Page 536]Christ, than of the Church: because as I thinke, they did for see in spirit, that men were to make partyes against the Church, and that they were not to haue so great strife concerning Christ: Therfore that was more plainly fortold, and more openly prophecyed, about which greater contentions were to rise, that it might turne to the condemnation of them, who haue seene it, and yet gone forth. If your Doctrine were true, none can go forth of the Church, because they cannot go from themselves. S. Fulgentius, cited N. 7. saith (de Fid: ad Pet:) Belieue this stedfastly without doubting, that every Heretike or Schismatike, baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, if before the end of his life, he be not reconciled to the Catholique Church, what almes soever he giue, yea, though he should shed his bloud for the Name of Christ, he cannot obtaine salvation. But how can any be reconciled to the Catholique Church, if he cannot be divided from her, Because he neither was, nor could be divided from himselfe? And that you may be convinced by all kind of witnesses, how could Calvin say, (Epist: 141.) we were forced to make a separation from the whole world; since he could not separate from himselfe? We must therfore say, that, whosoever divides himselfe from the Church by Schisme, separates from the whole Church, because by that separation, he ceaseth to be a member of the Church, and so the Church, which before was a Whole, of which he then was a Part, remaines in Herselfe, a Whole, but he no Part, by reason of his voluntary Division from Her; which, for the effect of his being, or not being, denominated a Part of the Church, is all one with corporall death: vnlesse you will covertly haue men belieue; that there can be no such imaginable thing, as Schisme from the whole, or vniversall Church, because the party separating himself from the Church, is still a Part of Her, in regard he is not divided from himselfe. And no wonder, if you make small account of Schisme, or Division from the Church, who think, and speak, so contemptibly of the Church, as we haue heard you (Pag: 294. N. 93.) speak even of the Catholique Church, in these words: What is it but a society, of men, wherof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company is, or may be, guilty of many sinnes daily committed against knowledg and conscience? Now I would faine vnderstand, why one errour in faith, especially if not Fundamentall, should not consist with the holyness of this Church, as well as many and great sins committed against knowledg and conscience? Which saying of yours hath bene confuted aboue.

[Page 3]

115. Object 11. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 196. N. 31.) saith Luther being but only one, opposed himselfe to All, as well subjects as superiours. Against this, (Pag: 291. N. 89.) you object, How can we say properly and without straining, that he opposed himselfe to All, vnless we could say also, that All opposed themselves to him? And how can we say so, seing the world can witness, that so many thousands, nay millions, followed his standard as soone as it was advanced?

116. Answer. This is no good dealing to impugne Charity Maintayned, for that very thing concerning Luther, for which, (Part. 1. Pag 161 N. 9.) he cited Luther himselfe, expressly saying (in Praefat: Operum suorum;) Primò solus eram At the first, I was alone. Now will you say to your Patriark; Alone? And yet so many thousands, nay millions, followed you. But surely, if so many millions followed him, so very early, they made much more hast, than they could make good speed; in a matter, so vncouth, strange incredible, of so high concerment, and so visibly repugnant to the doctrine, and practise of the whole vniversall Church of God; and therfore they must needs be lyable to that just censure of Holy Scripture; He who soone believes, is light of heart; that is, they could haue no Act of Divine supernaturall faith, which requires the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost, and this cannot be given to produce, or foster, such fooleryes, or imprudences. In the same manner, you take no notice of that which Cha: Ma: in the same Section cites out of Calvin (Ep. 141.) we haue been forced to make a separation from the whole world; nor aske him how he could say so without strayning; and how they made a separation from the whole world; nor how they could say so, seing so many millions followed them. But I beseech you consider, that even Luther himselfe for his owne opinions, and apostasy, proceeded by degrees, so farr, as that he pretended to submitt himselfe to the Pope. And then, how could so many follow him, at the first instant, when himselfe knew not what to follow? And at that tyme was he not alone; neither Catholike; nor setled in any other doctrine? And seing in those doubts, and doctrines, some tyme must passe, before he himselfe was setled, or could instill them to others, it is manifest, that he opposed himselfe to All Churches then extant, and then we must by your owne Rule say, that All opposed themselves to him, that is, they believed at that tyme those Articles, and embraced those rites, Liturgy, and publike manner of worshipping God, which he condemned: which is true, even of those who afterward were seduced [Page 538]by him; and so it is most true, that in the beginning he opposed himselfe to All, and All opposed themselves to him, as appeares by that which he further sayth (Ep: ad Argentinenses Anno 1525.) Christum a nobis primò promulgatum audemus gloriari. We dare glory, that Christ was first diuulged by vs. (Mark primo first) and Conrad: Schlusselburg, in Theolog: Calvinist: L. 2. saith; It is impudency to say, that many learned men in Germany before Luther, did hold the doctrine of the Gospell. The like sayings of others concerning Luther, may be seene in Ch: Ma: (P. 1. P. 267.) It is therfore true, that he opposed himselfe to All, and All to him.

117. Object 12. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. P. 202. N. 57.) to proue it vniversally true, that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ, alledges S. Austine, saying (Ep: 48.) It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion, from the communion of the whole world, and call themselves the Church of Christ, as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations vpon just cause. Against this Argument, you object thus, (Pag: 302. N. 101.) It is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world, another to separate from all the Communions in the world: One thing to divide from them who are vnited among themselves. Another to divide from them, who are divided among themselves, Now the Donatists separatet from the whole world of Christians, vnited in one Communion, professing the same Faith, serving God after the same manner, which was a very great Argument, that they could not haue just cause to leaue them: according to that of Tertullian, Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum, quod autem apud multos vnum est, non est erratum, sed traditum. But Luther and his followers did not so. The world, I meane of Christians and Catholikes, was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it; and by their divisions had much weakned their owne Authority, and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine, which stands vpō no other foundatiō, but the vnity of the whole worlds Communiō.

118. Answer. Ex ore tuo te judico. Your owne Answer overthrowes your owne doctrine. Whosoever separates from the Communion of the whole world, in that wherin the whole world agrees, separates from the Communion of the world, because, to vse your owne words, this is to divide from them, who are vnited among themselves, and is not; to divide from them who are divided among themselves: But Luther divided himselfe from the whole world, in points, wherin the whole world was vnited; therfore he divided himselfe from the [Page 539]Communion of the whole world,. The Minor; that Luther divided himselfe from the whole world, in Points wherin the whole world was vnited, that is (as Protestants falsely affirme) in errours and corruptions, common to the whole then visible Church, Charity Maintayned (Pag: .P. 61. N. 9. and P. 167. N. 12.) hath proved out of learned Protestants, as also we haue seene even now by the confession of Luther, Calvin, and Schlusselb: and the thing is cleare of itselfe, and even bragged of by Luther and his followers. Neither is there any speech more common among Protestants, then that the whole visible Church was corrupted; ād this is the reason which you, ād other Protestāts yeild in excuse of your leaving the Communion of all Churches: otherwise there could haue beene no pretence of a reformation. If, saith the Protestant, Gregorius Milius in Argumentâ Confessione (Art: 7. de Ec:) There had beene right believers which went before Luther in his office, there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation. Therfore the argument of ha: Ma, taken out of S. Austine, holds good and strong, no lesse against Luther, who separated from all Churches in Points wherin they were not divided, but vnited, than it was of force against the Donatists. Yea further, it proves, that those supposed errours, which Luther pretend to reforme, were indeed Orthodox truths, even by the Rule which you alledg out of Tertullian; variasse debuit error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos vnum est, non est erratum, sed traditum. Seing then, All Churches before Luther agreed in those doctrines, which he vndertooke to reforme, they cannot be errours, being the same, not only, apud multos, among many, as Tertullian speakes, but, apud omnes, among all Christian Churches in the world. And this reason taken out of Tertullian, growes stronger in our case, even by your saying, that, The world of Christians, and Catholiks was divided and subdivided long before Luther divided from it; because when so many, yea and all who otherwise are divided and subdivided, yet agree vnanimously in some Points, that very consent, amongst men, of so very different dispositions, affections, and opinions, is more then a very great Argument that Luther, and his followers, could not haue just cause to leaue them, as you argue against the Donatists. From whence it also followes, that you are in an errour of pernicious consequence, while you say (that Christians and Catholikes by then Divisions had much weakned their owne authority, and taken away from vs Catholikes this plea of S. Austine, which stands vpon no other foundation, but the vnity of the whole worlds Communion) seing this vnity yieldes a stronger argument [Page 540]in our present case, by the Divisions, and subdivisions, of which you talke, and therfore doth not takeaway, but strengthen our plea out of S. Austine. How familiar is it with you to overthrow yourselfe, and plead for your Adversary?

119. But this is not all. For, when S. Austine affirmes against the Donatists; It is not possible, that any man may haue just cause to separate their Communion, from the Communiō of the whole world; he could not ground his Asseveration, vpon any accidentall vnity in Communion, which might be altered, and which you say de facto is taken away, by Divisions, and subdivisions; but vpon a higher, and more vniversall, and stable Ground, that God hath obliged himselfe, never to permitt, the Gates of Hell to privaile against his Church, in such manner, as men not only might, but also should be obliged, to forsake her Communion: Otherwise S. Austines Argument had beene of no force, and only a Petitio principii, as being grounded vpon a Point, which was the thing in Controversy, between Catholikes, and Donatists, that is, (whether the Church at that tyme was corrupted) and therfore S. Austine, and other Fathers, did rely vpon an vniversall, ād constant ground, as I also observed, when I spoke of succession of Bishops. And the words of S. Austine can signify no less. For, he saith not, There is not any just cause, to separate from the Communion of the whole world, as if he spoke only of some present state and condition, or some accidentall, and changeable thing, but he saith absolutely: It is not possible that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world; wheras according to your glosse, it is not only possible, but you say that de facto there was just and necessary cause, to separate from the Communion of the whole world. This being so; I now inferr demonstratively, that seing it is not possible, that any may haue just cause, to separate from the Communion of the whole world, It is not possible, that the Church of the whole world, could fall into any errour, or corruption; and that Luther was a Schismatike, for leaving Her Communion, vpon a pretence, so false, and injurious, to God and his Church. Morover, this your answer doth vndoubtedly crosse your owne conscience. For you do not only belieue, that there were many errours in the Church of S. Austires tyme, as the beliefe of the B. Trinity, the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father &c: but you also affirme againe and againe, that S. Austine himselfe, and the whole Church with him, held a great errour, about [Page 541]the necessity of the Eucharist for children, wherin though you do perniciously erre, and wrong that Holy Father; yet in your judgment, the Donatists could not be truly convinced of Schisme, for leaving that Church, which you hold, to haue beene in an errour against Faith, in a Point of very great moment: Or if the Donatists could not separate from the Church of that tyme, though corrupted, what excuse could Luther haue, for his Division, from all Churches, of the whole world, vpon pretence of errours?

120. And here, that the world may see with what spirit you began to swell, in leaving the Catholique Church, I cannot omitt to reflect, how irreligously in this Page, and Section, you are bold with that great Doctour of Gods Church, that Conquerour of Heretiks, that Champion for Gods Grace, that Cherubin for knowledg, and that Seraphin for most ardent loue of God, glorious S. Austine.

121. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Cap: 5.) having cited the forsayd saying of S. Austine, (Ep: 48.) It is not possible, that any may haue just cause to separate their Communion, from the Communion of the whole world; adds this other sentence of the same Blessed Saint (de Bapt: Lib: 5. Cap: 1.) the most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent, when there was no cause of separation. To which sayings of S. Austine you giue this answer (Pag: 301. N. 101.) The second of these sentences seemes to me, to imply the contradiction of the first. For, to say, that the sacriledge of Schisme is eminent, when there is no cause of separation, implyes to my vnderstanding, that there may be a cause of separation. Now in the first, he sayes plainly, that this is impossible. But by your leaue, there is no such thing implyed in the words of S. Austine, as your vnderstanding, and will depraved, by pride, and Heresy, moue you to apprehend: And to facilitate your apprehension, it made for your purpose to abbreviate, or rather falsify S. Austines words, which are these, and are so cited by Charity Maintayned, whom you had read: The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent, when there was no cause of separation: As if he had sayd, in direct contrariety to your vnderstanding, and false glosse; it is always true, that Schisme is agrievous sin, but is most Manifest and Eminent, when there could not be pretended any true, or probable, cause of separation. I say, any true, or probable cause. For, you do not defend, but betray the cause of S. Austine, and of the Catholikes of his tyme, by saying, the Donatists did not deny, but that the publike service of God [...] at that tyme vnpolluted; wheras it is notorious, that they professed [Page 542]the whole Church, beside their particular congregation in Afrike, to haue perished, by reason that Catholikes did communicate with some men, who, as they falsely sayd, were guilty of great crimes: and if they held the Church to haue perished, how can you say, that they pretended no cause for their separation? Nay, how could they chuse but alledge for their excuse, a most convincing and necessary cause (if it had been true) the totall ruine, and destruction, of the Church; with which therfore it was wholy impossible, for them to communicate? Neither can it be denyed, but that they calumniated Catholikes, for communicating with Caecilianus, whom they falsly accused of partaking with them, who were called Traditors of the holy Bible to be burnt, though indeed not Caecilianus, but they themselves, were guilty of that crime. And beside this cause (which you do not deny) they objected to Catholiques, that they erred, in believing that Baptisme might be cōferred by Heretiques, and that they received, without competent pennance, those who in tyme of persecution, had denied Christ, and, saieth Potter (Pag: 125.) out of S. Austine (Epist: 167.) That the efficacie of Sacraments depends on the dignity of the Minister, that being no true Baptisme, which is not given by a just man.

122. As for that which you say the Donatists objected against Catholikes, that they set pictures vpon their Altars (and you speake of the same matter P. 334. N. 16.) you cannot but in your conscience know, that they meant such, as were to be worshipped with idolatry, which was a huge falshood and calumny, and therfore S. Austine, (Epist: 48.) saith, To how many did the reports of ill tongues shut vp the way to enter, (into the Catholike Church) who sayd, that we put, I know not what, vpon the Altar? And in this. I say againe, you cannot but speak against your owne conscience, seing you cite Optatus to proue your assertion, and yet he (L. 3.) expresly speaks of a fals report, venturos esse Paulum & Machariū (two Embassadours sent into Africa by the pious Catholique Emperour Constans) qui interessent Sacrificio, vt cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur, proferreat ill [...] Imaginem: (of the Emperour) quam primò in altari ponerent▪ sic Sacrificium offerretur. Do you not know the Doctrine of all Catholiques, that Sacrisice is due only to God? I beseech the Reader to reade Baronius (Ann. 348. N. 33.34.) I wonder how you durst, at that tyme, when you wrote, and published your Booke, write, that setting pictures in Churches, and vpon Altars, may yield just cause, to separate from a Church: at that tyme, I say, when pictures began to appeare in English Protestant Churches, even in the vniversityes: and still I haue fresh [Page 543]occasions of wondering that ever your Booke could be approved. Do not Lutherans to this day, set vp Images in their Churches? The wickleffists, and Hussites, and diverse learned Protestants allow of Images; yea and some defend even the worshipping of them, as may be seene in the Triple Cord, (Chapt: 17. Sect: 4.) as also, learned Protestants confesse, that diverse Fathers defended the vse and worship of Images; and that Xenaias was condemned, for being the first, that stirred vp warr against Images, which is witnessed by the Protestant Writer Functius. And Nicephorus (Hist: Eccles: Lib: 16. Cap: 27.) saith, Xenaias iste primus (ô audacem animam, & os impudens!) vocem illam evomuit; Christi, & eorum qui illi placuere, imagines venerandas non esse. See of this whole matter Brierley (Tract: 1. Sect: 3. Subdivis: 12. Pag: 124.) And (Tract: 1. Sect: 8. Subdivis: 2. Pag: 214.) And Bellar: (Tom: 2. de Reliq: Sanct: Lib: 2. Cap: 6.) saith, That, Xenaias was a Persian, and a barbarous fellow, yea and a fugitiue [...]: and though he was not baptized, yet faining himselfe a Christian, he crept into a Bishoppricke; And de notis Eccles: (Lib: 4. Cap: 9.) demonstrates out of S. Epiphanius, Lactantius, S. Basil. S. Greg: Nyssen: S. Paulinus, S. Athanas: and others, That pictures were wont to be placed in Churches. And S. Austine himselfe (Lib: 1. de consensu Evangelistar: Cap: 10.) witnesseth, that in his tyme, in many places, Christ was to be seene painted between the Apostles S. Peter, and S. Paul: And (Lib: 22. cont: Faust: Cap: 73.) he saith the same of the History of Abraham going about to sacrifice his Son. Now I beseech you tell me, whether vse of Images in Churches, be a sufficient cause of a Division from the Church, or no? If it be, then the Donatists might haue reason to depart from the Church, seing pictures were set vp both in, and before S. Austines tyme, and while (to vse your owne wordes) the whole world of Christians was vnited in one Communion, professing the same Faith, serving God after the same manner. If it were not; why do you in this place object to vs, the vse of Pictures, and say, that S. Austine to avoyd the objection of the Donatists (that Catholikes set Pictures vpon the Altar) answered only, by denying that to be true which they objected, as if they might haue beene excused from Schisme, if indeed Pictures had beene set vpon the Altar? And must Protestants, depart from the Communion, of all those their Brethren, who at this day defend the lawfullness, and practise the setting vp of Images in Churches? In the meane time, they who impugne the vse and worsh ip of Images, may consider in Xenaias, [Page 544]what Progenitors they haue. And heere to shew, how even by the light of naturall reason, the respect, or irreverence which is donne to the Image, redounds to the Prototypon, I cannot omit to set downe the words of Nazarius (in panegir: Constantini) in detestation of the fact of Maxentius, in defacing ād throwing downe the Images of Constantine: Ecce enim (proh dolor! verba vix suppetunt) venerandarum Imaginum acerba dejectio, & divini vultus litura deformis. O manus impiae! ô truces oculi! ita non calligastis? In quo lumen mundi obsucrabatis, meritas ipsi poenas non imbibistis? Nihil profecto gravius, nihil miserius Roma doluisti. What then shall we say, of Iconoclasts, or Image-breakers, or Image-despisers, not of mortall men, as Constantine was then, but of the Saviour of the world; his Blessed Mother; and Saints, now glorious in Heauen? O England, reflect, and repent!

123. But not in this place only, you are impudently bold with glorious S. Austine. For, (Pag: 259. N. 20.) you say; All that S. Austine saith is not true. And: I belieue heat of disputation against the Donatists, and a desire to [...]er-confute them, transported him so farr, is to vrge against them more than was necessary, and perhaps more than was true. But it is no wonder, if notorious Schismatiks, as you are willingly take occasion, to defend such famous Schismatikes, as the Donatists were, and to do it covertly and ex obliquo, when you are ashamed to vnmaske yourselfe, and proclaime it directly and openly. And this your desperate evasion declares sufficiently, that S. Austine was clearly with vs, in that place which Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 164.) cited out of him: as also in that other place, which he cited (Pag: 165.) wherof you say in your same (Pag: 259. N. 20.) I cannot but wonder very much why he (S. Austine) should thinke it absurd for any man to say, There are sheepe which he knowes not, but God knowes, and no less at you for obtruding this sentence vpon vs, as pertinent proofe of the Churches Visibility. And (Pag: 119. N. 163.) you say; To S. Austine in heat of disputation against the Donatists, and ransacking all places for Arguments against them, we oppose S. Austine out of this heate, delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmely and moderatly: And (Pag: 168. N. 64.) S. Austine when he was out of the heate of disputation, confesses &c. If any aske, why Socinians are so averse from S. Austine; I answer; because in his workes, he doth so often, so zealously, and so learnedly, defend the Uisibility, Perpetuity, Amplitude, Infallibility, and Authority of Gods Church, and with Arguments, so direct against all our moderne Heretikes, and [Page 545]Socinians in particular, as it is impossible, one can be a friend to that holy Doctour of Gods Church, and an enemy to the Church of Rome. A consideration of great comfort, that we defend the same cause, and suffer with a Person, so holy and learned, as Protestants, when their owne cause is not touched, are wont to preferr him before all other Ancient Fathers.

124. Object: 13. Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap 3. N. 20. Pag: 107.) proves, That, seing Protestants grant, that the Church cannot erre in Points necessary to salvation, any wise man will inferr, that it behooves all, who haue care of their soules, not to forsake her in any one Point. First because though she were supposed to erre, yet the errour could not be Fundamentall, nor destructiue of Faith, and salvation. Neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring (if it were possible) with the vniversall Church. 2. Since she is, vnder paine of eternall damnation, to be believed in some things, wherin consessedly she is indued with infallibility; I cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of less moment. 3. Since we are obliged, not to forsake the Church in Fundamentall Points, and that there is no Rule to know precisely, what, and how many those Fundamentall Points be, I cannot without hazard of my soule, leaue her in any one Point; least perhaps that Proue to be Fundamentall, and necessary to salvation. 4. That Visible Church, even that Church, which confessedly cannot erre in Points Fundamentall, doth without distinction, propound all her desinitions concerning matters of Faith, to be believed vnder Anathemas, or Curses, holding it as a Point necessary to salvation, that we belieue she cannot erre: wherin if she speake true, then to deny any one Point in particular, which she defineth, or to affirme in generall, that she may erre, puts a man in state of damnation: wheras to belieue her in sch Points as are not necessary to salvation, cannot endanger our salvation; as likwise to remayne in her communion, can bring no great harme, because she cannot maintayne any damnable errour, or practise; but to be divided from her (she being Christs Catholique Church) is most certainly damnable. 5. The true Church, being in lawfull, and certaine possession of Superiority, and Power to command, and require obedience, from all Christians in some things; I cannot without grievous sin, withdraw my obedience in any one, vnless I know evidently, that the thing commanded, comes not within the compasse of those things, to which her Power extendeth. And who [Page 546]can better informe me, how far Gods Church can proceed, then Gods Church herselfe? Or to what Doctour can the children, and Schollers with greater reason, and security, fly for direction, than to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians? In following her, I shall sooner be excused, than in cleaving to any particular Sect, or Person, or applying Scriptures, against Her Doctrine, or interpretation. 6. The fearfull examples of innumerable Persons, who forsaking the Church vpon pretence of her errours, haue fayled, even in Fundamentall Points, and suffered shipwrack of their salvation, ought to deterr all Christians from opposing her in any Doctrine, or practise: As (to omit other both ancient and moderne heresyes) we see, that divers chiefe Protestants, pretending to reforme the corruptions of the Church, are come to affirme, that for many Ages, shee erred to death, and wholy perished; which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamentall errour, against that Article of our Creed, I belieue the Catholike Church, as he affirmeth it of the Donatists, because they confined the vniversall Church, within Africa, or some other small tract of soile; Least therfore I may fall into some Fundamentall errour, it is most safe for me, to believe all the decrees of the Church, which cannot erre Fundamentally; especially if we add; that, according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines, One errour in Faith, whether it be for the matter itselfe, great, or small, destroyes Faith; and consequently to accuse the Church of any one errour, is to affirme, that she lost all Faith; and erred damnably: which very saying is damnable, because it leaves Christ no Visible Church on earth.

125. These are the reasons of Charity Maintayned in the sayd (N. 20.) which I wish you had set downe, as you found them; that the Reader might haue judged, how much they ought to weigh, with every one, who hath a serious care to saue his soule. Sure I am, they are growne stronger, by your Objections, as will appeare to any indifferent Reader.

126. Your chiefest, and, as I may call it, Fundamentall Answer; is, That I begg the Question, in supposing that any Church of one denomination is infallible in Fundamentall Points, and that Protestants, when they say the Church is infallible in fundamentall Points, vnderstand only, That there shall be alwayes a Church, to the very being wherof it is repugnant that it should erre in Fundamentalls. [Page 547]But I haue shewed hertofore, that you wrong even your pretended Brethren the Protestants, in fastening on them, so ridiculous an interpretation of the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points; and therfore I must still insist vppon that ground, in the sense which Protestants grant, and which I haue proved to be true. Which truth being supposed, yourselfe are forced to favour vs, so farr, as to say (Pag: 163. N. 55.) We never annexed this Priviledge (of not erring in Fundamentalls) to any one Church of any one Denomination, as the Greeke or the Roman Church: which if we had done, and set vp some setled, certaine Society of Christians, distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our guide in Fundamentalls, then indeed, and then only, might you with some colour, though with no certainty haue concluded, that we could not in wisdome, forsake this Church in any Point, for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point. And in the next (N. 56.) you say; First we confesse no such thing, thas the Church of Rome was then this Church, (vnerring in Fundamentalls when Luther arose) but only a Part of it. Secondly, that if by adhering to the Church, we could haue beene thus far secured, this argumēt had some shew of Reason. And (P: 150. N. 39.) If the Church were an infallible director in Fundamentall: thē must we not only learne Fundamētalls of her, but also learne of her, what is Fundamentall, and take all for Fundamentall, which she delivers to be such. In the performance wherof, if I knew any one Church to he Infallible, I would quickly be of that Church. Eternally be Gods Infinite Goodness blessed, who hath made vs Catholikes members of that infallible Church! But in the meane tyme, you grant as much, as will serue, to overthrow all your owne Arguments, in granting that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentall Points, we haue all reason not to forsake Her: And you giue that very Reason which is alledged by Charity Maintayned to wit, for feare of forsaking it in a necessary point; so that you make good both his Assertion, and reason therof; and further you are ready to seale your Doctrine with your practise, by being quickly of that Church. Heere I beseech you remember your owne words (Pag: 280. N. 95.) May not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted, as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted? And then; suppose such a Church should erre in Points not Fundamentall, what would you doe? The same reason (of not erring in Fundamentalls) for which you would quickly joyne yourselfe to her, would also oblige you nor to forsake her; and then you must find some Answer to all those Objections, which you make against the Reasons of Charity Maintayned, alledged [Page 548]by him to proue, that if once I belieue the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls, I cannot in wisdome forsake her in any Point, or parte from her Communion. If you thinke it impossible, not to sorsake her Communion, in case she fall into Errours not fundamentall, and yet belieue that you must not forsake her, (which is a plain Contradiction) there remaines only this true, and solid remedy, against such an inextricable perplexity; that you belieue her to be infallible in all Points, be they Fundamentall, or not Fundamētall; which is a certaine Truth, and followes from the very Principles of Protestants, (that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls) if they vnderstand themselves, though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth. Yea my inference (that you must belieue the Church to be infallible in all Points, even not Fundamentall, if you belieue her to be infallible in Fundamentalls,) is your owne Assertion (P. 148. N. 36.) Where you expressly grant, that, vnless the Church were infallible in all things, we could not rationally belieue her for her owne sake, and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing. For, an Authority subject to errour, can be no firme or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing: And if it were in any thing, then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls, I should haue the same reason to belieue all, that I haue to belieue one; and therfore must either do vnreasonably, in believing any one thing vpon the sole warrant of this Authority, or vnreasonably, in not believing all things equally warranted.

127. You say, the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church vnerring in Fundamentalls before Luther arose. But I would know, what other Church, could be such an vnerring Church, except the Roman, and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach. Certainly there was none such; and therfore since Protestants profess, that the vniversall Church is infallible, we must say, it was the Roman, togeather with such as were vnited in her Communion. This Ground being layd, and your maine Objection being retorted against your selfe, let vs now examine in particular your other Objections.

128. You aske (Pag: 164. N. 56.) Had it not been a damnable sin, to [...]rofess errours, though the errours in themselves were not d [...]mnable? Then, (N. 57.) You goe about to proue, that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things, ha [...]ng no other ground for it, but because she is infallible in some things, that is, in Fundamentalls, because, in reason, no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is [Page 549]be founded. And therfore if I consider what I do, and be perswaded, that your infallibility, is but limited, and particular, and partiall, my adherence vpon this ground, cannot possibly be Absolute and vniversall, and totall. This you confirme with a Dialogue, which adds nothing to the reason, which now I haue cited in your owne words, saue only, that it proves at large, that which we chiefly desired to be granted: That, if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamentall Articles, as Protestants say she is, we must belieue her to be infallible in all Points. In the end of this Dialogue you say, It may be very great imprudence, to erre with the Church, if the Question be, whether we should erre with the present Church, or hold true with God Almighty.

128. In the (N. 60.) You say; Particular Councells haue bene liberall of their Anathemas, which yet were never conceaved infallible. And (N. 61.) For, the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation, that we belieue she cannot erre, you know no such tenet, And (N. 62.) God (in Scripture) can better informe vs, what are the Limits of the Churches Power, then the Church herselfe. And (N. 63.) That some forsaking the Church of Rome, haue forsake Fundamentall Truths, was not because they forsooke the Church of Rome; for els all that haue forsaken that Church, should haue done so; which we (Protestants) say they haue not; but because they went too far from her. It is true, (say you in the name of Protestants) if we sayd, there were no danger, in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madness to leaue it. But we protest, and proclaime the contrary. And (N. 64.) You say; It was no errour in the Donatists, that they held it possible, that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser; nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa. But their errour was, that they held de fact [...], this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so, and so vpon a vaine pretence, separated themselves from the Communion of all other parts of the Church: And that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church, that he should be of their Communion, and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided: Which was a condition both vnnecessary and vnlawfull to be required, and directly opposite to the Churche [...] Catholicisme. You add morover, that, Charity Maintayned neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many Ages; neither hath proved, but only affirmed it to be a Fundamentall errour, to hold, that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world, [Page 550]and abolished for a tyme from the face of the earth. And (N. 65.) You say; To accuse the Church of some errour in Faith, is not to say she lost all Faith: but he which is an Heretike, in one Article, may haue true Faith of other Articles. These be your objections, which being diverse, and of different natures, the Reader may not wonder, if I be somwhat long in answering them. Therefore, I

129. Answer: In this Question; (whether it be not wisdome, and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point, if she be supposed infallible in Fundamentall Points;) we may either speake, First; of things as they are in themselves; or, secondly; according to the grounds of Protestants, or ad hominem; or thirdly; what we may, or ought to inferr vpon some false, and impossible supposition (as this is, that the Church may erre in Points not fundamentall,) differently, from an inference, proceeding from a suppofition of a truth: or fourthly; what may or ought to be chosen, at least as minus malum, when there intervenes a joynt, and inevitable, pressure of two, or more evills. This Advertisment premised.

130. I answer to your demand (whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errours, though in themselves not damnable?) that a parte rei, and per se loquendo, it is damnable to profess any least knowne errour against Faith: and for that very cause, it is impossible the Church should fall into any errour at all: But that I haue proved already, that according to the Groundes and words of Protestants, it is not damnable to do so, if the errour be nor opposite to some Fundamentall Truth; and consequently, that they ought in all Reason, to adhere to the Church, acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamentall Points, rather than forsake her communion, for Points not necessary to salvation; especially with danger of forsaking her in some necessary Point. Or if you say; It is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian to belieue whatsoever is sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God, as Dr. Potter grants, and the thingh it selfe is evidently true; then you must either affirme, that the Church did not erre in any Point of Faith, or els that she erred Fundamentally, and ceased to be a Church, which is against your present supposition, and against Potter, who (P. 126.) teaches that to say the church remayned only in the part of Donatus, was an errour in the matter and nature of it properly hereticall. And much worse must it be, to say, she remayned [Page 551]no where; and so while you pretend to fly the fained errours of the Church, you fall into a formall and proper heresy.

131. If we consider what may be inferred, not absolutely, but vpon some impossible supposition; That the Church erres in Points of Faith not Fundamentall; we must inferr, that she may be forsaken, because she erres in matters of Faith; and yet may not be forsaken, because as we have seene out of the Holy Fathers, it is never lawfull to forsake the Church. What then is to be concluded, but that (as I haue sayd hertofore) she cannot erre, and therfore cannot be forsaken vpon any termes? Divines teach, that at least per se loquendo, non potest dari perplexitas, that is, there cannot happen a case wherin a man, whatsoever he doth, is sure to commit some sinfull thing, (because it is a first principle in nature, that nothing is is more in our freedome, than to sin, or not to sin.) And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen; if the Church could erre, that is, one must judge that she were to be forsaken, and not to be forsaken, and so remaine miserably perplexed. We must therefore, for avoyding this absurdity, conclude, that the Church cannot erre in any matter of Faith.

132. But yet (to come to the last part of my Advertisement) If we persist in the supposition; That one is perswaded, the Church doth erre, must he therfore forsake her communion, as Luther and his fellowes did? In no case. For then we must call to mynd, the Doctrine of Divines, in case of perplexity: that if one be in a vincible, or culpable errour, for one of the contradictory parts, it is in his power, and he is obliged, to depose that errour; which if he do not, he shall not be excused from sin, notwithstanding his perplexity, and seeming excuse of a necessity to sin whatsoever he does. If we suppose his errour to be invincible; for example, he beleeves the Church may not in any case be forsaken, and yet that she erres, and that he should sin, in pro-, fessing those supposed errours; this supposition, I say, being once made (I dispute not whether such a perplexity be possible in this particular matter, or no) then enters the Doctrine of all Divines, that he is obliged to embrace the lesser evill, and to follow the generall Axiome, exduobus malis, minus est eligendum: as we see, nature exposes the arme to defend the head: And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda. And therfore your saying (Pag: 283. N. 72.) We must not do evill to avoide evill, taken vniversally, and in all cases, is manifestly false, against the light of Reason; and your allegation of Scripture (Pag: 168. N. 63.) [Page 552]you must not do evill that good may come theron, is not to the purpose. For, we speake not of attaining, a voluntary greater good, but of avoiding a greater evill, necessary to be committed, vnless a lesser evill be embraced. This then being certaine, that in case of perplexity, one is obliged to embrace the lesser evill, the Question may remaine, whether by doing so, he is excused from all fault, or only from being guilty of that greater sin, which he avoides, by choosing the lesser. Certaine it is, that he committs not so grievous a sin, as if he had betaken himselfe to the other part. But diverse great Divines, (as Amicus: Tom: 3. D. 15. Sect: 3. N. 43. Tho: Sanch: Tom: 1. in Decalog: Cap: 11. N. 14. & alij,) are of opinion, that he commits no sin at all; because in that case of invincible Perplexity, it is not in his power to avoide that which otherwise were a sin, and can be none in him, because every sinne essentially requires freedome of will. He harh, say they, freedom to chuse either of those two parts, taken as it were materially, or considered per modum naturae, but not formally, and morally, so to chuse them, as to avoide sin absolutely, seing he must of necessity chuse one side; and therfore by embracing the lesser evill, he does as much, as lyes in his power to doe for avoiding sin, and consequently, is not culpable, or blameworthy. Now according to these Doctrines; whosoever leaves the Church vpon pretence of errours not Fundamentall, cannot be excused from Schisme, because to profess such errours, had been either a lesse sin, than to leaue the Church, and so, in the opinion of all Divines, he was obliged to embrace that less evill, and not leaue the Church; or it had been no sin at all, in the opinion of diverse good Divines, and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church, without any necessity at all. Yea, seing this last opinion is probable, he might prudently conforme his conscience to it, and by that meanes free himselfe, from, not only sin, but also from danger therof, by following a probable, and prudent dictamen, that to profess errours not Fundamentall, were no sin at all, in that case, and vpon that supposition, of insuperable perplexity. Nay, I say more, that if this latter opinion of Divines be true, a man shall not sin, though he be of a contrary mynd, and thinke in his conscience, that he sins by choosing the lesser evill, though not so grievously, as he had done by adhering to the other part. My reason is; because this latter opinion, is grounded vpon the impossibility, which the perplexed person hath to avoide sin, and one cannot sin, in doing that, which he cannot avoide, though by an erronious [Page 553]conscience he judge that he sins; as if one cannot heare Masse vpon a holy day; or kills a man, with a weapon violently put into his hand, and with his hand by like violence carryed to that fact: in those, or the like cases, no sin is committed, though the partyes should thinke they sin; And this is true, though that part, or less ill which is embraced, be intrinsecè malum, evill of it self, or of its nature, (which is well to be observed, for our case, of professing knowne errours, which of it selfe is evill) because no sin, of any kind, can be committed, when it is impossible to avoid it. According to which considerations, to elect the profession of errours, rather then the desertion of the Church, is not only secure, but certaine, and easy, and therfore necessary. Thus your mayne Objection is turned against your selfe. And then it is further inferred; that if it either be no sin, or at least a less offense, to profess errours, than to forsake the Church; she may justly exact, and injoyne vnder Censures, that, to which every one is obliged by the Law of God, notwithstanding any pretence or supposition of errours. For, when the Holy Fathers, vnanimously agree, that it is not possible, there can be any just cause to forsake the Church, they must suppose, that either she cannot fall into any errour, which is most true, (and indeed they suppose it; otherwise there could be no difference betweene the vniversall, and a particular Church, which may fall into errour, and so be forsaken) or els you must grant, that they did not conceiue any eriours could excuse the leaving her Communion. And this vnanin [...]ous consent alone were sufficient for Christians to belieue, that the profession of errours cannot be so great an evill, as separation from the Church, is. Nevertheless, reason it selfe, grounded in principles of Faith, convinceth the same. For, in true Divinity, it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian, not to disbelieue any one point, sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, as Potter expressly grants; and you say further, that it is to giue God the ly: and therfore to profess, as a point of Faith, any thing contrary to the beliefe of the Church, is to say she erred fundamentally, and fell into infidelity, as Potter saith, every one doth who denyes a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed, and consequently to profess, that the Church erred, is to say, that she perished, which Potter saith, is, in the matter and nature of it, properly hereticall; and so, Whosoever saith the Church erred, he himselfe, by that very saying, professes indeed a damnable heresy, which is worse, than to profess an errour contrary only to a Truth supposed to be not [Page 554]Fundamentall, nor necessary: and so by your owne confessions (though I grant your confessions contradict yourself) we proue our intent.

123. Besides, it is no less evident, that it is essentially and Fundamentally evill, to disbelieue a truth knowne to be witnessed by God, than to profess externally some point, which one believes not to be true: yea that first, must be the ground, for which you say, it is damnable, to profess against ones conscience, an errour repugnant to Divine Revelation. For, if it be not damnable to deny interiourly such a truth, much lesse can it be damnable to profess exteriourly only, a deniall of that which one believes to be revealed by God. For, it is to be considered, that we speake not of any internall errour, but only of the externall profession of an errour, not Fundamentall, which alone is not so great a sinne, as internall Heresy, nor so vast a Mischiefe, as the inconvenience of Schisme is, which is destructiue of the whole Church, essentially including communion in profession of one Faith, Liturgy &c. and necessarily brings with it a deluge of scandall, irreligiosity, contempt, disobedience, and in one word, vniversitatem malorum, and therfore S. Thomas teaches (2.2. Quest: 29. Art: 2. ad 3.) that amongst sins against our neighbour, Schisme is the most grievous: because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or community: and as Cha: Ma: saith (Part: 1. Pag: 156. N. 6.) As there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion, or sedition, and debates among private men, as there is inequality betwixt one man, and a whole kingdome, or Common wealth; so in the Church, Schisme is as much more grievous than sedition in a Kingdome or Common wealth, as the spirituall good of soules surpasses the Civill and politicall weale. See here the sayings of the Holy Fathers in Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 157. N. 70.) of the grievousness of Schisme. All which is confirmed by what we sayd even now, that the profession of an errour, in our case, cannot so much as hurt a private person, who constituted in an invincible perplexity, doth not sin by embracing the less evill, in the opinion of great Divines, with whose Doctrine whosoever conformes his Conscience, is certaine not to sin, whatsoever the thing be in it selfe.

134. Morover, it is evident both in reason, and by experience, that Schisme always brings with it, that very thing which you pretend to be so very inconvenient, and damnable, that is, a profession of errours, at least not Fundamentall, by multiplying diversity of Sects, [Page 555]and opinions, as we see it happens among Protestants, some of who [...] must be in an errour. And S. Hierome saith truly vpon those words of the Apostle (which some casting of, haue suffered ship wrack in their Faith) though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be vnderstood different from heresy, yet there is no Schisme which doth not faine some Heresy to it selfe, that so it may seeme to haue departed from the Church vpon good reason. And is it not worse, both to belieue and profess culpable errours, than to belieue aright, and faile only in the outward profession of that beliefe? The former makes one a formall compleat Heretike, both in conscience, and judgment of the Church: the latter is indeed no Heretike, but only appeares so to be, neither is he subject to the punishment of Heretiks. The former offends in two respects; in the beliefe of an errour, and profession of it. The latter, only in profession, which alone, as I saied, cannot be so sinfull as the errour of Heresy it selfe; both because the profession is sinfull, only by reason of the errour professed; as also, because by heresy one doubts, or denyes some truth revealed by God, which is immediatly against Gods supreme Uerity and veracity, and so is against an Object of a Theologicall Uertue; as S. Thomas saith (2.2 Quest: 39. A: [...]. c.) Infidelitas est peccatum contra ipsum Deum, secundum quod in se est veritas prima, cui fides innititur: But to profess a knowne errour, is only against the precept of professing ones Faith, which are distinct thinges; and therfore, as I sayd, a culpable errour is worse, than the only profession of an errour. If you thinke, that such an externall profession, is worse than an internall errour, because that is against ones conscience; you are much mistaken; it being certaine, that not every sin of dissimulation, against ones conscience, is greater than any other sin; as is cleare of it selfe, to every Divine, or Philosopher: yea the externall sinfull profession of an errour, flowes from the Heresy itself, which ordinarily is a worse roote, than humane feare, hope, or the like, from which an externall false profession, or dissimulation, is wont to procede, and therfore this is less damnable, than that, even though it were a finne, and were not excused by the supposed invincible perplexity, as we have Shewed it may be. S. Thomas (2.2. Quest: 39. Art: 2. in corpore) teaches, that Infidelity ex suo genere is a greater sin than Schisme, yet adds this exception, It may happen that some Schismatike may commit a greater sin, than some infidell: either by reason of greater contempt, or the greater danger which he brings, or for some [Page 556]like thing. If this Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas say this, comparing Schisme with true infidelity, much more may we affirme it, if we consider true Schisme on the one side, and on the other, only a false appearance, or meere externall profession of errour, or heresy. As for those limitations of S. Thomas, they may seeme to be prophecyes, if we apply them to Luther and his fellowes, in regard of the contempt, which they shewed of all Prelats, and the whole Church; of the, not only danger, but reall, and vnspeakable mischiefes, which their Schisme did bring; and of moreand greater inconveniences, than could haue been believed or imagined, if the world did not see, and lament them. So as we may well speake to them in the words of Ch: Ma (P. 1. P. 187. N. 23.) What excuse can you faine to yourselves, who for Points not necessary to salvation, haue been occasions, causes, and authors of so many mischiefes, as could not but vnavoidably accompany so huge a breach, in Kingdomes, in Commonwealths, in private persons, in publike Magistrates, in Body, in soule, in goods, in life, in Church, in the state, by Schismes, by war, by famine, by plague, by bloud shedd, by all sorts of imaginable calamityes vpon the whole face of the Earth, wherin, as in a mapp of Desolation, the heaviness of your crime appeares, vnder which the world doth pant?

135. Some learned Divines speaking of invincible Perplexity, giue this Doctrine; that, if I must either committ a veniall sin (in a matter which of it selfe, and per se loquendo, is only veniall, for example, an officiously) or expose my selfe to danger of a mortall sin, I am obliged to chuse the lesser evill (which in opinion of great Divines, were in that case no sin at all) rather than put my selfe in danger of the greater evill, a deadly sin. O into how certaine danger, doth a Schismaticke precipitate himselfe, (beside the sin of Schisme) of committing innumerable deadly sins, and of being cause, that innumerable other persons fall into the like offences, against God, and his neighbour! And therfore men are obliged, rather to vndergoe a less evill, than to make themselves, obnoxious, to infinitly greater mischiefes, and rather to profess exteriourly an errour, not distructiue of salvation, than to forsake the Communion of Gods Church, within which, God hath confined Remission of sins, and Salvation. Consider what we haue cited out of your owne words (Pag: 163. N. 56.) If by adhering to the Church, we could haue been thus far secured, (not to erre in Fundamentalls) this Argument (that in wisdome we must forsake the Church [Page 557]in nothing, least we should forsake her in some thing necessary) had some shew of reason; and what you say (N. 55.) We never annexed this Priviledge (of not erring in Fundamentalls) to any one Church of any one denomination: Which if we had done, and set vp some setled certain society of Christians for our Guide in Fundamentalls, then indeed, and then only, might you with some colour, though with no certainty, haue concluded, that we could not in wisdome, forsake this Church in any Point, for feare of forsaking it in a necessary Point. In these words you grant, that if any Church of one denomination, were knowne to be infallible in all Fundamentall Points, we might conclude, though not certainly, yet probably, that you could not in wisdome forsake her in any Point, for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point. If the inference of Charity Maintayned be probable by your confession (vpon that supposition of infallibility in some determinate Church, for Fundamentall Points) then you must grant, that all objections to the contrary may be answered, which I pray you doe; and tell vs whether in that case it should be damnable to profess any knowne errour? If it be damnable; then you must forsake the Church in such Points; which yet you say, in wisdome one could not doe: If it should not be damnable; you must shew how it was not so: and whatsoever you alledge for the defense of professing knowne errours, and adhering to the Church, even in that case, will serue for defense of vs, and a confutation of your owne objections against vs. Besides you say, Charity Maintayned might haue some colour and reason in the case proposed (of some determinate Churches infallibility in Fundamentalls) to conclude, that we could not in wisdome forsake such a Church in any Point, for, feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point. From which confession I inferr; first that if in wisdome one ought not forsake in any Point a Church infallible in fundamentalls, for feare of forsaking her in a necessary Point, much more they ought to conforme themselves to her in externall profesion; and consequently, that it is a greater evill to forsake her communion, than to profess externally some vnfundamentall errour; and, Secondly that for feare of incurring a greater evill, that is (in our case) a Fundamentall errour, one may and ought to chuse the less; which is the thing I haue endeavoured to proue, and which vtterly evacuates the ground for which you pretend to excuse Luther, and his followets. Morover; If you meane, that one is not to profess any errour against his Conscience, but that also he ought his submitt to judgment in all Points to a Church [Page 558]lieved to be infallible in Fundamentalls, then you overthrow your owne ground and words (N. 57.) that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things having no other ground for it, but because she is infallible in some things, that is, in Fundamentalls; because in reason, no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded. And therfore if I consider what I doe, and be perswaded, that your Infallibility is but limited, and particular, and partiall, my adherence vpon this ground, cannot possible be Absolute, and vniversall, and Totall. Thirdly; vpon this your owne grant, it followes clearly, that Luther could not in wisdome forsake all Churches, because Protestants grant that all Churches, or the whole Church, cannot erre in Fundamentall Points, and therfore in wisdome could not be forsaken in any thing at all; not that your first Protestants can be excused from Schisme in doing so. But againe, if they were obliged to submitt their judgment to the Church, and had done so (as indeed they ought to haue done) their professing a Faith contrary to that of the Church, as Luther did had been also to profess an errour contrary to their owne conscience: and so whatsoever you say, you are confuted by your owne grounds which appeares more by these your express words (Pag: 280. N. 95.) What man of judgment will thinke it any disparagement to his judgment to preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes? And therfore though Protestants haue some Errours, yet seeing they are not soe great as yours; he that concei [...]es it any disparagement to his judgment to change your Communion for theirs, though confessed to haue some corruptions, it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgment. Do not these words declare your opinion, that in case of perplexity, when of two Evills one must be chosen, it is judgment, and consequently no sinne, to make choise of the less? This is the very thing which I haue alledged out of Divines, and which obliges you to answer your owne argumēt against Charity maintayned. This your chiefest objection being answered, confuted, and retorted, let vs examine the rest.

136. You say (Pag: 164. N. 57.) It is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church m [...]ll things, having no other ground for it: but because she is infallible in some things, that is, in Fondamentalls.

137. Answer. Although indeed, if once we suppose that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall, it be an evident consequence, that we can never belieue the Church in some things, vnless, we belieue her in all, and so your objection is of no force; yet Charity Maintayned [Page 559]never sayd, that one may adhere to the Church in all things, precisely and formally, because she is infallible in some things; which in speculation and good Logicke, had been like to this Argument: Mans vnderstanding is infallible in some things, for example, in the most vniversall knowne principles, as, that two contradictoryes cannot be true: or that every whole is greater than a part therof, and the like: Therfore I am to belieue, mans vnderstanding to be infallible in all things. But he spoke morally, and pro subjectâ materia, and therfore sayd expressly; seing Protestants grant the Church to be infallible in Points necessary to salvation, any wise man will inferre, that it behooves all, who haue care of their soules, not to forsake her. Where you see; he speakes of what were to be done in wisedowne, and for the safety of ones soule, and considers tkings (as in this subject they ought to be considered) in a morall, not in a Logicall; or Metaphisicall way, That the Church being confessedly infallible, in all necessary Points, men must consider well, how they leaue her in any point, least perhaps, either that point wherin they forsake her, be a Fundamentall point, or els least they may fall into some Fundamentall errour, after they haue left her; as also, that seing they rely on her Authority in Fundamentall Articles, it is no wisdome to suspect her credit in matters of less moment; especially considering the many examples of those, who de facto forsaking the Church, haue fallen into damnable, and Fundamentall Heresyes: and in a word; seing there may be great danger in leaving the Church, and damnation cannot be feared by adhering to her, which I am sure neither doth, nor can erre in Points necessary to salvation, there may be great harme in leaving, but no hurt in fellowing Her, in all that she proposes, as matter of Faith: which is your owne grant, as we haue seene aboue, in these words (Pag: 168. N. 63.) It is true if we sayd, there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madness to perswade any man to leaue it. Now that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall or necessary Points, I will proue herafter out of your owne words, out of Potter, and other Protestants; and therfore it was madnesse to perswade men to leaue Her.

138. These, and the like morall, and prudentiall Arguments, Charity Maintayned vrged: which truly in a matter concerning Eternity, ought to mooue every one; and more, than meere Metaphysicall speculations. And that this discourse of Charity Maintayned was very [Page 560]reasonable, yourselfe make good in your words which I haue cited, that if there were set vp some setled society of Christians, for our guide in Fundamentalls, then, Charity Maintayned might with some colour, and shew of reason, haue concluded, that we could not in wisdome forsake this Church in any Point for feare of forsaking Her in a necessary Point. What Mr. Chillingworth? For feare of forsaking Her in a necessary Point? What colour of reason can there be in this your feare? Seing we haue heard you tell vs (P. 164. N. 57.) It is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all things, having no other ground for it, but because she is infallible in some things. And what will become of your vaine Dialogue in this same section, wherby with great pompe of words, you endeavour to prove, that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all thingr, hauing no other ground &c? Is it not cleare, that you contradict yourselfe, and are engaged to answer all the Arguments, which you object against Charity Maintayned for saying, that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentalls, it is no wisdome to leaue her in any Point? Can one judge, that there is reason for that which the same man is confident (which is your owne word Pag: 165. N. 57.) may be demonstrated to be false? And by this appeares, that your whole discourse (N. 63.) is against this your owne grant. Neither do we say, that vniversally, one must stick to one side, for feare of going too far towards the other; but that, when there is no harme, in embracing one part, and evident danger in forsaking it, in such a case, we cannot forsake one part, and goe to the other; that is we cannot forsake the Church in Points, not necessary for salvation: because we may chance to leaue her in some Fundamentall Point; which even yourselfe grant to be a rationall deduction, if once it be supposed, that any particular Church is infallible in Fundamentall Points, as Protestants commonly grant, the vniversall Church to be infallible in such Articles: and therfore, as I sayd aboue, Luther and his fellowes could not in wisdome forsake the vniversall Church in any one Point. Morover remember what you write (Pag: 277. N. 61.) in these words: Neither is there any reason, why a Church should please herselfe too much, for retaining fundamentall truthes, while she remaines regardless of others. For, who is there that can put her in sufficient caution, that these errours about profitable matters, may not according to the vsuall fecundity of errour, bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent, and vndermine by secret consequences, the very foundations of Religion and Piety? If this be true of the vniversal [Page 561]Church, which is infallible for Fundamentalls: much more may we say of any private person (who hath no such priviledg of infallibility) forsaking the Church in some Point of Faith; Who is there can put him in sufficient caution, that these Errours about profitable matters, may not according to the vsuall fecundity of Errour, bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent, and vndermine by secret consequences, the very fundations of Religion and Piety? And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to say, that the Church ought not to be forsaken in any least Point, least perhaps that proue to be Fundamentall. Neither can you say, that Protestants were certaine, that the Points wherin they left the Church, were errours. For, to omit the reasons which I haue already giuen here, I must put you in mynd, that diverse learned chiefe Protestants agree with vs in very many, yea, I may say, in all the maine differences, betwixt Protestants and vs: And therfore your preence of so great evidence, and certainty against the Doctrine of the Roman Church, is meerly voluntary and verball. And besides, I would know, how the Church can be supposed to be infallible in fundamentall Points, and yet may be in danger to fall into such errours as are pernicious and pestilent, and vndermine the very Fundations of Religion and Piety?

139. These maine dissicultyes being taken away, your other Objections, cited aboue, are answered, by only mentioning them. The Question is not, whether we should erre with the present Church, or hold true with God Almighty, as you vainly speak; but whether the word, and will of God Almighty, be better vnderstood, and declared to vs by Gods vniversall true Church, or by any private person or particulat Sect.

140. If particular Churches haue been liberall of their Anathemas, which yet were never conceaved infallible: What is that to the Anathemas, of the vniversall Church granted to be infallible in fundamētall points, in which whosoever disobeyes her, puts himselfe in state of damnation. And seing you confess, that men cannot know what points be fundamentall, it followes, that we cannot with safety disobey her in any one point, for feare of leaving her in some fundamentall Article.

141. That the visible Church of Christ holds itselfe to be infallible, cannot be doubted; seing even her enemyes belieue she cannot erre in fund mentall Points, and she proposes all her definitions of faith to be believed, without distinguishing betweene Points fundamentall, and [Page 562]not Fundamentall: which she could not doe without great temerity, and injury to Faithfull people, if she did not hold herselfe to be vniversally infallible. Of which point Ch: Ma (P. 2. Ch: 5. N. 20. P. 132.) spekes at large, in answer to a demand or objection of Potter: and in vaine you say; God (in Scripture) can better informe vs what are the limits of the Churches Power than the Church herselfe. For, the Question is only whether God will haue his meaning in Scripture, declared by the Church, or by every mans private spirit, wit, or fancy. Besides, God declares his sacred pleasure, not only by the written, but also by the vnwritten word.

142. That there is no danger in being of the Roman Church, Protestants must affirme, who hold, that she had all things necessary to salvation, as shall appeare herafter: and whosoever denyes it, must grant that Christ had no Church vpon Earth, when Luther appeared: and that there is danger to leaue her, experience makes manifest, by the infinite multitude of different Sects, and opinions, wherof all cannot be true and so must be esteemed a deluge of Heresyes.

143. The Heresy of the Donatists, did consist formally, in this; that the Church might erre or be polluted, and by that Meanes giue just cause to forsake her communion. For, if without any such errour in their vnderstanding, they did only de facto separate by the obstancy of their will, they were indeed Schismatikes, but not Heretikes, as not dividing themselves from the Church in Matter of Faith: And yet Potter saieth they were properly Heretiques. Yea if it be not an Heresy to say in generall, that the Church may erre, and be corrupted or polluted; to say, that in such a particular case she is corrupted, comes to be only a matter of History, or fact whether she hath done so, or no; but it is not a point of Faith, and so is not of a nature sufficient to constiute an Heresy; supposing, as I saied, it be once granted, that she may erre: For example; the Donatists gaue out, that the Catholique Church was defild, by communicating with those who were called traditors: The Heresy consists precisely in this Point; That the whole Church may be corrupted, and so give just cause to be forfaken; not in that other Point, whether, or no (the possibility of the thing being supposed) de facto Catholikes did communicate with those traditours. Since therfore it is supposed by you, ād affirmed by Potter, that the Donatists were heretiks, their heresy must cōsist in this; that the Catholique [Page 563]Church spredd over the whole world, might erre, and be polluted. And is not this the very heresy of Protestants?) And do they not pretend, to leaue the Church, vpon this same ground, that she erred? And this particularly is evident, in those Protestants, who say, the whole visible Church before Luther, perished; The names of which Protestants may be seene in Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. N. 9. Pag: 161.) and more may be read in Brierley (Tract: 2. Ca: 3. Sect: 2.) And therefore I wonder, you would say, that Charity Maintayned had not named those Protestants who hold the Church to haue perished for many Ages. That it is a fundamentall errour, of its owne nature properly hereticall to say, The Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world, is the Doctrine of Potter, as we haue seene; as also, that Whitaker calls it a prophane heresy; and more Protestants may be seene to that purpose in that place where we cited Whitaker: And Dr. Lawd holds it to be against the Article of our Creed, I belieue the Holy Catholique Church; and that to say, that Article is not true, is blasphemy.

144. That he which is an Hererike in one Article, may haue true Faith in other Articles, is against the true and common Doctrine of all Catolique Divines, and vniversally against all Catholikes, to say, That such a Faith can be sufficient to salvation; because his very heresy is a deadly sin; And therfore to say, the Church can erre, in any one point of Faith, is to say, the whole Church may be in state of damnation for faith; which is an intollerable injury to God, and his spouse the Church. For, if she may be in state of damnation, by any culpable errour, she must be supposed to want some thing necessary to salvation; namely, the beliefe of that truth which such culpable errour denyes. But more of this herafter.

145. By the way. How can you say (N. 56.) to Charity Maintayned; That, when it was for his purpose to haue it so, the greatness or smallness of the matter was not considerable, the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all. For, where doth Charity Maintayned say, That evidence of the Revelation is all in all? Yea, doth he not expressly teach Part: 1. Chap. 6. N. 2.) that evidence is not compatible with an ordinary Act of Faith, and therby proves (N. 30.) that Protestants want true Faith?

146. Object 14. Charity Ma [...]ntayned in diverse occasions, affirmes, or supposes that Dr. Potter, and other Protestants teach, that the Roman Church doth not erre in any Point Fundamentall, or necessary to salvation: and this you say diverse tymes, is not true.

[Page 564]

147. Answer. I will not say, as you (Pag. 76. N. 63.) speake to Charity Maintayned: I feare you will repent the tyme, that ever you vrged this Point against Charity Maintayned; but contrarily, I hope, that the Reader, if he be not a Protestant, will find just occasion to prayse God that the Answer to this your Objection, will demonstrate to him in how safe a way we Catholikes are, even by the confession of our Adversaryes; and how much it imports him, to place his soule in the like safety.

148. I haue already, vpon severall occasions, mentioned some passages, wherin you and Dr. Potter confesse that the Roman Church, wants nothing necessary to salvation. Now I will doe it more at large. Potter (Pag: 63.) saith; The most necessary and fundamentall Truths, which constitute a Church are on both sides vnquestioned: And for that reason, learned Protestants yield them (Romanisis, as he calls vs) the name and substance of a Christian Church. Where we see, that he saith in generall learued Protestants yield them &c. In proofe wherof, he cites in his margent, Junius, D. Reinolds, and sayes, See the juagment of many other writers, in the Advertisement annexed to the Old Religion, by the Reverend Bishop of Exeter; and adds; The very Anabaotists grant it. Fr. Ichnson in his Christian plea, (Pa: 123.) So that with this one Testimony of Potter, we haue many other, even of our greatest Adversaryes. And I desire the reader to obserue well, that here (P:62) he saith; To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed, este [...]med a sufficient Summary of wholsome Doctrine, they (Catholikes) haue added many more. Such are, for instance, their Apocryphall Scriptures, and vnwr [...]ten dogmaticall Traditions, their Transsubstantiation, and dry Communion, their Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, Latine service, trafficke of Indulgences; and shortly, the other new Doctrines and Decrees canonized in their late Synode of Trent. Vpon these and the like new Articles, is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants. And then he adds the words which we haue cited; The most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constatute a Church, are on both sides vnquestioned; and for that &c. Where we see he grants, we belieue the twelue Articles of the Apostles Creed, which he teaches at large, to containe all Fundamentall Points of Faith; and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamentall truths which constitute a Church. Therfore, those Points of our Doctrine which he giues for instance, are no Fundementall errours, nor the contrary Articles, necessary and Fundamentall truths: and [Page 565]yet he names all the Chiefest Points controverted betweene vs: and Protestants; even transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, and Latine Service, which are the things they are wont most to oppose; yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Councell of Trent. Therfore we are free from fundamentall errours, by the confession of our Adversaryes. (Pag: 59.) The Protestants never intended to erect a new Church, but to purge the Old. The Reformation did not change the substance of Religion, but only clensed it from corrupt, and impure qualityes. If the Protestants erected not a new Church, then ours is still the Old Church; and if it were only clensed from corrupt qualityes, without change of the substance, the substance must be still the same that it was, and that which was, must be the same with that which is. (Pag: 61.) The things which the Protestants belieue on their part, and wherin they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprized, are most, if not all of them, so evidently and indisputably true, that their Adversaryes themselves do avow and receaue them as well as they. Therfore we Catolikes haue the life and substance of Religion. (Pag: 60.) In the prime grounds of Principles or Christian Religion wee haue not forsaken the Church of Rome. Therfore you grant that we haue the prime grounds, or Fundamentall Articles of Religion. (Pag: 11.) For those Catholique Verityes which she (the Roman Church) retaines, we yield her a member of the Catholike, though one of the most vnsound and corrupt members. In this sense, the Romanists may be called Catholikes. Behold, we are members of the Catholike Church, which could not be, if we erred in any one fundamentall Point. By the way: If the Romanists may be called Catholikes, why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholique? And yet this is that Argument, which Protestants are wont to vrge against vs; and Potter in particular, in this very place, not considering that he impugnes himselfe, while he speakes against vs, nor distinguishing between vniversall, as Logicians speake of it, (which signifyes, one common thing, abstracting, or abstracted, from all particulars) and Catholique, as it is taken in true Divinity, for the Church spred over the whole world, that is, all Churches which agree with the Roman, and vpon that vaine conceit, telling his vnlearned Reader, that vniversall and particular, are termes repugnant, and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other; that is, say I; Catholique cannot be affirmed of Dr. Potter, nor Dr. Potter sayd to be a Catholike, because a particular cannot be sayd to be vniversall, [Page 566]or an vniversall. (Pag: 75.) To depart from the Church of Romē, in some doctrines and practises, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. (P: 70.) They (the Roman Doctours) confess that setting aside all matters controverted, the maine positiue truths wherin all agree, are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian, both for his knowledge, and for his practise, teaching him what to belieue, and how to liue, so as he may be saved. His saying, that the Roman Doctours confesse, that setting a side all matters controverted &c. is very vntrue: it being manifest, that Catholikes belieue, Protestants to erre damnably, both in matters of Faith, and practise; yet his words convince ad hominem, that we haue all that is necessary, yea and abundantly sufficient, both for knowledg, and practise for vs to be saved. And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherin we differ from Protestants, saith (Pag: 74.) If the mistaker will suppose his Roman Church and Religion purged from these and the like confessed excesses and noveltyes, he shall find in that which remaines, little difference of importance betweene vs. Therfore de facto we belieue all things of importance which Protestants belieue. After these words, without any interruption he goes forward, and sayes (Pag: 75.) But by this discourse, the Mistaker happily may belieue his cause to be advantaged, and may reply. If Rome want nothing essentiall to Religion, or to a Church, how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church, or free themselves from damnable Schisme? Doth not this discourse proue, and the Objection, which he rayses from it, suppose, that we want nothing essentiall to Religion? Otherwise, this Objection which he makes to himselfe, were clearly impertinent, and foolish, if he could haue dispatched all, by saying, we erre in essentiall points, which had been an evident, and more than a just cause, to justify their separation: which yet appeares further by his Answer to the sayd Objection; That to depart from a particular Church, and namely from the Church of Rome, in some Doctrines and practises, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing ne [...]essary to salvation. And afterward in the next (P. 76.) speaking of the Church of Rome; he saith expressly: Her Communion we forsake not, no more than the Body of Christ, wherof we acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a member, though corrupted. And this cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme, whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation, the Church from which it separates. But if she did erre in any [Page 567]one Fundamentall point, by that very errour she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ, and should be cut of from the hope of salvation; therfore she doth not erre in any Fundamentall Point (P. 83.) we were never disioyned from her (the Church of Rome) in those maine essentiall truths, which giue her the name and essence of a Church. You must then say, that she erres not in any Fundamentall Point. For, the essence of a Church, cannot consist with any such errour. And that it may appeare, how desirous he is that it should be believed, Catholiks and Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion, he adds these words immediatly after those which we haue last cited: wherof if the Mistaker doubt, he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholique Writers. One of France, who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved (as be believes) the Hugonots and Catholikes of that Kingdome to be all of the same Church, and Religion, because of the truths agreed vpon by both: And another of our Country (as it is sayd) who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors, both Papists and Protestants, who are all of the same mynd. Thus you see, he ransacks all kind of proofes, to shew that Catholikes and Protestants differ not in the substance, and essence of Faith, and to that end cites for Catholike Writers, those two who can be no Catholiks, as Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap: 3. Pag: 104.) shewes the former in particular to be a plaine Heretike, or rather Atheist, Lucian-like, jeasting at all Religion. (Pag: 78.) he saith; we hope and thinke very well of all those Holy and devout soules, which in former Ages lived and dyed in the Church of Rome. Nay, our Charity reaches further to all those at this day, who in simplicity of heart belieue the Roman Religion and professe it. To these words of the Doctour, if we subsume; But it were impossble, that any can be saved, even by Ignorance, or any simplicity of heart, if he erre in a Fundamentall point (because as by every such errour, a Church ceases to be a Church, so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Churchs) the Conclusion will be, that we do not erre in any Fundamentall point. Nay (Pag: 79.) he saith further, we belieue it (the Roman Religion) safe, that is, by Gods great Mercy, not damnable to some, such as belieue what they professe: But we belieue it not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable to such as profess it when they belieue (or if their hearts were vpright, and not perversely obstinate, might belieue) the contrary. Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved; we are even safe, vpon condition, we belieue that Faith to be true which we professe, and [Page 568]for which we haue suffered so long, so great, and so many losses, in all kinds; which if we did vndergoe, for extetnall profession of that Faith, which we do not inwardly belieue to betrue, we should deserue rather to be begged for fooles, than persecuted for our Religion. In the meane tyme, every Catholike hath this comfort, that he is safe, (even by the confession of an Adversary) if he be not a foolish dissembler, which would be cause of damnation in a Protestant, or any other. Even the profession of a truth, believed to be false, is a sin. But I returne to say; it were impossible for any Roman Catholike to be safe, vpon what condition soever, if we erre in any one Fundamentall Article of Faith. Here I must briefly note, that wheras Dr. Potter in the words now alledged, saith; It is not damnable to some, and then to declare who those some are, adds, such as belieue what they profess; Chillingworth (Pag: 404. N. 29.) leaves out the distinction, or comma, placed betweene some and such, and puts it after damnable. Thus: Not damnable, to some such as beleue what they professe; which words may signify, that it is not safe to all such as belieue what they professe, which may much alter the sense of Potters words, as the Reader will perceiue by comparing them.

149. Now Sir, who will not wonder, at your so often declaiming against Charity Maintayned, for saying; Dr: Potter taught, that the Roman Church doth not erre in Fundamentall Points? But what if your selfe say the same? It is cleare you do so. For, wheras Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 15. N. 13.) saith: Since Dr. Potter will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true Church of Christ, distinct from the Church of Rome, and such Churches as greed with her, when Luther first appeared, I desire him to declare, whether it do not follow, that she hath not erred Fundamentally; because every such errour destroyes the nature and being of a Church, and so our Saviour Christ should haue had no visible Church on Earth: To these words (which you thought fit to set downe very imperfectly) you answer (Pag: 16 N. 20.) In this manner: I say, in our sense of the word Fundamentall, it does follow. For, if it be true, that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman, then it must be, either because there was no Church at all, which we deny; or because the Roman Church was the whole Church, which we also deny: Or because she was a part of the whole, which we grant. And if she were a true Part of the Church, then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errours [Page 569]which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it. For, this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique. In our sense therfore of the word Fuudamentall, I hope she erred not Fundamentally: But in your sense of the word, I feare she did. That is, she held some thing to be Divine Revelation, which was not; some thing not to be, which was. You haue spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church, and not only affirmed, but proved that she did not erre in any Fundamentall Point, that I need not say one word to ponder your words, or declare the force of them. (Pag: 7. N. 3.) You expressly approue the saying of Dr. Potter, That both sides by the confession of both sides, agree in more Points then are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation, and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary. Therfore, do we inferr, Catholikes belieue all that is necessary to salvation, and more. But we can never yield so much to you. (Pag. 85. N. 89.) You confesse the Roman Church to be a Part of the Catholique Church; And we haue heard you say (Pag: 16. N. 20.) If she were a true Part of the Church, then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and beld no errours which were inevitably and vnpardonably destructiue of it. For, this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church, a member of the Church Catholique. This you say, and make good the like inference, which I made by occasion of Dr. Potters words, that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholique; and other like Assertions of his. (Pag: 163. N. 56.) You say: From Scripture we collect our hope, that the Truths she (the Roman Church) retaines, and the practise of them, may proue an Antiaote to her against the errours which she maintaines in such persons as in simplicity of hart follow this Absalon. These Points of Christianity, which haue in them the nature of Antidots against the poyson of all sins and errors, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retaines; therfore we hope she erreh not Fundamentally, but still remaines a Part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to vs to thinke with her in all things: Seeing the very same Scripture which puts vs in hope she errs not Fundamentally, (marke how you professe to learne, even out of Scripture, that we erre not Fundamentally) assures vs, that in many things, and those of great moment, she errs very grievously. And these errors though to them that belieue them, we hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of them against conscience, could not but bring to vs certaine damnation. Therefore, the Points in which we differ from Protestants, being acknowledged [Page 570]not to be Fundamentall, and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience, we are safe by your owne Confession. If we did not belieue as we profess, we were no Roman Catholikes. In the same place you say expressly, De facto we hope the Roman Church does not erre in Fundamentalls; yea you say, (Lin: 33.) Perhaps she does not erre damnably, the contrary wherof you affirme so often. You example of Absalon, was very ill applyed to the Roman Church, which did not rebell from you, but you against the whole Church (the Mother of all Christians) more sacrilegiously, than Absalon behaved himselfe wickedly to wards his father. (Pag: 404. N. 29.) you approue Dr. Potters saying (Pag: 79.) which I cited aboue that the Roman Religion is safe, that is, not damnable to some, such as beleeue what they professe. And in the same place you say we may hope that she retaines those Truths which are simply, absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvatio [...]. (Pag: 401. N. 27) We approue those Fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine, by which, some good soules among you may be saved, but abhorre your many superstitions and heresyes. The Truths you retaine, are good, and, as we hope, sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you, to salvation, yet are not to be sought for in the conventi le of Papists. If any soule may be saved in our Religion; it is cleare that we hold not any Fundamentall errour, with which no soule can be saved. (Pag: 277. N. 61.) you say: The simple defect of some Truths prositable only, and not simply necessary, may consist with salvation. Seing therfore you haue so often confessed, that we erre not in Fundamentall Points, our errours in some Truths profitable only, and not fundamentall, may consist with salvation. How then do you say to Catholiks, (Pag: 401. N. 27.) As for our freeing you from damnable Herely, and yielding you salvation, neither He, (Dr. Potter) nor any other Protestant is guilty of it? (Pag: 219. N. 50.) speaking of Protestants, you say; They doe not disser at all [...]n Matters of Faith, if you take the word in the highest sense, and m [...]ane by Matters of Faith, such Doctrines as are adsolutely necessary to salvation, to be believed, or not to be d [...]believed. Now you know well, that in Points of greatest moment, which Catholiks belieue against some Protestants, other Protestants stand for vs, against their pretended Brethren: and therfore you must either say that we belieue all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation, or that many learned Protestants do not belieue all such Doctrines, and consequently are not capable of Salvation. (Pag: [Page 571](Pag: 269. N. 45.) A man may possibly leaue some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe and others, and continue still a member of that Church: Provided that what he forsakes, be not one af those things wherin the essence of the Church consists. For this cause you say, that although Protestants left the externall Communion of the Church, yet they left not the Church, because they left her not in any thing essentiall to a Church, as Fundamentall Points are: Therfore you suppose, the Church before Luther, did not erre in any Fundamentall Article: Otherwise you had left her, that is, you had disagreed from her in a Fundamentall Point. (Pag: 272. N. 52. and Pag: 283. N. 73.) You deny that Protestants divided themselves from the Church, absolutely and simply in all things, that is, ceased to be a member of it; which still supposes, that the Church before Luther, believed all essentiall, and Fundamentall Points, which Protestants also pretend to hold, and for that cause, say they left not the Church. (Pag: 272. N. 52.) You say) In the reason of our separation from the externall Communion of your Church you are mistaken: For, it was not so much because she, your Church, as because your Churches externall Communion was corrupted, and needed Reformation. But if we erred in Fundamentall Points, Protestants must haue forsaken vs chiefly for that reason, that our Church was corrupted with Fundamentall errours of Faith. Therfore you grant, that we erred not in any such necessary Points. (Pag: 401. N. 26.) You confess, that Dr: Potter saith indeed, that our not cutting of your Church from the Body of Christ, and hope of salvation frees vs from the imputation of Schisme. (Pag: 133. N. 12.) You say expressly: By Confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation. It is well you make so open a Confession, that we belieue much more, than is simply necessary to salvation. But, as I sayd aboue, we will not, because we cannot, yield so much to you. And here I must aske againe; How you could say, (Pag: 401. N. 27.) As for our freeing you from damnable Heresy, and yielding you salvation, neither Dr. Potter, nor any other Protestant is guilty of it? Seing you say, that By the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation. If we belieue much more then is necessary to salvation, by what Logicke will you deduce, that we belieue not as much as is necessary?

[Page 572]

150. These so many and so cleare words of Dr. Potter, and yourselfe; may justly make any man wonder, with what pretence of truth, or modesty, you could say (Pag: 280. N. 95.) As for your pretence that your errours are confessed not to be Fundamentall, it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you. And (Pag: 308. 108.) As for your obtruding vpon vs, that we belieue the Points of difference not Fundamentall or necessary, you haue been often told it is a calumny. The oftner the worse, it being a saying voyd of all truth, and a shamefull calumny in you.

151. To these testimonyes of Potter and Chillingworth, many other might be allelged, out of other Protestants, as we haue seene diverse other alledged by Potter. Dr. Lawd (Pag: 299) saith: I do aknowledge a Possibility of salvation in the Roman Church. But so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they beleeve the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ himselfe. Behold, not only a possibility of saluation, but also the reason therof, because we belieue the Creed &c: which is the very reason for which Protestants hold, that they themselues may be saved, though they differ in many Points from one another. This I say, is the reason of Dr. Lawd, which other Protestants must approue, though in true Divinity it be of no force at all; for, though one belieue the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ himselfe, that is, that he is God, and Saviour of the world, yet if he deny, any point evidently delivered in Scripture, or otherwise sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God, he cannot be saved, even according to Protestants, who therfore doe in this, as in many other things, speake inconsequently, and contradict themselves. (Pag: 376.) he sayth: The Religion of the Protestants, and the Romanists Religion, is the same: nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants, set vp a different Religion (for the Christian Religiō is the same to both) but they differ in the same Religion. Therfore, say I we hold no Fundamentall errours, wherin whosoever differ, cannot be of the same, but must be of a different Religion. And (Pag. 129.) The Protestants haue not left the Church of Rome in her Essence, not in the things which constitute a Church. And (P: 282.) he saith The possibility of salvation in the Roman Church, I thinke cannot be denyed; ād in proofe hereof, (P: 281.) he alledges Luther. Field. Jos: Hall, Geo: Abbot, Hooker, Mornaeus, Prideaux, Calvin. And Dr. Jer: Taylor in his Liberty of Prophecying (Pag: 251. Sect: [...]0.) teaches, that we keepe the foundation, and belieue many more truths, than can be proved to be of simple [Page 573]and originall necessity to Salvation. And therfore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party, allowed to them possibility of Salvation, whilst their errours are not faults of their will, but weaknesses and deceptions of the vnderstanding, (which, as I sayd, may easily be believed of vs Catholikes, who suffer so much for our Religion,) so that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted: The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and vnhandsome superstructures. And in particular he shewes that Prayer for the dead, and the Doctrine of transubstantiation, are not Fundamentall errours; and also saieth: these two be in stead of the rest. Yea he affirmes (Pag: 258.) that there is implied as great difficulty in the Mystery of the B. Trinity, as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and shewes that we are not in any danger of sinning by idolatry, in adoring the Sacrament. For further satisfaction in this matter, the Reader will find the words of learned Protestants in Brierley, (Tract: 2. Sect: 14.) As; That we are of the Church: That we are of the family of Iesus Christ, a part of the house of God; That it was evill done of them who first vrged a separation: That we are the Church of God; That, the Catholike and Reformed make not two, but one same Religion, agreeing in all principall points of Religion necessary for Salvation; That Catholikes and Hugonots are of one Faith and Religion; That they are Domestik [...] of Faith, and branches of the same vi [...]e. And, (Tract: 1. Sect: 6. Subdiv; 1.). That Those who live, and dy in the Church of Rome, may notwithstanding be saved: and they are charged, by very learned Protestants, of ignorance and absurdity, who are of the contrary opinion.

132. I hope now it appeares, that even in the judgment of learned Protestants, Catholikes do not erre in points Fundamentall, or necessary to salvation: and therfore, that Luther could not be excused from Schisme, in dividing himselfe from all Churches, for matters which do not exclude vs from eternall happynesse; especially, seing they who forsooke vs, maintayne errours at least not Fundamentall, as Potter (Pag: 67.) plainly confesses, and appeares manifestly, by the disagreement of Protestants amongst themselves, and the agreement of diverse of them with vs, even in diverse of those points in which Luther pretended the Church to be corrupted, as appeares by what we haue demonstrated heretofore. Yet to leaue nothing vntouched, I will goe forward, not so much because indeed there remaines any Objection of moment against vs, as to take away all pretence of cavills; as also, [Page 574]to take occasion of delivering some Considerations, of importance against our Adversaryes.

153. Object: 15. Although the errours of the Roman Church be not fundamentall in themselves, yet they are against Gods Revelation, and Command, not to deny any least truth testifyed by that supreme Uerity, and consequently such errours are damnable, and for which, the Roman Church might be forsaken.

154. Answer. First: This Objection is not only against the whole Church of Christ, which you pretend to haue been corrupted with such errours, but also against the Reformers therof; seing of Protestants holding contradictoryes, some de facto must be in errour; wherof Grotius; Rivetiani Apologetici Discu: P: 15. saith; Protestantium Confessiones in multis rebus ita dissident, vt conciliari nullo modo possint. Uidentur autem Genevenses cum Harmoniam Confessionum edidere, ita credidisse, Harmoniam esse dissidentes Confessiones in vnum Uolumen compingere. The Confessions of Faith of Protestants do so disagree, that it is impossible they can be reconciled. It seemes that they of Geneua when they sett forth the Harmonie of Confessions, were of opinion, that the Harmonie or agreement of Confessions, did consist only in bindeing vp in one Uolume disagreeing Confessions. Nay, Protestants do further teach, that it cannot be otherwise; that is; that it is impossible, that they can agree in all points. Calvin (Instit: Lib: 4. Cap: 1. N. 12.) speakes plainly: Quoniam nemo est qui non &c. Because none is free from some cloua of ignorance, we must either leaue no Church at all or we must Pardon errours in those things, of which men may be ignorant, without breach both of the summe or substance of Religion, and loss of salvation. Marke how this Patriark of Protestants, acknowledges, that noe Church can be free from errours, not Fundamentall. Dr. Lawed (Sect 38. Pag: 360.) In things not necessary (though they be Divine truths also) I confess it were hartily to be wished that men might be all of one minde, and one judgment. But this can not be hoped for, till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailtyes, which here hang thinke and closes about her. Whitaker (Cont: 2. Q. 5. C. 8.) It is not needefull that all should thinke the same: if such vanity be required, there would be noe Church at all. (Potter Pag: 39.) It is a great vnity to hope or expect, that all learned men, in this life, should absolutely consent in all the preces and particles of Divine Truth. And) Pag: 69.) He expressly confesses that all the weeds are not perfectly taken away in the reformed Church Chilling: (P. 279. N. 64.) the visible Church is free indeed from all errours [Page 575]absolutely destructiue and vnpardonable, but not from all errour which in it selfe is damnable. Morton (Appologie (Lib: 1.58) only Papists challenge priviledg of not erring. And blessed be God, who hath placed vs in a Church which vpon evident and necessary, Reason, challenges that priviledg, without which there can be not infallibility in Christian Faith, noe vnitie in the Church: of which therfore we haue just cause to say with S. Austine Ep 48. (wherewith Charity Maintayned ends the second part of his booke,) Others (of the Donatists) say: we did indeed belieue, that it imported nothing, in what company we did hold the Faith of Christ. But thanks be to our Lord who hath gathered vs from division, and hath shewed to vs, that it agreeth to one God, that he be worshiped in vnity. For what a Church is that, which is divided even in points of Divine Faith? If such errours be sufficient to divide from a Church (as Protestants pretend to have parted from vs vpon that ground, and without which they must confess themselves to be Schismatikes) and that noe Church is free from such errours; what followes, but that all Churches, and all men must be divided from one another, and noe one Church be left in the whole world? And how can they be excused from Schisme, in leaving all Churches, for errours which no Church can avoide? And who would be a Protestant, seing themselves confess, that they neither are, nor can, be free from damnable errours, that is, errours against Divine Revelation, which wil actually bring damnation vpon them, that keep themselves in them, by their owne voluntary and avoidable fault, as you say (Pag: 279. 64.) So as for the Generall effect of damnation, they differ not from fundamentall errours, which also are pardonable by repentance.) Beside, (Pag: 220. N. 52.) you say: by fundamentall, we meane all, and only that which is necessary; and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation. By which words you must vnderstand all truths necessary, because they are revealed by God and commanded, and not only things indispensably necessary of themselves; because you say, one may safely expect salvation, if he belieue all things Fundamentall, which safety he cannot expect who erres in points revealed (though not Fundamentall of themselves) seing you teach that all such errours are damnable: and in plain termes (Pag 133. N. 12.) you say; their state is dangerous, which can not stand with safety; therfore by Fundamentall points with the belief of which, one may safely expect salvation; you must vnderstand all points [Page 576]not only Fundamentall of themselves, but such also as are necessary, only, because revealed. And (Pag: 290. N. 88.) you expresly giue those errours of which we speake, the name of fundamentall, (even as one membrum dividens of Fundamentall as the Divisum) in these wordes: Fundamentall errours may signify, either such as are repugnant to Gods command, and so in their owne nature damnable, though to those, which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not vnpardonable: Or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and desiructiue of salvation. Well now these errours which you acknowledge in the Protestant Church being against Gods Revelation and command, must be in their owne nature damnable, as you doe not denie but they are so; and therfore we say, that Luther and his fellows, could no more forsake the Roman Church for such errours, than they must forsake one an other, till they leaue no Church at all, and all come to be Independents, both in respect of others, and even of a mansselfe, who must still be forsaking his owne errours against Faith, as being damnable in themselves. I neede not here repeat what I haue of necessitie often mentioned; That scarcely we hold any Article against some Protestants, in which we haue not other learned Protestants, on our side, against their fellows, and I hope, you will not say, that the selfe same errours, are even in their owne nature damnable in vs, and not in Protestants; which were a pretty non-sense, and an vnjust partiality: therfore, I conclude that this Objection is no less against Protestants, then vs: yea it is vnansweareable by Protestants, who confes, that really their Church is subject to, and actually, is stained with such errours, which we absolutely denie in respect of the Roman Church, and such as agree with her.

155. And here you must ponder your wordes (Pag: 280. N. 95.) For, Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 184.) haveing alledged Potters wordes (Pag: 69.) that the weedes are not perfectly taken away among Protestants, saith: What man of judgement will be a Protestant, since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one? To this you reply: And yet you yourselfe make large discourses, in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome, though supposed to haue some corruptions. And why, I pray, may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted, as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted?

156. To this your reply: I may answer out of what I sayd aboue. How I pray, is it all one to make a Supposition, acknowledged by him [Page 577]who makes it, to be a thing both vntrue, and impossible, and to speake of a thing, so certainly and immoveably true, that the contrary is impossible? The former case treates of a voluntary supposition (which the supposer knowes he may recall, or reverse, at his pleasure, and bring things to the true state in which they really exist; and so, as I may say, all will be mended, though he set himselfe to sleepe, and leaue things to their owne nature) to shew the precise essence of things, and what will follow in good consequence, vpon such an hypothesis of an impossible thing: as in our present case, if the true Church were supposed to erre, in points not Fundamentall (still retaining infallibility in all fundamentalls) it followes, that it were more safe and less evill, and therfore necessary (vpon supposition of two vnavoidable evills) to remaine in the Church, rather than so forsake her, for the reasons alledged hertofore; wheras that supposition (That the Church erres) being taken away (as indeed de facto it is alwayes taken away, that is, it is alwayes false, and impossible) the cleare consequence is, that it is not only less evill, but absolutely good, and absolutely necessary, to remaine in her Communion; as by reason of the contrary (not voluntary and speculatiue, but practicall and reall, and necessary) supposition of errours acknowledged defacto in the Protestants Church, without any pretence that she is in fallible in Fundamentalls (as the vniversall Church is confessed to be even by our Adversaryes, and in reall truth is infallible in all points; both Fundamentall and not Fundamentall) the Question cannot remaine, whether it be less evill to remaine, in the Communion of the Protestant Church; but it must be believed, as a thing certainly true, that it is absolutely evill, and the greatest evill: seing that by aduering to the Catholique Church, I am secure from all errours, and by aduering to the Protestants, I am sure to communicate with a Church stayned with errours by their owne Confession.

157. Secondly. I take an answer, from what you saied aboue (Pag. 290. N. 88.) That, errours not Fundamentall are repugnant to Gods command, and so in their owne nature damnable, though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not vnpardonable. From these words, I say, I will take an answer, if first I haue told you; you should haue sayd, they are no sins, and being no sins, you should not haue sayd, they are not vnpardonable, but the contradictory, they are vnpardonable, that is, they cannot be pardoned, or are not capable of [Page 578]pardon; because God cannot be sayd to pardon that, with which he was never offended, and pardon supposes an offense. This very thing, is taught by yourselfe (Pag: 19.) where speaking of men who, doe their best endeavours to know Gods will and doe it, and to free themselves from all errours, you say, So well I am perswaded of the goodnes of God, that if in me alone, should meet a confluence of all such errours of all the Protestants in the world, that were thus qualifyed, I should not be so much afrayd of them all, as I should be to aske pardon for them: For to aske pardon of simple and purely involuntary errours is tacitly to imply that God is angry with vs for them, and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he gives no straw; of expecting to gather where he strewed not; to reape where he sowed not: Of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot doe. Therfore, say I, and you must inferr the same, such errours are not capable of being pardoned; yea you account it a kind of sacriledge, to aske pardon for them. But yet to shew, how you are possessed with a perpetuall spirit vertiginis, and contradiction to yourselfe, I offer to your consideration, what (Pag: 308. N. 108.) you say of our pretended errours: We hold your errours as damnable in themselves as you do ours, only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not vnpardonable. And (Pag: 290. N. 86.) Having spoken of the erring of the Roman Church, you add; Which though we hope it was pardonable in them who had not meanes to know their errour, yet of its owne nature, and to them who did or might haue knowne their errours, was certainly damnable. (Pag: 263. N. 26) You cite and approue the saying of Dr. Potter; that though our errrours were in themselves damnable, and full of great impiety, yet he hopes, that those amongst you, who were invincibly ignorant of the truth, might by Gods great mercy, haue their errours pardoned, and their soules saved. What Mr. Dr., and Mr. Chillingworth? Is it great mercy in God to pardon that which cannot possibly be any sin? Is not this (to vse your owne words) Tacitly to imply that he is angry with vs for them, and to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he giues no straw &c: of being offended with vs, for not doing, what he knowes we cannot doe. A great mercy not to doe that, which were tyranny to doe; to forgiue that which is no offense! But, as I am forced often to say, it is no newes, in you, to contradict yourselfe.

158. Now I will performe what I promised; and shew, that seing [Page 579]invincible ignorance, in the opinion of all Philosophers, and Divines excuses from sin; if we can proue, that every judicious man, having vsed all diligence [...], will find, that whosoever joyning himselfe with our Church, shall be sure, either not to erre, or at least, not vincibly, or culpably; the consequence will be cleare, that such errours will not be damnable to any such man, but that he will be assured of salvation, for as much as belongs to matter of Faith: from whence it will also follow, that none can separate themselves from the Church, without damnation.

19. First then, I obserue; That seing the Church, (according to Protestants) cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles; for other points not Fundamentall, whosoever remaine in her communion, are not obliged vnder paine of damnation, to chuse the more secure part, as they are bound to doe, in matters absolutely necessary to salvation, necessitate medij, as Ch: Ma: proves (Part: 1. Chap: 7. N. 3.) but it is sufficient for them, ad vitandum peccatum, for avoyding sin, if they follow a judgment, truly probable, and prudent, in embracing all the particular objects, which the Church proposes to be believed: Because they are sure by this meanes, not to erre in points absolutely necessary to salvation, (in which, the Church which they follow, cannot erre) nor to sin, in believing all other points, which she propoundes, supposing they proceede prudently; especially, considering, as I sayd, that in not believing Her in all, they run hazard to disbelieue her in some Fundamentall and necessary Article: which sequele we haue shewed, even in your owne opinion, to be rationall.

160. This being observed; I now proue, that whosoever embraceth what the Church proposes, and particularly for points controverted in these tymes, proceeds very prudently, and safely. For, the objects of Faith, surpassing the reach of humane reason, and for that cause, being apprehended obscurely by our vnderstanding, do not bring with them evidēce of demonstration (to which we haue heard Hooker saying. The mynd cannot chuse but inwardly assent) but yet the vnderstanding may be forcibly drawne by the will, to embrace rather one part, than another, vpon prudent reasons, and extrinsecall considerations, which, not to be wanting in our case, appeares by reflecting; That for the points controverted, we haue the judgment, and Authority, of the Churches existent when Luther appeared, that is, of the vniversall Catholique Church, if God had any Church on Earth, as you grant he alwayes had: [Page 580]And even yourselfe speaking of Councells, say (Pag: 200. N. 18.) I willingly confess, the judgment of a Councell, though not infallible, is yet so farr directiue, and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least, not to affoard it an outward submission for publike peace-sake. Potter also, (Pag: 165.) Speaks fully, in these words: We say, that such Generall Councells as are lawfully called, and proceed orderly, are great and awfull representations of the Church Catholique; that they are the highest externall Tribunall which the Church hath on earth; that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ; that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction; that their decrees bind all persons to externall Obedience, and may not be questioned but vpon evident reason, nor reversed but by an equall Authority, that if they be carefull and diligent in the vse of all good meanes, for finding out the truth, it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them, that they shall not erre, at least not Fundamentally. Behold, Councells are not only directiue, but obliging; they cannot be rejected; Their Decrees bind to externall Obedience, and may not (so much as) be questioned but vpon apparent and evident reason; nor reversed but by an equall Authority; if they be carefull and deligent in the vse of all good meanes, for finding the truth, it is very probable, the good Spirit will so direct them, that they shall not erre, at least Fundamentally; that their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ.

161. Here it is reason I make a pause, and obserue some points out of our very Adversaryes. First, The vniversall Church, according to Potter and other chiefe Protestants, is infallible in fundamentall points, and even according to [...]hillingworth, is infallible as long as she exists; which he saith, hath been from the beginning, and shall last to the worlds end: and so de facto she is infallible, that is, he is as sure that she shall not erre in any fundamentall point, as he is sure, that Christ shall alwaies haue a Church on earth; which ought to be a great inducement not to reject her Authority, without evident reason. Yea seing he holds Councells to be fallible in fundamentall points, ād yet that they oblige men to an outward submission, much more he should say so of the Church, which is confessed to be infallible in all Fundamentalls.

162. Secondly: seing Potter, Chilling: and Dr. Lawd (whom I cited aboue) teach, that we are bound vnder sin, to affoard outward obedience to Generall Councells, and that we cannot do this in matters of Faith, vnless we belieue as we professe, we must belieue them to [Page 581]be infallible in all things; least either we sin against Obedience due to them, or, against our Conscience, professe, what we do not belieue.

163. Thirdly: seing their Authority is immediatly derived and delegated from Christ, their right to be obeyed, is de jure Divino, of which they were in possession when Luther arose, and therfore it is a grievous sin, not to obey them, vnless it can be demonstrated with evidence, that they teach or command somthing clearly repugnant to the law, or word of Christ.

164. Fourthly: seing their Decrees cannot be questioned, but vpon evident reason, it followes, that the reasons are not first purposely to be sought, and then found, because people prepossessed by passion, haue a mind to breake with the Church, as it happens in all Schismatiks, and Heretikes; but their Arguments must be so pressing, and irresistible, by ceason of their evidence, that the vnderstanding cannot, by any meanes, of contrary reason, or command of the will, forbeare to assent; which to any judicious man, must needs appeare to be a strange, and no better than an imaginaty kind of evidence, and indeed impossible, in objects of Faith, which are obscure, and exceed the naturall light, of all humane reason.

165. Fiftly. Since they cannot be reversed, but by an equall Authority (and Dr. Lawd delivers the same Doctrine, as we haue seene aboue) we are assured, that the Decrees of Councells before Luther, could not be reversed by Luther, or any other private person, nor by all Protestants; Who never could pretend to haue a Generall Councell, and in those Colloquiums, or Conferences, or particular Synods, which they held, could never establish, any vniversall Vnion among themselves, but only declared to the world, that they had no possible meanes of Vnion, and Concord. And indeed, who should call such a Generall Councell? Or who should preside therin? Or if they would haue recourse to secular Princes, it would make little to their purpose; seing absolute Princes, are no more subject one to another, than different Sects of Protestants, will confesse any mutuall subordination.

166. Sixtly. Seing if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the Truth, it is very probable the good spirit will direct them, that they shall not erre, at least fundamentally, they could not be opposed, except by reason more than probable, but men were to presume [Page 582]that they did not erre. Neither should you say; if they be carefull &c. it is very probable the good spirit will direct them, that they shall not erre (which may be said of any two or three, gathered togeather in Christs name, if they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth; yea the same may be sayd, of every particular person;) but contrarily, seing you confesse them to be derived from Christ, and that they are the highest externall Tribunall, which the Church hath on Earth: and that all are obliged to obey them (which none could be, in errours against Faith) you should say; because they cannot erre, God will not faile to affoard his effectuall Grace, that they be carefull in the vse of all good meanes for finding the truth. For accordingly as God hath decreed to bring vs to an End, He will not faile to moue vs effectually to apply all those Meanes which on our behalf are necessary for such an End. And it were but a most rash, vncharitable, foolish, and false imagination, to thinke that Generall Councells before Luther, replenished with men of learning, sanctity, and zeale of the Truth, were not carefull in the v [...] of all good meanes for finding the Truth: and therfore they could not but be assisted by God to find it, nor Luther excused from Schisme, and Heresy, by opposing them, and it.

167. These things considered, it cannot but appeare to any judicious vnpartiall man, how impossible it is, that any such evidence should offer itselfe, against the Faith, and decrees of the Church, or Generall Councells▪ as can force the vnderstanding to an assent in despite of any pious affection of the will, and reverence due to Gods Church, and Councells, and the many and great reasons which make for Her: which is vnanswerably confirmed, by considering, that Protestants disagree amongst themselves, and many of them in many things agree with vs (which I must often repeate) which could not happen, if the reasons against vs, were demonstratiue, or evident: and in this occasion your Rule, that the property of Charity is to judge the best, will haue place, at least for as much as concernes those your owne Brethren, who agree with vs: As also your other saying (Pag: 41. N. 13.) That men honest and vpright hearts, true lovers of God and truth, may without any fault at all some goe one way; some another; which shewes, that there can be no evidence, against the Doctrine of the Church, with which even so many Protestants agree, but that Catholikes haue at least very probable, and prudent reasons, not to depart from the Church in any one point; and that, although we should falsely suppose Her to erre in points [Page 583]not fundamentall, the errour could not be culpable, nor sinfull, but most prudent, and laudable. And in this, our condition is far different, and manifestly better, than that of Protestants, who disagreeing not only both from the Church, but amongst themselves also, must be certaine that they are in errour, which for ought they know, may be fundamentall, seing they cannot tell what Points in particular are fundamentall: wheras we adhering to the Church, are sure not to erre against any necessary or fundamentall truth. And yourselfe say (Pag: 376. N. 57.) He that believes all necessary Truth, if his life be answerable to his Faith, how is it possible he should faile of salvation?

168. And then further vpon this same ground, is deduced another great difference, with great advantage on our side; that Protestants are obliged vnder paine of damnation, to make choyse of the more certaine, and secure part, and must not be content, with a meere probability, if they can by any industry, care, study, prayer, fasting, almes-deeds, or any other meanes, attaine to a greater degree of certainty. For, if indeed they erre in any one Article of Faith, necessary necessitate medij, they cannot be saved, even though their errour were supposed to be invincible, as hertofore we haue shewed out of Protestants: Wheras we being assured, that, adhering to the Church, we cannot erre in any point, of it selfe necessary to salvation, for the rest, we are sure to be saved, if we proceed, prudently and probably, because the truth contrary to our supposed errours, cannot be necessary necessitate medij, as not being fundamentall: Yea, since indeed Protestants can haue no other true and solid meanes, of assurance, that they erre not Fundamentally, except the same which we embrace, of believing the Church in all her definitions, they are obliged vnder deadly sin, to belieue all that she proposes, for feare of erring in some Fundamentall Article. What I haue sayd, that we proceede prudently, though our Doctrines were supposed to be errours, may be confirmed by an Adversary, Dr. Jer: Taylor; who (in his Liberty of prophesying (§. 20. N. 2.) saieth; that our grounds, (that truth is more ancient then falshood, that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church, and leaue her in errour; that whatsoever is new, is not only suspitions, but false) are suppositions, pious and plausible enough. And then having reckoned many advantages of our Church, he concludes; These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety, to retain that which they know to haue been the Religion of their fore-Fathers, which had actuall possession [Page 584]and seizure of mens vnderstandings before the opposite professions had a name, (before Luther appeared.) And in express tearmes he confesses, that these things, are instruments of our excuse, by making our errours to be invinc1ible; which is the thing I would proue. But here I must declare, that, when I say; It is sufficient for vs to proceed probably, and prudently; It is still vpon a false supposition, that the Church may erre in some Point not Fundamentall; though in reall truth there be no such distinction. For, we are obliged vnder payne of damnation, to belieue the Church equally in all points, and vse all, not only probable, but possible meanes, to find the true Church, and belieue her, with absolute certainty, in all matters belonging to Faith; and in particular, That she cannot erre in any point Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall; without the beliefe of which truth, Christian Faith cannot be certaine and infallible, as hath been shewed at large.

169. Thirdly. I answer to your Objection, That we absolutely deny, the Catholique Church to be subject to errour, either in Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall Points; or that she can erre, either Fundamentally, or damnably, in what sense soever. And therfore, wheras you say (Pag: 280. N. 95.) The errours of Protestants are not so great as ours, we vtterly deny, that our Church can belieue, or propose any errour at all. And though those Catholique Verityes, which we belieue, were errours, yet they could not be greater, than those of Protestants, speaking in generall; seing in all the chiefest controverted points, we haue diverse chiefe learned men on our side, who think themselves as good Protestants, as those other from whom they disagree. Besides, in our Question, respect must be had to the kind, and not to the degree of errours, that is, nor whether the points be Fundamētall or not Fundamē tall, nor whether they which be Fundamentall, be greater or less in their owne nature; nor whether one not Fundamentall, be worse than another not Fundamentall; because if one errour not Fundamentall yield not sufficient cause to forsake the Communion of the Church, another cannot: otherwise, you will not be able to assigne any Rule, when the Church may be forsaken, and when she cannor; and it is damnable to professe, against ones conscience, any errour in Faith, be it never so small: which is the ground, for which you say, the Communion of the Church, may be forsaken. And lastly, it is more wisdome, to hold a greater vnfundamentall errour with the Church, which I know by the confession of our Adversaryes, cannot erre fundamentally, than by [Page 585]holding a less vnfundamentall errour, expose my selfe to danger of falling into fundamentall errours, as I proved hertofore: As it is less evill to commit a veniall sinne, that is, (which abstracting from the case of perplexity) would be certainly a veniall sinne, than to expose ones selfe to true danger, of falling into a mortall offence of God.

170. Fourthly; I answer, that as I haue often noted, according to you and Dr. Potter, it is Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian, not to deny any point, though otherwise of its nature not Fundamentall, being proposed, and belieued to be revealed by God; and so your distinction between Fundamentall, and damnable Points, as if the e [...]ours of Catholiks and Protestants were damnable, but not Fundamentall, is but a contradiction to your owne doctrine; Seing whatsoever errour is damnable, is also Fundamentall; and whatsoever is Fundamentall, is damnable, if we respect the negatiue precept of Faith, obliging vniversally, all persons, in respect of all objects, at all tymes, semper & pro semper, as divines speake, not to deny any Point, sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God; as Charity Ma [...]n [...]ayned declares at large (Part: 1. Pag: 79.) And the same is taught by your selfe (Pag: 194. N. 4.) In these words: To make any Points necessary to be believe [...], it is requisite, that either we actually know them to be Divine Revelations; and these, though they he not Articles of Faith, nor necessary to be bel [...]e [...]ed, in and for themselves, yet indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence they are so: The necessity of believing them, being inforce, vpon vs, by a necessity of believing this essentiall and Fundamentall [...]rt [...]cle of Faith, that, all Divine Revelations are true, which to d [...] belieue, or not to bel [...]ue, is for any Christian not only in pious, but impossible. Or els it is requisite, that they be, first actually revealed by God; secondly, [...]ommāded vnder [...]ine of [...]amnation, to be particularly knowne, and distinctly to be believed. From these words of yours, it clearly followes, that culpably to deny any point, sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God, implyes a contrariety with this essentiall and Fundamentall Article of Faith, that all Divine revelations are true; which certainly is a Fundamentall Truth; and therfore all errours, that are culpable, and damnable, are in this sense, opposite to a Truth, which indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence, as you speake, becomes Fundamentall. The same you deliver (Pa: 197. N. 14.) where you say to Charity Maintayned: I deny flatly as a [...]thing destructive of it selfe, that any errour can be damnable, vnless it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly, directly or indirectly, of it selfe, [Page 586]or by accident, to some truth, for the matter of it, Fundamentall. Why then do you distinguish between damnable, and Fundamentall errours? Morover, if every damnable errour (as you confess every errour to be, which disbelieves any, sufficiently proposed, Divine Truth) be Fundamentall, every damnable errour destroyes the Essence, of a Church, which you confess, cannot exist togeather with a Fundamentall errour, and consequently, the Church, cannot erre culpably, even in points not fundamentall of themselves, and remaine a Church: which is the thing we teach, and you through your whole Booke deny, and are forced to doe so, in regard you hold that Christ hath always had a Church on Earth, and yet must pretend, that she hath erred, to saue yourselves from the imputation of Schisme and Heresy. The truth is: every sinfull errour against Faith, in a point of itselfe never so small, is damnable, and destroyes Faith, Church, and salvation; neither is there any difference, for the generall effect of damnation, between errours in Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall; and therfore it is impossible the true Church can erre, in either kind of such points: because it is impossible, that she can want any thing necessary to salvation, or be obnoxious to any thing destructiue therof, and so, as I sayd, for the Negatiue precept of not disbelieving any thing, sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God, there is no difference, between those two sorts of Articles: and the reason is, because the Formall object, or Motiue of our belief, is the same in them both, namely, the Divine Revelation. But for the affirmatiue precept, of being obliged to belieue explicitly some prime Materiall Objects of Faith, there is difference, in regard that as such Truths are Fundamentall, and necessary to be actually believed, so errours contrary to them, are most properly Fundamentall errours, or errours, directly, and immediatly opposite to some Materiall Object of Faith, Fundamentall of itselfe, which every body sees doth not happen in all errours. Otherwise, how do you; Potter and other Protestants distinguish between errours in Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall, if all errours be Fundamentall, or against a Fundamentall truth? But you erre, by not distinguishing, or not rightly applying, the distinction between the Affirmatiue; and Negatiue Precept of Faith; nor between the Formall and Materiall Object therof. The Negatiue Precept arises, from the Formall Object, it being vniversally, and intrinsecè vnlawfull, to disbelieve any thing, invested with the Divine Testimony; wheras the affirmatiue Precept, is taken from [Page 587]the Materiall Object of Faith; in regard that God hath commanded, some Truths to be expressly knowne, and believed, as absolutely necessary to salvation. Vpon this erronious mistake, youvnadvisedly find fault with Charity Maintayned in your (Pag: 197. N. 14.) for saying (Part: 1. Chap. 3 N. 2.) That, errours may be damnable though they be against some Points, for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamentall, (which are the precise words of Ch: Ma.) Where you see, he speakes of the Matter, or Materiall Object, and not of the Formall, of Faith which is Divine Revelation; and so this Doctrine of his, is evidently true. For, [...]s all Truths of Faith, are not of their owne nature, fundamentall Truths, so neither can all errours be fundamentall Errours. But, say you, the deny all of any revealed Truth, for example, of that of Pontius Pilates being judge of Christ, is destructiue of this Fundamentall Truth, that, All Divine Revelations are true. I answer, as aboue that you erre by not distinguishing between the Materiall and Formall Object of Faith, and not considering, that fundamentall, or not fundamentall Truths, are not to be distinguished in order to the formall object of Divine Revelation (which being the same in all Truths all should be fundamentall, or all should not be Fundamentall.) But as, I sayd, that distinction is to be taken, from the Materiall objects, accordingly as some are more important, and more necessary to be actually believed, than other. If any object; that this truth, All Divine Revelations are to be believed, is a thing which we belieue as a Fundamentall Truth; and therfore every errour against it, must be Fundamentall; To this I answer, as aboue, that those errours are Fundamentall, which are directly, and immediatly opposed to Fundamentall Truths; not those, which only mediatly, and by consequence, are such. Now, the errour directly opposite to this truth; All Divine Revelations are true is this; All Divine Revelations are not true; which certainly is a Fundamentall errour, as contrarily, errours opposed immediatly, and directly, to Points not Fundamentall of themselves, are not Fundamentall errours, in the common sense of that distinction: which were no distinction at all, if every errour were equally opposite to a point, Fundamentall in itselfe.

171. You desire Charity Maintayned to reconcile his doctrine, that errours may be damnable, though they be repugnant to some point, for its matter and nature, not Fundamentall, with his other saying (Part: 1. Chap: 4. N. 15.) Every Fundamentall errour must haue a contrary [Page 588]Fundamentall Truth; because, of two contradictory propositions, in the same degree the one is false, the other must be true. Indeed Sir, I know nor how to reconcile, those two sayings of Charity Maintayned; because I cannot see, how possibly they could ever fall out or be at variance. For, what disagreement can be imagined in these Propositions? Some errours are not Fundamentall, as not being repugnant to Fundamentall truths, and every Fundamentall errours must haue a contrary Fundamentall truth; or rather, haue they not a most cleare connexion, and parity, that, as an errour, not Fundamentall, is opposite only to a truht not fundamentall; so a fundamentall errour is opposite to a fundamentall Truth? And the reason of this, is given by Ch: Ma: in that very place, which you cited; because, according to Philosophy, the privation is measured by the forme, to which it is repugnant.

172. Thus vpon the whole matter it appeares; That your affirming our (falsely supposed) errours to be damnable, and so to yield sufficient cause, of deserting our Church, is turned against all Protestants, who confessedly, de facto maintayne damnable errours; That although our errours were never so damnable in themselves, yet they could not be so to vs, who are excused by invincible ignorance; That Potter, and you contradict yourselves, in talking of pardon, for that which is no sin: and, That you overthrow your distinction of errours, which you say, are damnable, but not Fundamentall, while in the meane tyme, you make all damnable errours, to be fundamentall, and which for that cause (if you will speake with consequence) must destroy the vnity of Faith, and Church, and hope of saluation: And therfore seing you grant that there was a Church when Luther arose, it followes, that indeed she was not guilty of any errour, even not Fundamentall; and that Luther and his followers, were formall Schismatiks, in leaving her communion, vpon a false, and impossible supposition, or pretence, of errours.

173. Object 16. (Pag: 260. N. 22.) you speake thus to Charity Maintayned: wheras you say, That all Divines define Schisme a Division from the true Church, and from thence collect, that there must be a knowne Church from which it is po [...]sible for men to depar [...]; I might very justly question your Antecedent, and d [...]s [...]e you to consider, whether Schisme be not rather, or at least, be not as well, a [...]d vision of the Church, as from it? A separation not of a Part from the W [...]ole, but of some Parts from the other. And if you liked not this Definition, I might desire you to informe me in those many Schismes, which haue [Page 589]happened in the Church of Rome, which of the Parts was the Church, and which was divided from it. And (Pag: 271. N. 51.) You define Schisme; A causeless separation of one Part of the Church from another.

174. Answer. I haue already sayd enough, against this Definition of yours: yet because you add an Objection about Schismes in the Church of Rome; and because I shall haue also occasion to add somthing to what I sayd aboue, I thinke best to answer this Objection here also; though by the same occasion it will cost me the labour, of repeating some of those things, which I haue already delivered. If then,

175. You haue no certainty in favour of your new Definition, but only say; why not rather, or at least as well &c: why are you not content with the old one? And then why do you object, th [...]t which your selfe must answer for the old one? But there lyes a snake vnder this smooth grasse, and covertly you reach poyson, vnder colour of milke. Socinians make small account of the Church, and Her Authority, and would haue such an equality, as might giue freedome for every one to follow his one fancy and begin a new Church, and when all is done, to say; They divided not from the Church, but one part from another, and they themselves being one Part, may as well as the other, be called the Church, and the other be as truly sayd to be divided from them, as they from the Church; and in a word, all must come to be Substantives, and independents, in matters of Faith, and Religion. Thus your definition, comes to be well connected, with your saying, That Luther, and his fellowes, departed not from the Church, because still they remained a part of it, and they departed not from themselves. Thus also you would avoide, that vnanswerable Argument of Charity Maint: (Part 1. Chap: 5. N. 35.) That seing there was a Division between Luther and that Church which was visible when he arose; and that, that Church cannot be sayd to haue divided herselfe from him, before whose tyme she was, and in comparison of whom, she was a Whole, and he but a part, we must say, that he divided himselfe, and went out of Her: Which is to be a Schismatike, or Heretique, or both. Thus you may taxe S. John (2. Jo: 19.) saying; they went out from vs, and aske why rather from vs, that is, from the Church, than that they made a Division of the Church, dividing one part from another? But indeed your glosse cannot agree to S. Johns text. For, these words, They went out of vs, do not only signify, that there was a Division, but [Page 590]that one part went out of a whole, and not the contrary. And the same Objection you may make against the Text (Act: 45.24.) Some went out from vs. And (Act: 20.30.) Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things. But, as I sayd, you may easily be confuted, by the same reflection, which I made vpon S. Johns words. These Texts are vrged by Cha [...]ity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 251.) to proue, that, separation from the vniversall Church, is a marke of Heresy: which he also proves out of Vincentius saying. (Lib: Adversus Haer: Cap: 34.) Who ever began Heresyes, who did not first separate himselfe from the vniversality, antiquity, and consent of the Catholique Church. Obserue that he saith, from the vniversality of the Church, and not a separation or Division of one part of the Church, from another. The same he proves out of S. Prosper, (Dimid: temp: Cap. 5.) a Christian communicating with the vniversall Church, is a Catholike, and he who is divided from Her, is an Heretike and Antichrist. Behold still a separation from the Church and not a Division of one part of the Church from another. And S, Ciprian saith (Lib: de V [...]t: Eccles:) Not we departed from them, but they from vs, and since Heresyes, and Schismes are bredd afterwards, while they make to themselves diverse conventicles, they haue forsaken the head and origen of truth. Doth not this Saint, clearly declare, that Heretikes, and Schismatiks, depart from the Church and gives the reason, because they haue their beginning after the Church, and so the Church, departs not from them, but they from the Church; which is the Argument even now cited out of Charity Maintayned (Chap. 5. N. 35.) S. Thomas (22. Quest. [...]9. Ar. .Corp:) defines Schismatiks to be those who willingly and wittingly divide themselves ab vnitate Ecclesiae, from the vnity of the Church. S Hierome vpon those words (Tit: [...].) A man that is an Heretike. &c: saith Schisme doth separate men from the Church. S. Austine (Ep: 48.) we are certaine, that none can justly separate himselfe from the communion of all Nations. And co [...]t. Parme [...] (Lib. [...]. Cap. 5.) Let vs hold it firme and sure, that no good men can divide themselves from the Church. And Ep. 152. Whosoever is separated from this Catholike Church, albeit he thinke, he lives laudably, by this only wickednes that he is separated from the vnity of Christ, he hath not life, but the wrath of God remaineth vpon h [...]m. And that no kind of witnesses be wanting against you to proue that Schisme and Heresy signify a departing from the Church; Fulke saith (in his Retentiue &c. (Pag. 85.) [Page 590] The Popish Church is but an Hereticall Assembly, departed from the vniversall Church long since Augustines departure out of this life. You may remember what I cited out of Calvin (Ep: 141.) That they were forced to make a separation from the whole world. Where I beseech you marke those words, from, the Whole; which signify that they were a Part, and the vniversall Church, a Whole. Field (of the Church, Lib. 1. Cap. 13. & 14.) maketh it particular vnto Schismatikes and Heretiks, to depart and goe out from the Church of God. Dr. Lawd (Pag: 139.) There can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church. Why do you not tell him, that he speakes strangly in saying; There can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church: And that he should haue sayd; It is absolutely impossible to make a Schisme from the whole Church: because the part, which so divideth it selfe, doth still remaine one parte of the Whole, and so the Division is only of some part from another. Potter (Pag: 75.) There neither was, nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ; no more than from Christ himselfe. Will you here, put, of, in place of, From; and then say, To depart of Christ himselfe, and so make your Doctour speake non-sense? Yourselfe (Pag: 170. N. 66. and Pag: 272. N. 54.) approue the aforesaid saying of Potter: who also (Pag. 57.) saith; whosoever perversly divides himselfe from the Catholique Communton, as do Schismatiks, his condition is damnable. But aboue all, what will you say to your owne words (Pag: 339. N. 20.) That, Heretikes always separate from the visible Church? Why s [...]y you nor? Heretikes separate of the Church (which would be ridiculous) and not from her, as you say, seing Heresy alwayes involues Schisme; and if Hetetiks alwayes separate from the Church, Heresy, (which is the formall cause wherby they separate) must be a separation from the Church.

176. Now why do you not correct Scripture, Fathers, Catholike Divines, learned Protestants, your client Potter, and yourselfe; as you take vpon you to controle Charity Maintayned? But either you do not vnderstand what Schisme meanes, or els you would be very willing, the world should conceaue, there is no such thing as Schisme. For, if you did consider, that part which separates from the Church, to be no Part. or member therof, it were easy to see, that Schisme may be defined a separation from the Church, but not a separation of one part, from another; seing that by Schisme, those men, who once were a part of the Whole, and com-parts with all the true members of the Whole, by Schisme cease to be a part: As on the other side, Schisme is a departing [Page 591]from the true Church, but not a dividing of the Church. And the reason is, because the Church is still one in herselfe, and so Schisme is alwayes a Division from the Church taken formally as a true Church, but never a division of her, seing she still remaines One true Church, and consequently divided in herselfe. Besides, when diverse Parts constitute, or compound one Whole, the Parts cannot be divided one from another, vnless they be conceived to be divided from the Whole, in order to which, they haue the denomination of Parts. For, as long as they remaine with one Whole, they remaine vnited with one another, as Parts; and as it is sayd, Quae sunt eadem vni tertio, snnt eadem interse; so in proportion, quae sunt vnita in vno tertio, sunt vnita interse. Therfore the vnion with, and separation from the Whole, is the measure of the vnion, or separation of the Parts from one another. Thus S. Thomas in the place alledged (2.2. Quest: 39. Ar: 1. cor.) saith; Propriè Schismatici dicuntur, qui se ab vnitate Ecclesiae separant, quae est vnitas principalis. Nam vnitas particularis aliquorum ad invicem, ordinatur ad vnitatem Ecclesiae: sicut compositio singulorum membrorum in corpore naturali ordinatur ad totius corporis vnitatem. And vnless you take separation of parts in order to the Whole, you destroy all separation, or division. For, while the parts are in the Whole, they are not divided, but vnited; And when they are divided from the Whole, they are no more parts, in order to those parts which remaine in the Whole, of which they ceased, by the division, to be com-parts, but become Wholes, and can haue the denomination of parts, only by Relation to the Whole, of which they were parts, before the division was made; so as still vnion with, or division of parts which remaine in the Whole, must be taken, as I may say, originally from the Whole: and it is impossible, that two which haue been parts of one Whole, can be absolutly separated from one another, and not from the Whole, with which if they remaine vnited, they must also be vnited with one another, in illo tertio, in that Whole, as I sayd; And therfore division of parts from one another, must primarily suppose a division from the Whole, and your singular, Of, must de content to come after the cōmon frō, of all Divines. All separation, properly taken, must suppose vnion; and parts, as parts, must relate to some Whole. What I sayd, is proved by your owne definition, that, Schisme is a division of the Church, which must imply that the Church is divided; after which Division, I hope you will not say, that both the nocent [Page 592]and innocent, the guilty and not guilty parts cease to be a Church, but that they only who without cause do separate, are cut of frō the Church, and remaine no more a part of it. Therfore their Schisme is a Divison from the Church, and not a Division of the true Church, which still remaines One true Church: as if a corrupt part be cut of from the Body, the Body still remaines one Whole, nor can such a section, or cutting of, be rightly sayd to be a Division of the Body (which still retaines its VVholeness, as I may say, and denomination of a Body) but of one part from the whole Body, and from the incorrupted Parts which remaine conjoyned in it; yea the part cut of, and dead, ceases to be so much as a part of that Body from which it is divided: and, therfore, properly, there is no division of one part from another, seing that which is cut of, ceases to be a part, except perhaps aequivocè. You discourse as of you spoke of a Division of Genus into species, or of quantity into parts, or in generall, of Divisum, into membra dividentia, where all species participate of Genus, every part of quantity, retaines the same nature which it had before the division; and in generall the Divisum is involued in every member of the Dividents; and so you imagine, that Schismatikes divided from the Church, remaine a part of the Church, as if the Church were a Divisū divided into Obedient Persons, and Schismatikes, as into membra dividentia, wheras contrarily, the Division we speake of, is not into, but from, that is, we speake of a Division from the Church, which alters the formality ād condition of the person who is divided, causing him to be no member of the Church, who formerly was such.

177. But I suppose, that you, who will be broaching a new Divinity, cannot faile to haue found out some new Reason, for your Assertion: as indeed I find your reason to be, and such a one as is not taught in any Logike, while you argue thus; I might desire you to consider, whether Schisme be not rather, or at least, be not as well, a Division of the Church, as from it. VVhat I haue found by considering your proposition, my discourse both in this place, and hertofore, will informe you. But then, you come with another desire: If you liked not this Definition, I might desire you to informe me in those many Schismes, which haue happened in the Church of Rome, which of the Parts was the Church, and which was divided from it. This is all your Argument, which I might answer (as you confute the common Definition of Divines) by a counter-desire of myne, and say; I might desire you to apply your owne Objection to your [Page 593]owne Definition, and informe me; in those Schismes which you mention in the Church of Rome, or any other Schisme, (for, your Objection is common to all) which you say is a Division of some parts, from the other, which of the parts is Schismaticall, and which not; and consequently, which is the true Church, and which the Schismaticall part. For I hope you will not say, That in every Schisme, the true Church looses her Being of one Church, as the Schismaticall part ceases to be a member therof: which Being if the Church retaine, you must assigne which is the Church, and which is not the true Church, but a Schismaticall member divided from Her; so that, your Argument must be answered by yourselfe: yea it will be harder for you to answer, than for vs. For, of two disagreeing parts, every one, as I sayd before, will thinke his right as good as that of the other, and it will not be easy to determine, which of them should yield. But according to our Definition, when we compare a part with the whole, it is easy to judge, whether a part must yield to the whole, or the whole to a part: and for that cause, we find no difficulty at all in answering your Demand, or Objection, (In those Schismes which haue happened in the Church of Rome, which of the Parts was the Church, and which was divided from it) by saying; That part was, and remained the Church, which was vnited to the true vniversall Church, and lawfull Head, thereof, which could be but one. Or, if you will imagine, that for a tyme, it is not knowne, who is the true Head, and the disagreeing partyes proceed bona fide, and cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae, prudently, and charitably; in that case there is no formall Schisme, but both parts remaine members of the vniversall Church, and really vnited to him, who is the true Head: Yea they remaine vnited among themselves mediate, in asmuch as they are vnited, in vno tertio, that is, to the true vniversall Church, and the true Head therof. And even this proves, that, Schisme is not formally a Diuision of parts, but from the whole; because two parts disagreeing among themselves, and so divided (if they be considered as compared immediatily one with another) may be no Schismatikes, if they be vnited in vno tertio, the Church, and Head of the Church. Two parts may be separated from the whole, and not be separated one from another, as the hand and arme cut of from the Body; but it is impossible, that they can be wholy separated from one another, if both of them remaine Parts of One whole, in which therfore they must needs be vnited. Thus, he who inculpably errs actually, against Divine Revelation, is really vnited [Page 594]to it by preparation of mynd; and an implicite beliefe of all things, which are sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God. Contrarily, it is impossible that one can divide himselfe from the true Head, or from the whole, but that tacitè he must divide himselfe from the members, or Parts, which remaine vnited with the Head, and with the whole; as it is impossible, that the hand can be divided from the Body, and yet remaine vnited with the arme, if the arme still remaine vnited with the Body.

177. But you, whose principles giue full scope to separations and divisions, loue not to heare of one Head, or one Church, or succession of Bishops, or Obedience, and subordination, but of parts, and parity amongst all ād evēby this definitiō you giue vs an vnanswerable Reason, to proue the necessity of an infallible living Guide frō whom whosoever disagrees in Faith, must be an Heretike, and of one Head, and Apostolicall Sea ād Church, from which whosoever departs, may be knowne to be a Schismatike. Otherwise there will be no certaine Rule Measure, or ground, to discover Heresyes, or judge who be Schismatiks, but-every part will looke vpon another, not as a Head, or Whole, or superiour, but as a part and an Equall, which would be an endless sourse of perpetuall Schismes, without any certaine meanes to convince either parte. To which purpose, Baronius (Anno Christi 31. N. 51.) recounts a memorable story out of Josephus Judaeus, (Antiq. Lib. 12. C. 6.) how Ptolomaeus Philometor gaue sentēce in favour of the Jewes, ād their Temple, and condemned the Samâritans, as Schismatiks, or Novellists, because the Jewes could shew a continued Succession of Bishops from the beginning, till their tyme. And who sees not, that for the same reason, Luther and his followes must be condemned of Schisme? wherof see more in Baronius (ibid: N. 52.)

178 And now to end this Chapter; in conformity to what was proposed in the beginning therof, I say; that seing Charity Maintayne confuted all the evasions which Dr. Potter could invent to excuse Protestants from the sin of Schisme, and that I haue answered all that Mr. Chillingworth hath alledged against the Arguments of Charity Maintayned in defense of the Doctour, the conclusion must be, that Protestants are guilty of the most grievous sins of Schisme and Heresy, by forsaking the Faith, and communion of the vniversall Church, or of all Churches extant when Luther appeared, and therfore, that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation.

[Page 595]

169. Having then proved, that Christian Faith is absolutely Infallible; that therfore some Infallible judge or Rule of Faith is necessary; that, this cannot be Scripture alone; that, all though Scripture did containe all points of Faith necessary to salvation, yet it could neither be a sufficient Rule, nor any Rule at all of Faith, if the errours which Mr. Chilling worth holds concerning it, were true; that the Infallible Judge of controversyes in Faith, must be the alwayes visible Church of God; that to oppose her doctrine, and forsake Her communion is Heresy, and Schisme; that Protestants cannot be saved without Repentance: These things, I say, being proved, and every one of them having such connexion, that from the first to the laast one is deduced from another by evident consequences: We must now see, whether Mr. Chilling worth though he hath not been able to defend Protestants from the sins of schisme, ād Heresy; at least, that he hath taught thē some remedy, to obtaine pardon for those, and all other deadly sins, by proposing some true way to Repentance: and our next Chapter shall shew, that the Repentance which he would teach them, is neither sufficient, nor possible, but plainly destructiue of itselfe. A hard condition of Protestants, to be forced for their defense to chuse an Advocate, who neither can excuse them from sin, nor prescribes any possible meanes for pardon therof!

[Page 596]

CHAP: VIII. Mr. CHILLINGVV ORTHS ERROVRS CONCERNING REPENTANCE, ARE EXAMINED, AND CONFVTED.

1. NO benefit is wont to be more welcome, than that which we receiue from an enemy, against his will; in regard we enjoy the favour, and yet are absolved from all obligation of rendring thankes, or even acknowledging it. You are forced to confesse (Pag: 34. N. 5.) That, the Doctrine and practise too, of Repentance, is yet remaining in our Church; and by that confession you grant that safety to vs, which we cannot yield to Protestants, since without true Faith, Repentance will proue but a meere illusion. And in this, Protestants are greatly obliged to our sincere declaration, of so necessary a Truth, that being in due tyme clearly warned of the danger, they may seeke to put their soules in safety, by embracing that Religion, wherin both we, and our Adversaryes, grant a possibility of Salvation. But now, as I sayd hertofore, that although it were granted, that true Scripture alone is a perfect and totall Rule of Faith (as we haue proved it not to be) yet it could not be so much as any Rule at all, if your pernicious errours, concerning it, were true: so here I will proue; That although the Doctrine, and practice of Repentance were supposed to remaine amongst Protestants (which we can never grant) yet that Repentance, which you hold sufficient, and necessary, is such as either in the way of Defect, or too little, or of Excesse and too much, no man can hope for Salvation, by meanes therof. This we will proue by a particular examination of your severall errours: of which, the

2. First, is delivered by you (Pag: 32. N. 4.) in these words: God [Page 597]hath no where declared himselfe, but that whersoever he will accept of that Repentance, which you are pleased to call contrition, he will accept of that which you call Attrition; For though he like best the bright flaming holocaust of Loue, yet he rejects not, he quenches not, the smoaking flaxe of that repentance (if it be true and effectuall) which proceeds from hope and feare. In confutation of which pernicious errour, I need not spend paines, or tyme; since it seemes proper to yourselfe, or perhaps some Associats of yours. But what can be hoped from those, who haue forsaken the direction of Gods Church, but that they should crosse one another in their wayes, and end in Extremes, as I haue observed, in severall occasions, and appeares in this particular matter of which we treate? Luther, as may be seene in Bellarmin (de Poenit: Lib. 1. Cap. 6.) taught that Attrition makes a man an hypocrite, and a greater sinner. So far was he, from dreaming that it alone is a sufficient disposition to obtaine remission of sins! Others, in a contrary extreme, hold, that, perfect sorrow or Contrition is not sufficient without Absolution, as Kemnitius affirmes (2. part: Exam: p. 960.) and even your opinion is, That, perfect Contrition will not serue, without extirpation of all vicious habits, which you say, being a worke of difficulty, requires tyme; and so you are singular in a matter vpon which eternall salvation depends, agreeing neither with Catholikes (who teach that Attrition is not sufficient without Absolution, and that, Contrition alone in all tymes and moments is enough) nor that contrition is sufficient without absolution, as Kemnitius holds, but you teach that no Repentance is sufficient, without the extirpation of all vicious habits, as we shall see herafter.

3. For the thing itselfe; I wonder what could bring you to such a Doctrine, as this: That an Act, which you confess (Pag. 32. N. 4.) proceeds from Hope and Feare, could alone be a sufficient disposition, for justifying Grace, and the Theologicall vertue of Charity, and Loue of God. As well might you say, That an Act of Historicall Faith, is a sufficient disposition for the vertue of Hope, and Hope for Charity, and so Faith would come to justify: I say, an Historicall Faith, which no Protestant holds can justify. But this is the worke of our common enemy, to suggest Doctrines, which can produce no other effect, except damnation of soules. For, to what other purpose can this your invention serue? God is always ready, to giue sufficient Grace, for an Act of Contrition, when it is necessary (as alwayes it is necessary for the Remission of deadly sinnes, when Sacerdotall Absolution cannot be [Page 598]had) and yet this your Doctrine, if once it be accepted for true, can haue no better effect, than to make men rely vpon it, and not apply themselves to an Act of contrition, wherby they might be secure; wheras if your Doctrine be false (as most certainly it is) whosoever contents himselfe with Attrition, for remission of any deadly sin, shall infallibly be damned, even though we should suppose, that the beliefe of this errour were inculpable; because true Repentance is absolutely necessary to salvation, necessitate medij: wherin invincible ignorance doth not excuse; in which case, every one is obliged, to embrace, not only a probable, but the most safe, and secure part. And therfore this your errour, being against both Catholikes, and Protestants, every one is bound, by the most strict obligation Charitatis propriae (which obliges vs to take the safest meanes, for the salvation of our owne soules, in things absolutly necessary) not to rely on your conceypt, but to procure that which is safe, either contrition, or Attrition with Absolution; and so your Doctrine, can never be practiced without a deadly sin, though it were supposed to be probably true, as it is certainly most false. In so much, as D. Jeremy Tailor, (In his Liberty of Prophesying, Pag. 252.) speaking of some Doctrines of vs Catholikes, which he saith, lead to ill life, he specifyes this, that, Attrition (which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin, or as others say, a sorrow for sin commenced vpon any reason of temporall Hope, or feare, or desire, or any thing else) is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of Pennance, to receiue absolution, and be justifyed before God, by taking away the guilt of all his sins, and the obligation to eternall paines. So that already the feare of Hell is quite removed vpon conditions so easy, that many men take more paines to get a groat, than by this Doctrine we are obliged to, for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sins of a whole life, of the most victous persons in the world. How contrary, in another extreme, is this Doctour, to the chosen champion of English Protestants, Mr. Chillingworth! But as for our Doctrine concerning Attrition, the Doctour is extremely mistaken, (to say no worse) as will appeare to any, that reads the sacred Councell of Trent, declaring what sorrow is required to obtaine pardon of our sins, or Catholique Divines writing on this subject. For, if the sorrow be conceyved vpon any Reason meerly of temporall Hope, or feare, as the Doctour speakes; we teach that it is in no wise sufficient to make mē capable of Absolution, or forgiveness of sins; but it must proceed, from some motiue, knowne by supernaturall Faith; for example, the Feare [Page 599]of Hell, or desire of heaven. Secondly; it cannot be produced by the naturall forces of men or Angells, as being the Gift of God, and requiring the speciall moon, inspiration, and grace, of the Holy Ghost: And therfore his examp, of gaining a groat, is so farr from being to he purpose, or true, that [...]ontrarily, all the wit, paines, and industry of all men, that haue bee, are, or shall be, yea or are possible to be created, cannot arriue to it, by all the naturall forces of them all, though they were assisted with the he [...] of all Angells, created, or creable, or of all other naturall Creatures contayned in the Omnipotency of Almighty God. Thirdly: such sorrow must extend itselfe to all deadly sins, in order to which it is to be so effectuall, that it must exclude all affection to them, and the Penitent m [...]st be resolved, rather to vndergoe a thousand deaths, than once consern [...] to the least mortall sin. And therfore, Fourthly; he must resolue to abyde, for tyme to come, all proximas occasiones, or imminent danger [...]f falling into any one mortall sin: As also, if he haue injured any man, by [...]aking away his good name, or goods, or limme, or life, he must effect [...]ally, and speedily, procure to giue satisfaction, or make restitution, according as the case shall require: yea and somtyme, if it be justly fear [...]d, that delay will cause a failing in his purpose, Absolution may prud [...]ntly, or must, be differred, till he haue actually satisfyed all obligatio [...], the neglect wherof would proue to be a deadly sin. And in a word, th [...]t sorrow which we call Attrition, differs from Contrition, in the Motiu [...] only; because contrition is conceived for sin, as it is against the infinite Goodness of God; Attritition, as it is repugnant to our eternall Salvation and therfore contrition is an Act of the Theologicall Uertue of Charity Attrition of the Theologicall Uertue of Hope, which as it moves vs to desire, and hope everlasting happyness, so it incites vs, to feare the loss therof, and out of that holy feare, not to feare, any other temporal loss, with the prejudice of our soules; according to those words of our Blessed Saviour, do you not feare those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soule, but rather feare him, who can punish with Hell f [...]re, both the body and soule. Which words declare, that, as I sayd, a naturall feare, meerly of temporall loss, though it be even of our life, i [...] not a sufficient disposition for pardon of sins, as is signifyed by (Do you not feare those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soule;) but it must be conceyved, for some losse knowne by supernaturall Faith, as for the loss of heaven, or paines of Hell; as is signifyed by the second part of our Saviours speech, [Page 600]and the adversatiue particle, sed; but feare hin who can &c. This mistake of the Doctour being cleared, I shall not n [...]d, nor is it for my presēt purpose, to confute his other following wor [...] full of mistakes: about Purgatory, Indulgences &c: especially hav [...]g spoken of the like subject, in Answer to Mr. Chilling: Objection [...]bout Indulgences &c: But it is here sufficient for me to conclude, t [...]t seing there is no certainty among Protestants, what contrition is ecessary for salvation, as we haue seene by the disagreeing doctrine of this Doctour, Chillingworth, Kemnitius, Luther, &c: it followes t [...]t they cannot be sure, but that they erre in a point necessary to sa [...]ation, and that this your errour is very pernicious and prejudicious t [...]oules.

4. Your second Errour is set done (Pag: 391. N. 8.) Fine: Where you say, that although we pretent to be rigid defenders, and stout champions for the necessity of good wores, yet indeed we do it, to make our owne functions necessary, but O [...]dience to God, vnnecessary; which will appeare, to any man who conside what strict necessity the Scripture imposes vpon all men of essectuall mortisation of the Habits of all Vices, and effectuall conversion to newnes of [...]e, and vniversall Obedience; and withall remembers that an Act of At [...]tion, which you say with Priestly Absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mortification, which being a worke of difficulty and tyme, canno be performed in an instant. Which reason proves, that perfect Con [...]ition, which is an Act produced in an instant, is not sufficient foremission of sins. Also (Pag: 292. N. 91.) You call it a doct i [...]e of Licetiousness, that though a man liue and dy without the practise of Christian vertues, and with the Habits of many damnable sins vnmortifyed, yet if [...]e in the last moment of his life, haue any sorrow for his sin (this, any, is bu [...]n vntruth of yours, as appeares by what I sayd even now against Dr. [...]aylor) and joyne confession with it, certainly he shall be saved. And (Pg: 379. N. 70.) You speake to Catholikes in this manner: If I follow te Scripture, I must not promise my selfe salvation without effectuall derelicton and mortification of all vices, and the effectuall practise of all Christian vertues: But your Church opens an easyer and a broader way to Heaven, and though I continue all my life long in a course of sin, and without the [...]ractise of any vertue, yet gives me assurance that I may be let into Heave: at a poslerne gate, even by any Act of Attrition at the houre of death, if it be joyned with Confession, or by an Act of Contrition without Confesion. Here you declare, that perfect sorrow, or Contrition, is not a sufficient disposition for remission of sins, even [Page 601]at the houre of death. A doctrine fit only to make poore sinners despaite! Against this Hypocryticall, and desperate, doctrine of yours, I bring these reasons.

5. First: Wheras you require for remission of sins, not only Sorrow and Detestation of offences past, with a firme Purpose of amendment for tyme to come, but also the Object of such an Act or Purpose, that is, Actuall amendment, which you say, being a worke of difficulty and tyme, cannot be performed in an instant, this Doctrine seemes to be contradicted by your selfe (Pag: 133. N. 12.) In these words: For those that haue meanes to find the truth, and will not vse them, they (Protestants) conceave, though their case be dangerous, yet if they dy with a generall Repentance for all their sins, known and vnknowne, their salvation is not desperate. You seeme either to speake of men brought to the houre of death (or at least you do not exclude such a case) and of men in state of sin, proceeding from negligence to find the truth, which negligence must be caused by some deadly sinfull Feare, Hope, or some other vicious humane respect; and consequently, must haue produced some vicious Habits, and yet you seeme to say, such men may be saved by a generall Repentance, which being only generall, cannot descend to all particulars, as the mortification of all particular ill Habits must doe; yea you suppose, that the particular sinfull errours, are not known to them; and much less, can those vicious Habits, from which they proceed, be mortifyed; which cannot be done at that exigent of imminent death: And therfore, either the doctrine, which you seeme to teach, that it is possible for such men to be saved at the houre of their death, is false, or els you must grant, that Repentance requires not the mortification of all vicious Habits.

6. Secondly: As I sayd, of your Doctrine concerning the fallibility of Christian Faith, and of your Doctrine of Attrition, that they could serue only to bring men to damnation; so I say of this your Assertion; that no sinner who vnderstands, and believes, it to be true, can avoide desperation, at the houre of death, when he sees, that the extirpation of all vicious Habits, is impossible, and yet Necessary to true Repentance and salvation of his soule. Protestants are wont to receiue the Communion at the houre of their death, which, I suppose, you will say, ought not to be done, without true Repentance of their sins (vnless you will suppose all Protestants, at the houre of their death, to be free from sin, which is against that, which Protestants themselves [Page 602]suppose, as shall instantly appeare) and yet it is impossible for them, at that tyme, to attaine your Repentance, by extirpation of all vicious Habits. In your Booke of Common-prayer, in the Order of visiting the sicke, it is sayd; Here shall the sicke person make a speciall confession, if he feele his conscience troubled with any [...]eighty matter. Therfore, as I sayd, Protestants may haue some weighty matter at the houre of their death. And then is set downe the forme of Absolution, which the Ptiest or Minister is to giue. But how can he who feeles his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter, truly repent at that last houre, by your kind of Repentance, which you say is a worke of difficulty and tyme? Or how can he be absolved without true Repentance?

7. Thirdly. This Assertion, is contrary to two doctrines, very common, and as I may say, capitall amongst Protestants, that Faith only justifyes; and that it is impossible to keepe the commandements. For, that Act of Faith, which they call justifying, and remissiue of sin, is exercised in an instant, and would saue a man, though he should dy, before it were in his power, to extirpate all vicious Habits. And if it be impossible to keepe all the commandements, it is impossible not to committ some sinfull Acts, wherby they are broken, and which must necessarily leaue after them, some vicious Habits, and so insteed of extirpating all vicious Habits, men must still be producing new ones. How then can you say (Pag: 40 [...]. N. 31. Repentance is an essectuall conversion from all sin to all holynes? Is not the breaking of Gods commandements a sin? Or can he be converted from all sin, to all holyness, and to vniversall Obedience, as you speake, who cannot avoide sin, but must still be disobeying?

8. Fourthly. In your doctrine, what shall become of such, as being newly converted to the Faith of Christ, from Paganisme, Judaisme, or Turcisme, are baptized at the houre of death, and yet were full of vicious Habits, which they haue no tyme to Mortify or roote out? Or will you deny true Repentance, and Remission of sin, to those who after a life ledd in many grievous sins, and after the Production of many ill Habits, being suddenly converted to Christian Faith, were baptized in their bloud, before they could destroy so many vicious Habits?

9. Fiftly. If you duly consider what you say, you will find your manner of Repentance, to be impossible, not only in the cases which I haue mentioned, but to those also, who liue a considerable tyme, after forrow [Page 603]for their sinnes) be it Attrition, or Contrition.) For the Habits of vice as they were produced by frequency of acts, so are they not taken away, but by multiplication of contrary acts. Neither do they consist in indivisibli, so as if one degree be destroyed, there may not remayne divers others, which must be rooted out, by little, and little: and yet, while one habit is diminished, or destroyed, another may remaine entire, and even be encreased: for example, while the habit of injustice is destroyed, or diminished, the habit of intemperance, or impatience, or timidity, may remaine, as they were, vntouched, or else growe to be more intense, by acts of those vices. Nay, who doth so perfectly, and totally, vpon the very first onset, relinquish any one vice, that he is not, morally speaking, subject to be committing some one act, or other, of that former vice, wherby the Habit will returne to receiue some increase? And then how large a space of tyme, may chance to slip away before the Habit of one, (and much more of all vices) be perfectly rooted out? Especially if it be deeply radicated, and seconded, and abbetted, or rather prevented, by some inclination, arising from complexion, temptation of the divell, bad examples, false principles of the world, and other such causes, which make the committing of sin obvious, and easy; wheras the contrary acts of vertue not only find great resistance, for the reasons now mentioned, but also because they are of themselves of a sublime nature, and require great purity of intention, without mixture of profit, or pleasure, or tincture of selfeloue; which vniversall conjuncture, and perfect harmony, of all good circumstances, is so necessary, that the want of any one, be it never so small, depraves the whole Action, and deprives it of the nature, and denomination of being vertuous. All which declares, how hard it is, to exercise a true Act of vertue, and easy to commit sin, wherby some vicious Habit will be produced or increased, evē while we are addressing overselves towards an act, ād productiō of an Habit of vertue; according to the axiome of Philosophers ād Divines, bonū ex integrâ causa, malum ex quocunque defectu. To all which, if we add that which I declared in the Introduction. That, one whose sins are not forgiven, and consequently is not in state of Grace, cannot hope to avoide deadly sin, for any long tyme (and so will be acquiring, or increasing vicious Habits) it will appeare too clearly, how hard it is, and how much tyme, industry, constancy, and application, and aboue all, particylar Grace of God is necessary to extirpate all the Habits of all vices; and that sinners though never so full of harty sorrow for their sins, must remaine in a perplexed, afflicted, and desperate condition, for feare of [Page 604]dying, before they haue arrived to your new kind of Repentance, oftentymes impossible, and alwayes vncertaine; as will more appeare by what I say

10. Sixtly: I would demand, what Rule you, or any man, can possibly giue, to discerne, and prudently judge, when a sinner hath arrived to that degree of extirpating all vicious, and acquiring al vertuous Habits, which is sufficient and necessary for true Repentance, since in Philosophy, naturall contrary Habits, may remaine togeather, in some Degree; and much more if they be not contrary, but only different or disparati, they cannot destroy one another; and it is impossible to know, what Degrees they hold, or which, or how little, or how much, or how many of them are destroyed: especially if we reflect, that they may remaine in their nature, and being, and yet not discover themselves, or appeare sensibly, and experimentally, for want of occasion; or by reason of attention to other objects; or disposition of body, as sickness &c: or affections of the mynd, by Feare, Hope Joy, Sorrow, and the like; and even one vice, may be occasion, that another appeares not, or if one of them destroy another, as prodigality, avarice, it is by producing, or encreasing, a contrary vicious Habit, wherby the party may seeme to moue, and yet not goe forward; change, but not to the better, and perhaps to the worse: and so your Repentance must be composed, of vncertaintyes, and like that of Judas, more fitt to bring miserable, perplexed sinners to the halter, than to Heaven. You object, and even vpbraide to Catholiques, their making men vncertaine of Salvation, by requiring intention in the minister of Sacraments; which I haue shewed, to be an irrationall, vncharitable, and a meere panick feare. But indeed this Doctrine of yours, which requires for true Repentance, conditions oftentymes impossible, and alwayes vndiscernable, whether they be performed, or no, doth really put men, vpon true and grounded, feare, and perplexityes, and occasion of desperation. It is true, the best Divines teach, that a sinner is not bound to repent himselfe instantly of his sin; so as he commits not a new sin, if he do it not; because we sind no positiue law of God, imposing any such obligation; and he is assured by Scripture, that God will not deny pardon, at whatsoever tyme, or instant, he is cordially sorrowfull for his sins, with an effectuall purpose of amendment. But if he did forsee, that vnless he repented presently, it would grow impossible for him ever to repent, for example by reason of death, or madness: in that case he [Page 605]were obliged to repent instantly, both by obligation of the precept of Repentance, which, if ever, obliges in that case; as also by the precept charitatis propriae, of charity as it respects a mans selfe, which binds him to provide for the Salvation of his owne soule. Now seing whosoever commits a deadly sin, doth by that Act, vnavoidably produce some degree, of a vicious Habit, which may consist with one, yea with many degrees, of the contrary naturall Habit of vertue, and morally speaking, will still be receiving increase or addition, by many new Acts, which a sinner, devested of justifying grace, as I sayd, is prone to committ; it followes, that no man can possibly haue any rationall, and solid way to judge (but must remaine practice vncertaine) whether he shall sooner, come to an end of Repentance, or of his life, in your way. And therfore, not to put his soule into so great vncertainty, and hazard, what would remaine, but that he be obliged to repent, as soone as the sin is committed: though even this he can hardly do, according to your Doctrine, because he may exercise an Act contrary to that particular sin, and yet some degree of the Habit therof remaine, vnless he exercise so intense an Act of vertue, that it produce an Habit so intense, as no degree of the contrary vicious Habit can stand with it; which is both a very rare thing, and when it happens, it still leaves you vncertaine, whether it hath happened, or no: and therfore the more your Doctrine is discussed, and examined, the more dangerous, pernicious, and absurd, it appeares to be, in many respects.

11. Seavently. In this Question, three sorts of Habits, or, as it were Habits, are carefully to be distinguished: Which, while you confound, you do but deceaue the Reader. First: After the actuall committing of any deadly sin, there remaines in the soule, habituall sin, wherby one is sayd to be a sinner, to remaine in sin, to be in state of sin, deprived of justifying Grace, an enemy to God, and deserving eternall damnation▪ This Habituall sin, is not any permanent, reall, physicall, positiue Habit, or Quality, but a kind of morall denomination, or ground therof, which remaines, after the Act of sin is committed, till it be retracted, and reversed, by true Repentance, that is, by harty sorrow for sins past, with a firme purpose, never to offend God mortally for tyme to come. Thus even amongst men, when one hath offended another, by some injurious Act, there remaines in the deliquent, a morall denomination of a person injurious, and an obligation of satisfaction, for obtaining pardon from the person wrongfully offended: [Page 606]Which permanent morall denomination, cannot formally consist, in any reall or physicall habit, or Quality, seing it is cleare, that the pardoning such an offence, doth neither produce, nor destroy any reall Quality, or entity, in the offender, who may be pardoned in absence, and so receave no new, nor loose any former, reall entity. If the former injurious action, produced any vicious Habit, yet the remaining or not remaining, of such a Quality, or Habit, is wholy impertinent, to the forgiveness, or pardon granted by the wronged party, who forgives the injury, without knowing, or caring, whether any naturall physicall Quality, do, or may remaine (which is the worke of Philosophers to discuss) his motiue to pardon, being the morall retractation of the injurious action by a contrary demeanour, submission, satisfaction, and sorrow; which being once duly perfomed, and accepted, if any reall entity, or habit chance to remaine, it is devested of all formall relation to any Act, as it was injurious, and offensiue; seing that Act is retracted, and revoked, and therfore remaines no more voluntary in the offending person: as if we suppose one to haue shot an arrow, or cast a dart, with purpose to kill another, and to be instantly by particular motion of the Holy Ghost strooken with effectuall sorrow, and Repentance, before the shaft arriue to the party against which it was levelled, the wounding or killing, in that case, will indeed be sayd, to proceed from the hand, which discharged the dart, in nature of a reall naturall effect, but not in the nature of a voluntary, morall sinfull action; since all that which was voluntary and sinfull, is supposed to haue beene retracted by true repentance, before the effect was produced. This which we haue declared, by the example of one man, compared to another (that the Habituall offense, or injury, consists not in any reall Habit, or Quality, but in a morall consideration) holds much more, if we transferr it, to the Habituall offense, of man, against God, who though de facto he be pleased to forgiue sin, vpon our Repentance, yet, considering the thing in itselfe, he could not be obliged, to forgiue our sin, though our sorrow were never so perfect, and though we were assisted to extirpate all vicious Habits, by the contrary naturall Habits of vertue, but besides all this, and all that can be imagined to be done by vs, there is required a mercifull, and free condonation from his infinite Goodness (whether by infusing Grace, or otherwise, I do not dispute for the present) without which our sinns are not forgiven: wherby it clearly appeares, that the denomination of being an Habituall sinner, [Page 607]or to be in state of sin, consists not in any reall Quality, or Habit, since these may be destroyed, and yet habituall sin remaine, and these may remayne, though habituall sin be taken away; as likewise if we suppose, Almighty God to hinder miraculously, the production of any reall habits, or Qualityes by not affoardingh his vniversall free concurrence or cooparation, without which no second cause can produce any action, or reall habits; yet whosoever commits a sinfull action vnavoidably, is, and is denominated, a sinner, till he repent. Therfore it is manifest, that habituall sin, or sin remayning Habitually, consists not in any reall phisicall habit, or quality, and consequently, habituall sin, may remayne, though the vicious habit, either be destroyed, or never exist. Which shewes; that your Repentance, by rooting out all vicious habits is impertinent to true Repentance, and forgiveness of sins.

12. The second kind of habits, which belong to our present purpose, are reall, physicall, and naturall Qualityes, or habits of vertue, orvice produced by vertuous or vicious Acts, which acts being immediatly voluntary, and produced by our free-will, are in themselves good or bad; vicious or vertuous; deserving prayse or disprayse; reward or punishment. But good, or bad, habits, are not voluntary in themselves, but only in their causes; for as much, as they were produced, by voluntary free Acts, which produce habits, no less necessarily, than fire produces heat, in a matter capable, and approximated; nor is it in the power of man, to exercise Acts, good, or bad, and forbid, or hinder them, from producing vertuous, or vicious habits. When therfore a sinfull Act, is once effectually retracted, by true Repentance, the habit which proceeded from it, and was voluntary, only in its cause, or sinfull Action, remaines now no more voluntary, to that repentant sinner, but retaines meerly its, as I may say, innocent, reall nature, and entity, being in itselfe a dead Quality, and no more a sin to such a one, than sickness, or death, was to Adam, after his fall and repentance, that is, effects of sin, not sin. They may perhaps facilitate, and incline to Acts, which may proue sinfull, yet that facilitation, and provocation, being not voluntary, but purely naturall, is of itselfe no sin at all: As the naturall inclination which men haue to certaine Objects, may be occasion of sinfull Acts (if the will giue free consent) yet is not of itselfe any sin, nor voluntary vnto vs, but naturall, and may be occasion of great merit, if bad motions proceeding from it, be resisted by our will assisted by Gods Grace. And you might as well say, that Repentance requires [Page 608]the destruction of our nature (I meane, that naturall inclination, which Divines call Fomes Peccati, from which, sinfull Acts may proceed, and which in Adam proceeded from his actuall sin, which deprived him of Originall Justice) as you require the abolition of all Habits, inclining to sin, and produced by sinfull Acts, which being retracted by Repentance, the Habits, or effects of them, can retaine no relish or relation to them as they were voluntary, free, and sinfull: For which cause, such Habits, haue now nothing to doe, with any sin, either actuall, or habituall; and therfore it is impossible, that they can haue any least repugnance, with justifying grace, Sanctity, Charity, and Loue of God, and consequently, true Repentance cannot require their destruction, seing their existence is compatible, with grace, and Sanctity. Besides, if the Acts by which one vitious Habit is destroyed doe not of themselves destroy any degree, of some other vicious Habits, with which, those Acts haue no connexion; much less, can justifying grace be incompatible, with any naturall acquired Habits of vice, these being of an inferiour nature, and order to that; and therfore habituall sin, with which grace and Sanctity cannot stand, consists not in such naturall acquired ill habits; neither can the extirpation of them, be necessary to true Repentance, which may take away the sin, though those habits remaine. Morover the acts wherby some vicious habit is acquired, may destroy some contrary vicious habit; as for example, Acts of Prodigality, tend to the destruction of the habit of Avarice (and the same may be sayd of all other vices, which are Extremes in order to the meane of vertue:) But it is absurd, and impious to say, or imagine, that habituall sin can be forgiven by any sinfull Act, since no habituall sin, can be taken away without Repentance, which being a speciall supernaturall Gift of God, cannot be a sin: Therfore we must affirme, that, reall Qualityes, which we call habits, are not habituall sin; otherwise sin might be pardoned by sin. Which is further confirmed, by considering, that vicious habits, may be expelled immediatly and formally by naturall habits, and mediate by Acts, wherby the habits of such vertues are produced: For example, The habit of Injustice by the Contrary habit of Justice, and so other vices by their contrary vertues, habits, and Acts. And therfore, if habituall sin consist in reall Qualityes, or habits of vice, sin shall be forgiven formally by a forme, or Quality, or habit acquired by Acts produced by force of nature, which (being but naturall) yet shall be vltima dispositio to supernaturall infused justifying [Page 609]Grace; which is both absurd, and the wicked heresy of Pelagius. Lastly It is a certaine truth, that whosoever departs this life, in any one deadly sin, vnrepented, cannot be saved. And it is also true, that some habituall sin, may consist with some naturall precedent habits of vertue, which are not expelled by every deadly sin, seing such a deadly sin may be cōmitted in some matter, which hath no connexion at all with the objects of those naturall habits of vertue, and therfore such a sin shall not expell such habits of morall vertues, as de facto it doth not expell, even the supernaturall habits of the Theologicall vertues, Faith, and hope. And if habituall sin may stand with naturall, yea and with some supernaturall Vertues, what reason can be imagined, but that habituall grace, and Sanctity, may consist with the simple entity or nature of vicious habits, being cleared, by Repentance, from all former relation of being effects of sinfull Acts, by which they were produced? And consequently; true Repentance which is a disposition to the infusion of grace, may consist without the extirpation of the habits, seing grace itselfe may stand with them.

13. The third kind of Habits, I call, infused Habits, of the three Theologicall vertues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, which haue for their immediate object, God himselfe, who is our last End; and infused Habits of morall vertues, which respect or haue for their Objects, the Meanes, which bring vs to that End. Now, for the production, or in fusion of supernaturall Habits, we may dispose ourselves, by voluntary supernaturall Acts, produced by the particular Assistance, of the Holy Ghost; but the Habits themselves, are produced and infused into our soules, immediatly and only by God, and not Physically, and really produced, by any even supernaturall Acts of ours, as naturall Habits are acquired and produced by our naturall Acts. And as our soule, which is a spirit, and the life of our body, is created by God alone, so no wonder if justifying Grace which is the spirituall life and soule of our soule, be infused by God, not produced by vs. This difference ariseth, from the diversity of nature, between naturall, and supernaturall, or Infused Habits. Naturall Habits do presuppose, a Power, or Ability to produce certaine Acts, and Habits are superadjoyned to the same Power, for producing those Acts, with greater promptitude, and facility. But supernaturall Habits, not finding in our soule, a power to produce, of it selfe, supernaturall Acts (for how could they be supernaturall, if they could be produced by naturall forces?) giue vs such power and [Page 610]Ability; and therfore in rigour of speech, should rather be called Potentiae, than Habitus, Powers, than Habits. For which cause I sayd, Three sorts of Habits, or as it were Habits, ought to be distinguished in this Question. For. Habituall sin is, as I may say, less than an habit, being no reall, or Physicall Quality; the infufed habits, are more than meere habits; they are Powers, as I haue declared. Naturall, or acquired habits, being reall Qualityes on the one side, and on the other, presupposing in vs, a Power to worke without them, are really, properly, and purely habits. It is therfore, easy to vnderstand the reason, why our Acts cannot produce supernaturall habits, which giue vs Power to produce such Acts, it being a cleare case, that no effect can produce that, which of its nature is the very Power to produce, or the Efficient Cause, in respect of such Effects, which Cause must be presupposed existent, and in being, before it can produce such an Effect. Otherwise, there would be a mutuall causality, and dependance, between the first production of the Cause Efficient, and the effect therof; the Cause would be the effect of its owne effect, and the Effect would be the cause of its Cause; as if the Father should be son to his son, and the son father, to his owne Father.

14. From this Ground: That supernaturall habits are Powers, without which, our soule is not only weake, or infirme, but absolutly vnable, to produce any supernaturall Act, and therfore cannot be acquired or produced by any Acts of ours; there followes another difference; That, naturall acquired Habits, yield as it were a sensible facility, demonstration, experience, and feeling of themselves, by remooving impediments, disposing the Organs of our Body, and other such wayes. But those other Habits, giving vs the first Ability, and Power, and being in their nature essentially supernaturall, are not discernable by sensible experience, but may well consist with vicious Habits, and with the facility, or inclination which they affoard towards their severall Objects; as it happens not seldome, that a man, who in the sight of God, is more holy by supernaturall Grace, is carryed with a more vehement inclination, or impulsion to sinfull Objects, either by his naturall complexion, or vicious Habits, acquired before his conversion, than another, made of a different constitution of body, or clogged with fewer vicious Habits: which greater propension to sin, is so far from being any sin of itselfe, that it gives continuall matter, of greater merit, by frequent combats, and victoryes.

[Page 911]

15. And here I would aske, whether, if you hold the habits of vice to be habituall sins, even after an Act of Contrition, or Sorrow with a firme purpose to amend, you must not likewise belieue, naturall acquired Habits of vertues, to be justice, and Sanctity, in the sight of God? And yet this were direct Pelagianisme, evacuating the fruite of our Saviours Satisfaction, and merit; and is in itself manifestly vntrue. For the End to which God hath elevated, and ordained Man, being supernaturall (the Beatificall Uision, or enjoying God in his Glory) the Meanes, which bring vs to that End, must also be supernaturall, and not to be compassed by our naturall forces; and therfore naturall Habits of vertue, acquired by our owne Acts, cannot be true Sanctity, and Justice, which make vs capable of the Beatificall Uision, nor can that Repentance, which disposes vs for Heaven, consist in the extirpation of vicious Habits, in which Habituall sin doth not consist, as Sanctity doth not consist, in naturall Habits of vertue. Neither may it seeme strang, that you should belieue Sanctity to consist in the acquired habits of Uertue; who hold Christian Faith, to be no more than a probable Assent; or Conclusion, deduced by naturall reason, from Premises evidently apt to inferr such a Conclusion; As also, who speaking of Charity, say (Pag: 368. N. 49.) It is against reason and experience, that by the commission of any deadly sin, the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated. By which you giue to vnderstand, that you belieue the habit of Charity, to be produced by our Acts, and to be destroyed by little and little, (as it happeneth in naturall acquired habits) and that the presence of it, may be discovered by experience, which agrees only to naturall habits, working in vs by a kind of experimentall way: Wheras, if you did belieue, the habit of Charity, to be supernaturall in essence, not producible by our Acts, but infused by God, for enabling vs, to loue his Divine Majesty aboue all things, you would easily see, that it could not be destroyed by parts, but all togeather, and that only in case of committing a deadly sin, wherby the sinner, in fact voluntarily prefers some creature before God, his Creatour, and therby ceaseth to loue him aboue all things, which yet is essentiall to Charity, and without which it cannot exist in any least degree. Holy Scripture tells vs, he that loves not, remaines in death; which declares, that Charity is the life of the soule; and de dly sin being the death therof, if Charity may stand with deadly sin, the life and death of the soule, should abide togeather. But, as I sayd, it appeares by this, that you discourse of the Theologicall vertrue [Page 612]of Charity, as of naturall acquired habits, produced by our Acts, may be encreased, diminished, produced, and destroyed without any like alteration in the habits of the infused vertues, which are of a different nature, and higher kind. And by this appeares how necessary it was, to premise the Introduction, concerning the infused habits, and necessity of Grace.

16. In the meane tyme, every one may see, that either you make small account of Scripture, which yet you pretend to be a totall Rule of Faith, or els, that it is not cleare, even when it seemes to speake most cleare. For, what principle is more received in Christianity, or more evidently set downe in Scripture, than that by true, and harty Contrition, a sinner doth instantly obtaine pardon of his sins? And yet you deny this first principle, and as it seemes, can see no such evidence in Scripture concerning it. The Protestant Church of England once so termed) at the beginning of their morning Prayer, hath this sentence, (out of the Psalme 51. according to their account) a sorrowfull spirit is a sacrifice to God; and that out of S. Luke (15.18.19.) of the Prodigall child: I will goe to my father, and say to him, Father, I haue sinned against Heaven, and against thee: I am no more worthy to be called thy son; who vpon such Repentance was instantly received into favour, as S. Basill (Homil: de penit) saith of him: Caeperat dicere, & mox illum Pater complectitur. He had searce begun to aske pardon, when it was granted him. And S. Chrysost: (priore epist: ad Theodor: laps:) In eo momento totius vitae peccata abstergit: In that very instant the sins of his whole life were wiped away. Thus we reade (Ezech: 33.12.) The justice of the just shall not deliver him, in what day soever he shall sinne: and the imprety of the impious shall not hurt him, in what day soever he shall convert frō his impiety. Therfore, as a just man doth instantly loosegrace, by his sin, so a sinner repēting, doth presentlyobtaine pardon of his sin, and lives by justifying grace, God being more ready to pardon, than punish. And no wonder; seing a sinner performes all that is in his power, for that instant: And god requires of vs, no more than is in our power, nor can he seriously command impossible things (as you expressly confesse (Pag: 390. N. 7.) in these words: The Rule of the Law is also the dictate of common reason and equity, that no man can be obliged to what is impossible. We can be obleged to nothing but by vertue of some command: Now it is impossible that God should command in carnest any thing which he knowes to be impossible. For to command in earnest is to command [Page 613]with an intent to be obliged which is not possible he should doe, when he knowes, the thing commanded to be impossible. These I say, be your words, ād they are very true, but directly against the common doctrine of Protestants, that it is impossible to keepe the commandements of God (who surely commanded them in Scripture in good earnest, and not in jeast,) neither is there any moment wherin a man indued with the vse of Reason, may not avoide eternall damnation, if he cooperate with Gods grace, which is never wanting; nor can there be any moment, wherin a man may not hope to be saved. It is a true Axiome of Divines, facienti quod in se est, &c: God doth not denye his Grace to him, who doth all that lyes in his power, assisted by grace. I sayd, A sinner doth all that lyes in his power at that instant. For, if he surviue, he is obliged to keepe all the Commandements, which oblige vnder mortall sin: but this observance, is not a part of Contrition or Repentance, but only the Object therof, for as much, as Contrition implyes an effectuall purpose, of keeping the Commandements: And for that cause the same Prophet (Uers: 14.15.16.) saith; If I shall say to the impious: Dying thou shallt dye; and he do pennance from his sin, and do judgment and justice, and the same impious restore pledge, and render robbery, walke in the Commandements of life, and do not any vnjust thing: living he shall liue and shall notdy. All his sins, which he hath sinned, shall not be imputed to him: he hath done judgment and justice, living he shall liue. This appeares in the conversion and justification of David (2. Reg: 12.) who repenting, had scarce vttered two words, I haue sinned to our Lord, when he heard of the Prophet: Our Lord also hath taken away thy sin. Where some obserue, that the Prophet sayd not, our Lord will take away thy sin, de futuro, but, hath taken away thy sin, de praeterito: to signify, that, Contrition and remission of his sins, mett in the same instant. Which David himselfe witnesseth, (Psalm: 31. V. 5.) I sayd: I will confess against me my injustice to our Lord: and thou hast forgiven me the impiety of my sin. Vpon which place S. Austine speaking in person of David, saith: my confession had not come so far as to my mouth, and God heard the voyce of my hart. My voyce was not yet in my mouth, and the eare of God was already in my hart. (Actor 2.38.) Peter sayd to them, do pennance and be every one of you baptized in the name of Jesus Christ: And (Uers: 42.) They therfore that received his word, were baptized. But it is cleare, that these men, could not haue tyme, to roote out all vicious habits: therfore that [Page 614]cānot be required to true Repentance. Prov: 8. I loue those who loue me. But how cā God be sayd to loue those, who loue him, if he forgiues not the sin, but remaines offēded, ād an enemy, to one who loves him by true Contrition, which implyes the loue of his divine Majesty, aboue all things? S. Austine in Enchirid: (C. 65.) saith: Not so much the measure, or quality of tyme, as of sorrow, is to be considered: For, God doth not despise a contrite and humbled hart. Which last words taken out of the 40. Psalme: do of themselves proue our Assertion. So that, Scripture, Fathers, and Theologicall reasons, do all concurre in this, that effectuall sorrow for sins past, with a firme Resolution to amend for tyme to come, is a sufficient disposition for remission of sinnes, whether it be perfect Contrition, without Sacramentall absolution, or attrition with it; though it be also true, that perfect Contrition must involue, a purpose to receaue absolution, in due tyme.

17. Your third Errour is delivered in many places of your Booke, and consists in this: That, one who lives in a sinfull errour against faith, may be saved, by a generall Repentance of all his sins knowne, and vnknowne, though he do not forsake that culpable errour, but liue and dy in it. In your Answer to the preface of Charity Maintayned (Pag: 7. N. 3. you approue the saying of Potter, that both sides, by the confession of both sides, agree in more Points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation, and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary: That it is very possible a man may dy in errour and yet dy with repentance, as for all his sins of Ignorance, so in that number, for the errours in which he dyes: with a repentance, though not explicite and particular: which is not simply required, yet implicite and generall, which is sufficient: So that, he cannot but hope, considering the Goodness of God, that the Truths retained on both sides, especially those of the necessity of Repentance from dead workes and Faith in Iesus Christ, if they be put in practise, may be an andidote against the errours held on either side: to such he meanes, and sayes, as be [...]ng diligent in seeking Truth, and desirous to find it, yet misse of it through humane frailty, and dy in errour.

18. About which words, it is to be observed: First, that as I noted aboue, you and Potter confess, that Catholiks hold more Points of Faith than are necessary to salvation; so that the Points in which we differ from Protestants, which you call errours, are not necessary; and accordingly you teach (Pag: 9. N. 7.) that, men may be saved though they hold the doctrines of Indulgēces, Purgatory, and the vse of Latine [Page 615]Service. And therfore I may turne against you, your owne words (Pag: 220. N. 52.) May it please you therfore, now at last to take notice, that by Fundamentall, we meane all, and only that which is necessary: and then I hope you will grant, that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamentall to salvation; Vnless you will say, that more is necessary, than that which is necessary. These words I say, proue that we may even safely (for that is your word) expect salvation in a Church, which by confession of all sides, believes more Points than are necessary, vnless you will say, that more is necessary, than that which is necessary; or, that we belieue not as many Points as are necessary, though we belieue more than are necessary. Secondly: That, as I noted before, you contradict yourselves in saying, That by the goodness of God, the Truths retained on both sides, may be an antidote against the errours of such as being diligent in seeking Truth, and desirous to find it, yet misse of it by humane frailty, and dy in errour. For, the errours of men, so qualifyed as you describe them, must needs be invincible; if invincible, no sins) if no sins, how can any truth be an antidote against them? Or how can; the doctrine of necessity of Repentance from dead works, concerne works, which are not dead, that is, no sinnes, nor can be the Object of Repentance, or capable of pardon? I beseech you remember your owne express words (Pag: 16. N. 21.) The very saying they were pardonable, implies they needed pardon, and therfore in themselves were damnable. How then do you say, that inculpable errours, may be pardoned by a generall Repentance? Or how do you in particular, agree either with Catholiks, or Protestants, about the necessity of Repentance of dead workes, seing you disagree from both of them, in declaring what Repentance is necessary? Thirdly: (Pag: 8. N. 3.) you say the Doctour gives them only hope of pardon of errours, who are desirous, and according to the proportion of their opportunityes and abilityes, industrious to find the Truth, or at least truly repentant, that they haue not bene so. In which words you distinguish those, who are desirous and industrious to find the truth frō those, who are repentant that they haue not been so: The former sort of which men, are not capable of Repentance, because they committed no sin. And if the second be truly repentant, (as you suppose they are) that they haue not been desirous and industrious to find the Truth, you suppose they know that they haue not been so. To whom then shall belong that Repentance, which you call generall and implicite of all errours, knowne and vnknowne? Fourthly; Howsoever you endeavour to answer these [Page 616]contradictions, it seemes you are constant, that a sinfull errour may be pardoned, though one liue and dy in it: And then, Fiftly, The difficulty, which I spoke of aboue, comes to vrge you: How such a man can attaine your kind of Repentance, at the houre of his death, when it is impossible. But let vs goe forward.

19. (Pag: 21.) you say; If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in any errour, by any sin of his will (as it is to be feard many millious are) such Errour is, as the cause of it, sinfull and damnable: yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation, but pardonable if discovered, vpon a particular explicite Repentance, if not discovered, vpon a generall and implicite Repentance for all sins knowne and vnknowne: in which number, all sinfull Errours must of necessity be contayned, (Pag: 168. N. 52.) speaking of errour proceeding from some Voluntary and avoidable fault, and in its owne nature damnable, You say: If the party so erring, dy with Contrition for all his sins knowne and vnknowne (as his Errour can be no impediment but he may) his Errour though in itselfe damnable, to him, according to your Doctrine (Charity Maintayned disclaimes from any such false, and implicatory Doctrine, as this it) will not proue so: As the most malignant poyson, will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote. In these and other passages of your Booke, you teach, that a sinfull, and damnable Errour (for of such we must speake, when we speake of Repentance, to object wherof his sin) may be forgiven, while one remaines in such an Errour, or without relinquishing it; which is a most pernicious errour, and destructiue of itselfe. For, if his errour be sinfull; it is not, because he sees it to be an errour, and yet persists in it; which is impossible, seing that to judge a particular errour to be an errour, is to forsake it and embrace the contrary truth, because an errour discovered, is destroyed; neither is it an errour, but a true judgment, to judge that an Errour is an Errour, according to the saying of S. Austine (Lib. 15. de Trinit: Cap: 10.) Nemo falsa novit, nisi cum falsa esse novit. Uerum est enim, quod illa falsa sint. No man can be sayd to know false things, except by knowing they are false: &c: But an errour is sinfull. because he gives a culpable cause therof, either by not vising diligence to find the truth, in a matter of highest moment, which is that vnum necessarium, that one necessary Thing, of which our saviour spoke, and to which, all other things are to be referred, and therfore requires our chiefest, and vtmost endeavour, and all that may any way put it in hazard, ought instantly to strike vs with a most deepe fright, and move vs [Page 617]to fly from it, tanquam a facie colubri, as from the face of a serpent, o [...] by reason of pride, confidence in his owne witt or judgment, or the like sinfull cause, which must be knowne and voluntary, in order to such an errour, and ignorance; otherwise they could not be sinfull, as we haue seene out of your owne words, that we cannot be obliged to that which is not in our power. Now, if the cause of such errour be sinfull, and voluntary, to say, one may be pardoned of that sin, without actually forsaking it, is to say: A sin may be repented, and forgiven, while one is actually persisting in the committing of it, and seing to pardon a sin, is to destroy it, and to be committing it, is to conserue it in being, sin should be destroyed, and conserved; be and not be, at the same tyme; which is a manifest contradiction.

20. But you say, The sinner may haue Repentance of all sins knowne, and vnknowne. I answer: You are in a great errour, or inconsideration, both concerning the nature of sin, and of Repentance; in supposing that either can sin be committed without all knowledge, or that true Repentance can extend it self to a sin, of which one is in Act of voluntary committing it. For, how doth he effactually detest, and with his whole hart repent himselfe of it, if he be yet voluntarily committing it? And as for the other part: All sin is voluntary, and necessarily presupposes, some kind of knowledge therof to proceede in the vnderstanding, without which, it were not voluntary, nor vincible, nor culpable, but necessary, and invincible, or no sin at all. Which being true in all sin, much more must it be so in deadly, and damnable sins, (as you affirme errours against Faith to be) which require full knowledge, and deliberation when they are first committed. And this is particularly true in the subject of which we speake; in regard, that our good God (whose will is that all should be saved, and come to the knowledge of Truth) never failes to be frequently preventing, illuminating, moving, and strongly inciting the soules of men to embrace the true Faith, Religion and church, within which he hath confined salvation, ād is continually speaking so lowd as he may be clearly heard, ād so strōgly, as every one must confess himselfe guilty, if he do not obey, ād hearkē to a voyce so sweet forcible, and Divine. And therfore your Contrition of all sins knowne and vnknowne, comes to be a meere sixion, or illusion; your Repentance of sins which one is actually committing, to be a plaine contradiction; and both of them, to containe a most pernicious Doctrine. To comprise all this matter in few words: When you speake of sins not [Page 618]knowne: if the ignorance be invincible, it is no sin: if vincible, and culpable, it doth not excuse from sin the Errour which proceeds from it; and therfore cannot be forgiven, as long as one is committing it, no more than other sins against Gods Commandements, for example, hatred, desire of revenge &c. And how can want of knowledge, excuse one, who either sins by that very want of knowledge, or that want of knowledge, is the effect of his sin, that is, of culpable neglect to learne; as a t [...]e want is not excused from the rot, by ignorance, proceeding from his voluntary neglect to study.

21. Perhaps some may say; I haue proved sufficiently, that no Protestant, or other Sectary, can haue true Contrition of sins, wholy vnknowne, or when it is committing them, or while he hath tyme to amend them, neglects to doe it. But the difficulty may seeme to remaine, what is to be sayd of a Protestant, at the point of death, if he come to be particularly contrite, of his former culpable negligence, to seeke the true Religion (but now hath no tyme to discusse particular Controversyes) with a firme resolution, to embrace that Faith which, if God spare him life, he shall, by his Divine Assistance, find to be true. To this doubt, I

22. Answer, First, That such a one cannot, according to your Doctrine, hope for Salvation, which is never granted, without true Repentance, and this cannot be had; at that moment of death. when there is no tyme to roote out all vicious Habits, which cannot be supposed to be few, in persons, who for worldly respects▪ haue not cared to seeke out the true Religion, on which, every Christian believes, the salvation of his soule to depend. Secondly: This case or supposition yields as much as Charity Maintayned intended to proue, That, a formall Protestant cannot be saved, if he persist in Protestantisme. For, he who is hartily sory that he hath neglected to seeke the true Faith, Religion, and Church, and conceives an obligation to haue vsed more diligence therin: doth clearly doubt, whether the Protestant Religion be true, and the [...]by is no more a Protestant, than he can be a Christian, who doubts, whether Christian Religion be true, it being a true Axiome in Divinity; dubius in side est infidelis, He who doubts of his Faith, is an infidell. The reason is; because Christian Divine Faith is infallible, and certainly true, and consequently, cannot consist with any deliberate, or voluntary doubt; neither doth Christian Faith, belieue any Article of Faith with greater certainty, [Page 619]than that itselfe is certaine. Whosoever therfore doubts, whether Protestants Faith, and Religion, be true, ceases to be a Protestant, or to belieue Protestant Religion to be true, with that firmnes of Faith, which is required for Salvation. And although such a pertinent sinner, be not a Catholike, by the actuall beliefe of those Points, conceruing which he hath no tyme to be particularly instructed, yet he is really and actually a Catholike by believing in voto or desire, whatsoever the Church teaches, and those errours of his, which before were culpable, only by reason of some culpable cause, or neglect to seeke the truth, while he had tyme to doe it, after true, and effectuall Contrition of such a sinfull cause remaine errours materially only, and no sins, till it be in his power to examine and reverse them; just as vertuous persons, in the true Church, may by invincible ignorance hold some errour against Faith, till they be better instructed. And so the finall Conclusion will be, that he who effectually repents his sin, committed in omitting culpably to seeke the true Church, and hath no possible meanes to examine matters, may be saved, not by a generall but by a particular contrition; not of sins vnknowne, but knowne: not remaining a formall Protestant, but being a reall Catholike, having retracted the former malice of his sin, and believing in desire, all that the Catholike Church believes, and so he is a Protestant neither in act, seing he doubts of the Protestant Religion, nor in voto or desire; which is to be a professed member of the true Church, and to imbrace the truth, and forsake all Errour, as in this present Question, we expressly speake of the errours of Protestants, and enquire whether they can be saved with such errours, as likewise our supposition, for the present is, that the Roman is the true Church, and so the Uotum or desire, of such a penitent, is to forsake the Doctrine of Protestants, and to embrace the Religion of the Roman Church. But then, if such a one survine, and come to haue tyme sufficient for seeking, and finding out the truth, and neglect to doe it, he waxeth recidivous and falls into a new sin, and his e [...]ours grow againe to be sinfull by reason of their new sinfull cause.

23. Your example, that poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote, is either de subjecto non supponente, as if the poyson of sin could stand with the Antidote of Contrition; or implyes a manifest falshood, and contradiction, if you suppose, that contrition, can destroy that sin, which one is committing. Naturall or corporall poyson, may stand with an Antidote, but sin, the poyson of [Page 620]the soule, cannot stand with Contrition and so cā helpe no more, thā an Antidote not receyved, can hinder the, operation of poyson ād contrition, cannot be receyved, in his soule, who continues the act, or affection to a deadly sin. And so your example turnes against yourself; and this Answer proves to be a more powerfull Antidote, than the poyson of your objection, which therfore I hope will not poyson any, that receives with it the Antidote.

23. Thirdly, I answer, by denying absolutely the case which was proposed; that he who hath sinfull errours, at the houre of his death, can haue true Contrition; without actuall direliction of them. My reason is; because Contrition, being a most singular Gift of the Holy Ghost, as I proved in the Introduction, and including the perfect loue of God, is an infallible Disposition to Justifying Grace; as therfore, God in his holy Providence, hath decreed, that after baptisme, in the ordinary course, or de lege ordinaria, none shall be saved, out of his Uisible Church, so he gives not his effectuall Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition in the Will, before he endue him with true Faith in the vnderstanding, that as his errours were repugnant to Faith, so his Repentance, and retractation, may rectify them, by the contrary Truths of Faith. For this cause, the Apostle, after he had sayd, God will haue all men saved, which words signify the End, adds, and to come to the knowledge of truth, as the Meanes, to such an End. And this being the ordinary course; in vaine is it, to dispute what God may doe de potentia absoluta, by his absolute Omnipotency, or whether there be any physicall, or Metaphysicall repugnance, between Contrition, and Errours per se loquendo damnable; since those matters wholy depend on Gods free will, and holy pleasure, which we cannot know, by Logicall, humane demonstrations, but only by Revelation, wherby God hath declared in generall, that for Christians, there is no salvation, without professing the Faith of his Uisible Church: and for vs to put exceptions, to that generall Rule, can haue no other effect, than to make men negligent in seeking the Truth, in tyme, vpon hope, that they may be saved with Errours against Faith, at the houre of their death, when indeed it will proue too late. Neither can it be objected, that at the houre of death, it is not possible to examine particular Controversyes, and none can be obliged to an impossible thing. For, the answer is easily given, out of what we haue already sayd. First, that this ought not so seeme strang to you, whose kind of Repentance is impossible, at [Page 621]that houre of death, as I haue often sayd; and so we may apply against you, your owne words (Pag: 390. N. 7.) They that confess their sins and forsake them, shall find mercy, though they confesse them to God only, and not to men. They that confess them both to God and men, if they do not effectually and in tyme forsake them, shall not find mercy. Now by your doctrine men cannot forsake their sins in tyme, who haue not tyme for rooting out all vicious habits, and therfore shall not find mercy. But by the way; what evidenct Scripture haue you, that they shall find it who confess their sins only to God, seing, some Lutherans, and other Protestants hold, and other confess that it was the Doctrine of ancient holy Fathers, that, private confession of sins, is commanded by God? and we haue heard Kemnitius teaching, that even Contrition, without absolution, is not sufficient for pardon of sins, either in act, or in desire; and your resolute speech to the contrary, is an affirmation, without any proofe. Neither can Contrition be sufficient, vnless it imply a firme purpose to performe all that God hath commanded, wherof Confession of deadly sins is one. Secondly I answer, that, as God is supposed at that tyme to infuse perfect contrition, and change the will, so also you should suppose that he rectifyes the vnderstanding, and the same meanes which he vseth for the one, he may vse for the other, whether he doe it immediatly by himselfe, or by the ministery and helpe of some second cause, as a catechist, or instructour, or good bookes to stirre vp the species, and then God may giue his grace to belieue; and it would be incomparably more strang, that God should giue Repentance, to Christians remayning out of his Visible Church for matter of Faith, than to cleare their Errours, supposing he will giue them Repentance, though indeed in our case, there can be no true Repentance, vnless all sinfull errours be rectifyed,

24. That which you alledge out of the Prophet David, aboccultis meis munda me, cannot signify, that sin can be committed without some knowledge, as even Socinians confess, but only that sins committed by culpable ignorance, are not wont to moue vs so much to detestation and sorrow, as those which are committed with full knowledg; and therfore those hidden sins require a more particular light, and Grace of God, to present them to our soules so clearly and effectually, as we may be perfectly sorrowfull for them in particular, and not be deceyved with such a generall, ineffectuall, sorrow, as you obtrude, without dereliction of the sins, of which men, pretend to repent.

[Page 622]

25. And now, I hope it appeares, vpon examination of your particular errours, concerning Repentance; that you make it either insufficient, by your pretended necessity of extirpating all vicious habits; or contradictory and destructiue of itselfe, by holding a Repentance, joyned with the actuall committing that sin, for which one repents: And therfore, that Protestants cannot hope to be saved, though they should dy with your Repentance: and consequently that not only Protestancy vnrepented, but even repented, in your manner, is destructiue of salvation; which is more than hitherto hath bene saied, and shewes what a choise champion you are for Protestants, and howe vnadvised, or partiall they are, who so excessively cry vp your Booke.

[Page 623]

CHAP: IX. THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE OF CHARITY MAINTAYNED IS EXAMINED.

1. HAving in the precedent Chapters, endeavoured to draw into Heads, the most vniversall and substantiall Points, handled in Mr. Chilling worths Booke, either particular to him, or common to Protestants; it remaynes only, that according to the method held by Charity Maintayned, in his Answer to Dr. Potter, we touch some particulars, which perhaps did not necessarily, or naturally, offer themselves, in those generall Heads, and yet must not be omitted by me, if it were but for taking away all suspicion, or aspersion, that any thing hath beene purposely dissembled, as impossible to be answered; though it be very true, that all difficultyes of moment, haue been considered, and examined in the former Chapters. And therfore it ought not to be expected, and much less exacted, that I spend much tyme, in this particular Survey of every parcell of His Booke, being sufficient, that the Reader be referred, to those severall places, wherin his Sophismes are discovered, his reasons confuted, Objections answered, forquēt contradictions layed open. I will answere his Chapter in order, as they lye, having first begun with his answer to the Preface of C: M. And so now I begin to address my speech to him.

2. In your (Pag: 6. N. 2.) you accuse Charity Maintayned as perverting the state of the Question, which, say you, was not whether Papists and Protestants can be saved in their severall professions, but whether we may without vncharitableness, affirme, that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation. But this is a difference, without any reall disparity. For, Charity Mistaken, and Catholikes, believing in their conscience that the Religion which they profess, is true, and the contrary false, Dr. Potter must not take it ill, af Catholiks belieue they may be saved in that Religion for which they suffer; as Charity Maintayned saieth: [Page 624](Part. 1. Pag: 27. N. 1. and Part. 1. Pag. 36. N. 17.) this, I say being supposed, it followes, that, we must either belieue Protestancy vnrepented to destroy salvation; or els, that both Catholikes, and Protestants may be saved in their severall professions. For if this last were once granted, then Protestants might be saved, though it were proved, that our Religion were true. And therfore all the proofes of Charity Mistaken must be resolved into this Question; whether both Catholiks, and Protestants can be saved. Which answer is of it selfe so obvious, that yourselfe did perceiue it; and therfore you say to Charity Maintayned. Neither may it be sayd that your Question here and myne, are in effect the same, seing it may be true that you and we cannot both be saved: And yet as true, That, without vncharitableness you cannot pronounce vs damned. As, though Iewes and Christians cannot both be saved, yet a Iew cannot justly, and therfore not charitably, pronounce a Christian damned. Which is a very strange speech, as if you would haue Catholikes not belieue Catholique Religion to be true; which if they belieue, it followes that Protestants cannot be saved, vnless both Catholikes and Protestants may be saved, and therfore you had no reason to say, that the Question was not, Whether, both Catholikes and Protestants may be saved. For this cause Charity Mistaken gives this very title to his sixt Chapter: That, both Catholikes and Protestants cannot possibly be accompted of one and the same Religion, Faith, and Church. And the Title of his tenth, and last Chapter: is: A recapitulation of the whole discourse (marke, of the whole discourse) wherin it followes vpon the confession of both partyas, that the Catholikes and the Protestants, are not both of them saveable in their sever all Religions. Thus (to turne your owne example directly against you) supposing Iewes and Christians cannot both be saved, a Christian who believes Christian Religion to be true, may justly, and charitably pronounce a Jew damned. In like manner, Charity Mistaken (Chap: 2. Pag: 15.) saith expressly, That, as Catholikes so long as they belieue their Religion to be true, must belieue Protestancy vnrepented to destroy salvation so (saith he) the same must they also belieue of vs, if indeed they belieue their owne Religion to be true Christian Religion, of which, Christ himselfe pronounced, Qui non crediderit, condemnabitur. And why must Protestants say of vs, as we say of them, but because (as I alledged out of the Title of his last Chapter) Catholikes and Protestants are not both of them saveable in their severall Religions? And therfore the whole discourse of Charity Mistaken was not so much to proue in particular, [Page 625]the truth of Catholike Religion, and falshood of Protestantisme, as that, (supposing Catholike Religion be true) it is no vncharitableness, to belieue, and professe, that, Protestants cannot be saved, without Repentance, and that, Protestants must say the same of vs, if their Religion were true; and so all the Question is resolved, finally, and formally, into this, Whether both Catholikes and Protestants can be saved in their severall Professions, as Charity Maintayned affirmed it to be.

3. After this; (N. 3.) you endeavour to proue out of Dr. Potter, that he answered directly to that Question which Charity Maintayned proposed; because the Doctor teacheth, that men of different Religions may be saved by repentance of all their sins of ignorance. But by your leaue, the Question is; whether men of different Religions, can be saved, if they liue, and dye, in that difference, without repentance. For he who repents his errour, or the culpable cause therof, ceases to be formally of that Religion, of which he was, before such his repentance; in regard that he who doubts in his Faith, is an infidell, in respect of that Faith, as I declared aboue; and even yourselfe say (Pag: 25. N. 29.) He that would Question whether knowing a thing and doubting of it, may stand togeather, deserves without Question, no other Answer, but laughter. Your numbers (5.6.7.) containe nothing not answered already.

4. In answer to your (N. 8.) I say, as hertofore, that Potter somtymes seemes to affirme, that it is damnable to disbelieue any Point, sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God: But yet, that both he, and other Protestants do, and must, contradict that their affirmation, in diverse respects, as I proved aboue at large, and therfore whatsoever he seemes to say in one place, being contradicted by himselfe in another, is to be reputed as never sayd, in order to any other effect, except this only, that no regard is to be had, what he saith, either in the one, or the other, of those places: And therfore Charity Maintayned had reason to say, that in this particular he never touched the Point really, seing he himselfe destroyes, what himselfe might seeme once to haue builded.

5. All that you haue (N. 10.) is answered, by saying, that it is damnable, not to belieue, any least Point, which the Church proposes to be a Divine trurh, that is, as revealed by God; till which tyme, one may erre, without Heresy. Now, to determine what Points in particular be so proposed, were to run overall particular Articles of [Page 626]Faith: Yet to your instances, I answer briefly: The Quarta decimani, who held, that Easter was to be kept according to the Rite of the Jewes, were justly condemned of Heresy, not precisely for the Circumstance of Tyme, but for the ground of that Assertion, that it was necessary to doe so; which would haue brought with it, a necessity of keeping all the Rites of the Jewes. And therfore you say vntruly, that, God had not then declared himselfe about Easter. But the keeping of Chrismass day, ten dayes, sooner, or later, goes vpon no such ground. For, I never heard, that the Jewes kept our Saviours Nativity, either according to the new, or old Calendar. As for believing that there are Antipodes; if you can produce any Text of Scripture, or definition of Gods Church, I will hold it a matter of Faith. Sure I am, it is a matter of reason, not to produce such impertinent examples as you doe. The same I say of Predetermination; that what the Church shall determine, will become a matter of Faith. The example of Millenaryes, and necessity of Eucharist for Infants (which last you vntruly Father vpon S. Augustine) you are still obtruding vpon vs, without proving what you say: as also that S. Austine did not hold it as a matter of Faith, that the Bishops of Rome had Right and Power, to judge of all appeales, from all parts of the world; and it is manifestly false, that the Church ever determined, the Doctrine of the Millenaryes; or that S. Austine did deny the Pope had Right to judge of all appeales: though for the Practise therof, there might be just cause, not to vse it promiscuously, in all occasions. You say, Justine Martyr denyes that some good Christians held the contrary to the Millenaryes: But, even learned Protestants, and more skillfull in the Greeke toung than you are, interpret S. Justine Martyr in a direct contrary sense, as I shew hereafter. And in fine, our Question is only concerning matters defined by the Church, and not what any particular Doctour might hold. It seemes you hold it not to be a matter of Faith, that Heretikes may giue true Baptisme: but S. Austine held, and Gods Church believes it, to be such; and by this example we proue, that some Points are matter of Faith, which are not evidently contained in Scripture.

6. To your (N. 13.) I answer: Charity Maintayned (N. 6.) said not, that a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved, is Atheisme, but a ground of Atheisme: yea, he sayd not this absolutely, but thus: there is not a more pernicious Heresy, or rather (marke this modification) a ground of Atheisme, than a perswasion that [Page 627]men of different Religions may be saved. Where you see, such a Doctrine is not absolutely called Atheisme, but only that it may be rather called a ground of Atheisme, than a pure, or ordinary, kind of Heresy. And I pray, is not a perswasion, that men of different Religions may be saved without repentance, a ground and disposition, either to deny the Deity, which is to be worshipped ōly by a true Religion, or not to care much for God, or Religion? And who would dislike this saying of Charity Maintayned, pronounced in generall, except a Socinian, or some such creature? Yourselfe say (N. 8.) That, to deny a thing sufficiently proposed, to be revealed by God, is to giue God the lye: and to say, that men may be saved, who giue God the lye, is it not a ground, and disposition to end in Atheisme? Potter saith (Pag: 212.) Whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamentall, in regard of the Divine Authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended: that as, such is may not be denyed, or contradicted without infidelity. Why do you not question the Doctor, and aske, how he can be an infidell, who believes the true God? Remember your owne saying, that the naturall fecundity of errour is to beget Errour. And so what will follow of freedom, and indifferency for all beliefes (of which one only can be true) but a flitting from one Errour to another, till they hold no Religion at all? But the truth is, you could not impugne Charity Maintayned, but by changing, or rather falsifying the Question, which was, whether men of different Religions, may be saved without repentance, and you say, they may be saved, by repentance; wherby it may seeme, you do not deny, but it were a ground of Atheisme, to assirme, that men of different Religions, may be saved without any repentance, though they liue, and dy in their errour.

7. The rest of your Answer, being only an Answer, to such Demands, as Charity Maintayned proposed, which haue been handled at large in other places, I will only briefly note, First; what you say. (Pag: 18. N. 26.) in these words ( why an implicite Faith in Christ and his word, should not suffice as well as an implicite Faith in your Church, I haue desired to be resolved by many of your side, but never could) hath been expressly answered (Chap: 2.) where I haue shewed, that Scripture alone neither extensiue containes all necessary Points of Faith, nor as I may say, intensiue, seing euen those Articles which it containes, for the true and certaine vnderstāding of them, require the authority of the church; [Page 628]to say nothing, that we cannot haue an implicite Faith in the Scripture, vnless it be resolved into our beliefe of the Church, for whose authority we receaue Scripture it selfe. Secondly; That, (N. 19.) you answer not directly to the Question of Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. P. 15. N. 12.) (What visible Church was there before Luther, disagreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants:) But transferr it, from a Church, to particular men, as if it were necessary, for vs to shew, that every man agreed with the Roman Church, seing we know, many particular men, haue fallen into errours; but we affirme that before Luther, there was no visible true, Orthodox, Church, which disagreed from the Roman, and particularly in those Points, wherin Protestants disagree from vs. Thirdly, that (Pag: 23. N, 27. as it should be) you accuse vs of want of Charity, even while you are in the act of giving the same ill measure to vs, saying, that for want of Charity to Protesiants, we alwayes suspect the worst of them: and what greater want of Charity can there be in you, than not only to suspect, but to pronounce and proclaime in print, that we want Charity, which is the heaviest imputation that can be imagined. For, seing Charity is major horum, greater than Faith, or Hope, in saying we want Charity, you say we offend against a vertue, of greater perfection, than any other, either Theologicall or Morall. And so, Protestants in generall, are more vncharitable, against Catholikes, by accusing them of want of Charity, than Catholikes can be against them, who we say, cannot be saved, without Repentance, for want of true Faith. And it is well to be observed, that Protestants do not accuse vs, of vncharitableness, in saying, they want true Faith (seing they profess to belieue that we also erre in Faith,) but because we say, they cannot be saved, supposing they want the true Faith; as we also ought to belieue of ourselves, vnless we were most infallibly certaine of the truth of our Faith, as we are. Fourthly. You shew little skill in Divinity, while you make no difference betwixt an erronious Conscience, and errour, wheras Conscience (which is always considered in order to practise) may be practicè true and right, and yet rely vpon some invincible speculatiue errour: Fiftly. In vaine you labour to proue, that ignorance is not accidentall to errour; seing you know very well, that Charity Maintayned spoke not of ignorance and errour, as if they were accidentall to themselves, or all ignorance accidentall to errour, but that, to be inexcusable or not excusable; vincible or invincible; [Page 629]culpable or not culpable; voluntary or not voluntary; are accidentall, both to ignorance, and errour, which you will not deny, seing they are separable, and some errour may be vincible, and some other invincible &c. Wherin if you impugne him, you confute yourselfe, who (Pag: 25.) say, that he who erres, though not conceaveable without ignorance simply, may be very well considered either as with, or without voluntary and sinfull ignorance. This occurres concerning your answer to the Preface. Now I come to answer your Chapters, as they lye in order.

[Page 630]

CHAP: X. The Ansvver to his FIRST CHAPTER, ABOVT THE STATE OF THE QVESTION: And VVhether amongst men of DIFFERENT RELIGIONS one side only can be saved.

1. I Omitt to take notice, that, wheras Charity Maintayned in the Title of his First Chapter, speakes expressly of men of different Religions, you turne Religions into Opinions, saying, There is no reason, why among men of different Opinions, one side only can be saved: As if there were no difference between difference in Faith and Religion, and in Opinion. Which shewes, that no man could do you injury, in saying, that your kind of Christian Faith was but Opinion, wherof you complaine (Pag: 35. N. 7.) But this I omit heere, and come to tell you, that in vaine you take great paines, to pervert notoriously the meaning of Charity Maintayned against his words, and intention, about the possibility of the saveablenesse of Protestants; Wheras Hee, and Charity Mistaken, and all Catholikes, belieue, and professe the same thing; That, a Protestant, or any other Sectary, if his errour be sinfull, cannot be saved, wihout repentance of those errours, it being impossible, that the sin should be forgiven; while one remaines in it. And therfore Charity Maintayned distinguishing between the sinfull errours in the vnderstanding of a Protestant, and other sins, which he might haue committed, hath these expresse words: we haue no revelation, what light might haue cleared his errours, [Page 631]or Contrition retracted his sins, in the last moment before his death. The reason why besides the relinquishing of his errours, Charity Maintayned expressly required retractation of all other deadly sins, was, least any should thinke, that for the salvation of Protestants, or any other Sectaryes, it were sufficient, that they were cleared from their Heresyes, and vnited to the Church by Faith; wheras indeed, after that is done, there remaines a chiefe businesse, which is, to conceiue effectuall sorrow, for all other deadly sins. For which cause, when we vnderstand, that a Catholike who hath true Faith, dyes suddenly, or without Sacramentall absolution, we are moved with just feare, and griefe. So that, Charity Maintayned expressly requires two things: A renounciation of errours, and contrition, both for those sinfull errours, and all other sins. And therfore you had no reason at all to say (Pa. 31. N. 3. I wish you had expressed yourselfe in this matter more fully and plainly) hee having declared himselfe very clearly.

2. But you are not only vnreasonable, but vnjust also, when you take for plaine, that which even yourselfe in this very place say was not plaine: And what you saie, is only insinuated (that though no light did cleare the errours of a dying Protestant, yet Contrition might retract his sins) you take for a plaine affirmation, or concession, and continue to do so, and build vpon it, through your whole Booke, declaring therby, that you do proficere in pejus, even against your owne sayings, passing from an insinuating, to a certainty; for which cause, the Author of that pithy, and learned treatise, called the totall summe, (Pag: 39.) calles your proceeding in this particular, an impudent slandering of Charity Maintayned: And that, what you cannot obtaine by truth and fayre dealing, you seeke to get by falshood, fraud, and forgery. And (Pag: 40.) that without shame you falsify the Tenet of your Adversary, and the Doctrine of our Church. And (Pag: 42.) That the saying which (Pag: 31. N. 4.) you set downe. in a distinct character as the verball and formall Assertion of Charity Maintayned is forged and fayned by yourselfe from the first, to the last syllable therof, not only against his meaning in that place, but also the whole drift of his Treatise: and, that in this, you shew the Adamantinall hardness of your Socinian forhead, and Samosatenian conscience. And (Pag: 43.) That it is an impudent vntruth; and that your collection of it out of Charity Maintayned is a fond and voluntary inference; as most certainly it is. For, neither Charity Maintayned himselfe, nor any other who read his Booke, did ever intertaine any least imagination, of such a meaning. [Page 632]Insomuch, that a Protestant Writer Francis Cheynell hath these words; Men are damned, saith he (Mr. Chillingworth I who dy in willfull errours without repentance, but what if they dy in their errours with repentance? Answer in the preface, (Pag: 20.) That is a contradiction, saith the Iesuit, and he sayth true: which shewes the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned to be, that sinfull errours cannot remaine with repentance, but must be relinquished. Lastly, to make this your calumny inexcusable, Charity Maintayned (N. 5.) hath these very words: But yet least any man should flatter himselfe, with our charitable mitigations, and therfore waxe carelessin search of the true Church, we desire him to read the Conclusion of the second Part, where this matter is more explayned. Now, in that Conclusion he teaches that our greatest care must be, to find out that one saving Truth, which can be found only in the true visible Catholique Church of Christ, which we shall be sure not to misse, if our endeavour be not wanting to his grace, who desires that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledg of truth. Where you see, Ch: Ma: saith, it is in our power with Gods grace, to find that saving Truth which is but one, and is to be found only in the true visible Church of Christ: and so it must [...] our fault, if we misse therof, and consequently, that our errours will be sinfull, and that we cannot effectually repent of them, without passing to the Truth, that is, without destroying those culpable sinfull errours, which, by Gods grace, is in our power to destroy, by embracing the contrary truths. And afterward, Ch: Ma: saith, that the search of this truth, will not proue so hard and intricate, as men imagine, because God hath endued his visible Church, with so conspicuous markes of vnity and agreement in Doctrine; Vniversality for tyme, and place; a never interrupted Succession of Pastours; a perpetuall visibility from the Apostles to vs &c. far beyond any probable pretence, that can be made by any other congregations; that whosoever doth seriously and vnpartially weigh these notes, may easily discerne to what Church they belong. Thus Ch: Ma: to shew how culpable, and inexcusable they are, who do not actually embrace Catholique Religion, and forsake all other Congregations, and errours. And yet, to take away all possibility, for you to deceiue the world, with this vnjust calumnie, Ch: Ma: hath these very words: Let not men flatter and deceiue themselves, that ignorance will excuse them. For there are so many, and so easy, and yet withall so powerfull meanes, to find the true Church, that it is a most dangerous [Page 633]ād pernicious errour, to rely vpon the excuse of invincible ignorance. What could he haue sayd more, than to stile the Hope of Salvation by meanes of ignorance, a pernicious errour? Yet more and more to confute your calumnie, and declare his owne sense, he adds: I wish them to consider, that he can least hope for reliefe by ignorance, who once confides therin: because his very alledging of ignorance, shewes, that, God hath put some thoughts into his mynd of seeking the safest way, which if he, relying on Gods Grace, do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine, discusse, and perfitt, he shall not faile to find what he seekes, and to obtaine what he askes. Now if Ch: Ma: teach so effectually, that none must hope to be saved by ignorance, with what truth, or justice, can you say, that in his opinion, Protestants may be saved, without actually retracting their sinfull errours? Nay, I am sure, Ch: Ma: believes that if God will in his Goodness bring a man to Salvation, he will be sure, by his Wisdome to apply those Meanes, which in the ordinary course of his holy providence, he hath appointed for that end, which is, to embrace the true Faith, and to be a true member of the true visible Church.

3. You pretend to beleeue, that de facto God will bring none to heaven, without Faith in Christ, and beliefe of Christian Religion. If then one should aske, whether a Pagan, or Jew, or Turke could be saved with an vniversall sorrow, for all his errours and sins knowne, and vnknowne, what would you, answer? If you say they might be saved, you contradict yourselfe and grant that Salvation may be had without faith in Christ. If you say, they could not be saved, because God de facto hath appointed Faith in Christ, as a necessary condition, or meanes for Salvation: The same I answer in our case, that God hath decreed to saue none without true Faith, which is only in the true Uisible Church; yea, to be a true Christian, and to be a Catholike, is all one, there being not any other true Christian Faith, than that which is taught by the Catholique Church, nor is there any true Church of Christ, but One: and therfore, as you pretend to hold, Christian Faith to be necessary for Salvation, you should also hold the same of the Catholique Faith, and consequently, that none can be saved with any sinfull errour, contrary to that Faith, nor that it can be true Repentance, which doth not exclude any such errour. And, all that you can Object against this truth, may be objected in behalfe of Jewes, or Turks, against your pretended beliefe, that Faith in Christ is necessary to Salvation: [Page 634]They might, I say, demand of you why they may not haue true Contrition, and pardon of their sins, by a generall repentance of all their offences, knowne and vnknowne, and among the rest, of their errours against, or ignorance of Christian Religion? and what you answer to them, will serve for a confutation of your Arguments against vs. For this cause, Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 28, N. 3.) saith, that we hope, and pray for, the conversion of Protestants: and surely, our meaning is not, that they be converted to vs, by remaining in their former beliefe, contrary to vs. But Ch: M. need not wonder, that you falsify him, seing you are not ashamed to say (Pag: 34. N. 6.) that according to the grounds of our (Catholike) Religion, Protestants may dy in their supposed errours, either with excusable ignorance, or with contrition, and if they do so, may be saved. But I beseech you, out of what Ground, or Principle, of Catholique Religion, can you dreame to collect, that Protestants can be saved by ignorance, or with Contrition, remayning formall Protestants? And it is a comfort for Ch: Ma: to be calumniated by you, in that very thing, wherin you calumniate the whole Church of God. In the meane tyme, by what I haue sayd, innumerable places (I may say the chiefest part) of your Booke, are answered, which goe vpon this false ground, that men may be saved, without relinquishing their sinfull and damnable errours, which you perpetually affirme, without any proofe. And what reason can be given, why a man cannot be saved, without relinquishing other deadly sins, for example, Hatred, Perjury, Theft &c. and yet that it is not necessary, to forsake errours, confessed to be sinfull, and damnable? But it is no wonder, that Heretikes are willing to sooth their Heresyes with false priviledges, denyed to all other deadly sins.

4. To your numbers 1.2.3.4.5.6. I haue answered already. You say (Pag: 33. N. 4.) ( the truth is, the corruption of the Church, and the destruction of it, is not all one? For if a particular man, or Church, may (as you confesse they may) hold some particular errours, and yet be a member of the Church vniversall: why may not the Church hold some vniversall errour and yet be still the Church? Especially seing you say, it is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church, that makes an errour damnable, and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church, I meane that the present Church should oppose itselfe. Why do you stopp here, and not goe forward to declare, what lyes involued in your discourse, thus: In the tyme of the Apostles, if a particular man, or Church might haue [Page 635]held some errour, and yet remained a member of the Church vniversall: Why might not the Church of that tyme haue held some vniversall errour, and yet haue beene still the Church? You must answer your owne Argument; which is easy for vs Catholikes to doe, by saying:

5. First. No particular man, or Church, may hold any sinfull, and damnable errour, and yet be a member of the Church vniversall. Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants, if they vnderstand themselves: and, as I haue often sayd, Potter confesseth that it is, Fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian, not to disbelieue any point, sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God, and that he who does so, is an heretike, and that heresy being a worke of the flesh, excludes from the kingdome of Heaven. And what a Church would you haue that to be, which consists of Heretikes?

6. Secondly: To put a parity between particular men or Churches, and the Church vniversall, may very well beseeme some Socinian, who makes small esteeme of the Authority of the Church, but resolves faith into every mans private judgment and reason; and therfore no wonder, if such a Church be subject to corruptions, no lesse than private men, whose naturall witts, and reason must integrate, as I may say, the whole Authority, of, and certainty, in such a Church, and therfore if particular persons may fall into errours, the Church cannot be free from them: yea she must containe in her bosome, or rather bowells, such corruptions and errours, and so many poysons, contradictory one to another, and yet not breake. A noble latitude of hart, and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity! But for vs, your Argument hath no force at all. For, we belieue the Church, to be the Meanes, wherby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our vnderstanding, and to be the Judge of Controversyes, as hath beene proved hertofore at large; and this being supposed, we must make vse of your owne words (Pag: 35. N. 7.) That the meanes to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion, must be endued with an vniversall Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth. From whence it followes, that every errour in Faith is destructiue of that infallibility, which is required in the meanes to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion. Which is further confirmed by those words of yours (Pag: 9. N. 6.) No consequence can be more palpable then this; The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that, therfore it is not infallible. Therfore, say I, to affirme that the Church can erre, is to say; she is not infallible, nor can be judge of Controversyes, [Page 636]nor the meanes to convey Divine Revelations to our vnderstanding; nor could she be a Guide, even in matters Fundamentall, as we haue proved els where, and yourselfe grant this last sequele to be good. And in a word, she would cease to be that Church, which we are sure she is.

7. Thus you say, that Scripture, which alone you hold to be the Rule of Faith, and decider of Controversyes, must be vniversally infallible, and that any the least errour, were enough to blast the whole Authority therof: As also, if the Apostles, who were appointed to teach Divine Truths, could by word or writting haue taught any falshood, we could not haue relyed on their Authority, in any point of faith, great, or little.

8. You say (Pag: 143. N. 30.) There is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infalliblity, as for the Apostles and Scriptures. For, if the Church fall into errour, it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture. But if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we haue recourse for the discovering and correcting their errour? These your words, prompt vs a ready Answer, and disparity, between the Church, and private persons: who, if they fall into errour, the errour may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees, Traditions, and Definitions of Gods Church. But if the Church erre, to whom shall we haue recourse, for the discovering and correcting her errour? Nay, I do take a forcible Argument, by inverting, and retorting, your owne words. For, supposing your Doctrine, that we belieue Scripture to be true, and the word of God, for the Authority of the Church; and another saying of yours, that a proofe must be more knowne to vs, than the thing proved, otherwise, say you, it is no proofe; I argue thus: There is not the same reason for our beliefe of the absolute infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture, as for the Church. For, if false Scripture be obtruded, it may be discovered, by comparing it with the Tradition, and consent of the Church, from which we receiue the Scripture, as the word of God, and consequently, all the certainty we haue of the contents therof. But if the Church may erre, to whom shall we haue recourse, for discovering and correcting her errours seing, as I sayd, to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine, will be to no purpose, because that very Rule, cā be of no force with vs, but for the Authority of the Church, which therfore must be as great, or greater with vs, then Scripture it selfe, according [Page 637]to your owne saying, The proofe must be more knowne, than the thing proved Our B. Saviour sayd (Matt: 5.) Uos est is sal terrae: you are the salt of the earth: But if the salt leese his vertue, wherwith shall it be salted? Vpon which words, S. Austine (L. 1. de serm: Domini in monte C. 6.) saith Si vos &c. If you by whom others are to be as it were seasoned, forfeite the kingdome of heaven, vpon feare of temporall persecution, what other persons shall be found, to free you from errour, seing God hath chosen you to take away errours from others? So we may say: If the Church, which God hath appointed to teach others, and deliver them the Scripture, should erre, who could be found, to discover, and correct that errour? Your Argument is no better than this: If a man may be a man, though he be deprived of some vnnecessary part of his Body, as fingers, feete &c. why may he not remaine a man, though he want some parts absolutly necessary, for the conservation of him in Being, as hart, head, braine &c.? For, infallibility in the Church, is a priviledge, necessary, and, as I may say, essentiall to her, as she is the judge of Controversyes in Faith, which office belonging to no private persons, infallibility is not necessary for them.

9. To your vaine subtility, That we say, It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church, that makes an errour damnable, and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church, I meane, that the present Church should oppose it selfe; From whence you would collect; that if the Church should erre, yet her errour being not damnable, (as not opposite to the Church herselfe) she might still remaine a Church; I answer; By the same reason, you may say the Apostles might erre, and yet remaine of the Church, and their errour not be damnable (yea even though it were damnable and fundamentall, which is to be noted:) because, It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Apostles, that makes an errour damnable, and it is impossible the Apostles should oppose the Apostles. The like you may say of Scripture it selfe, that it might erre, and yet that it could not containe any damnable errour, because according to Protestants, It is nothing but opposing the Scripture, that makes an errour damnable, and it is impossible that the Scripture should oppose the Scripture: which consequences are absurd, and therfore, as you would answer, by denying the supposition, that the Apostles, can teach, or Scripture can containe any errour, so you know, we absolutly deny your supposition, that the Church can erre in matters of Faith; which if we did grant, we would not be so foolish, as to beliefe, that, Nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church, makes an errour damnable; [Page 638]but contrarily, we would affirme, that, precisily to oppose the Churches Doctrine, (that supposition being once made) could never be Heresy, or a damnable errour. And therfore we speake very consequently, in, First, believing, that the Church cannot erre; and, then, in avouching, that every errour repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church, is heresy. The Motto in the frontispice of your Booke, taken out of Jsaac: Casaubon: (in Epist: ad Card: Perron Regis Jacobi nomine scriptâ,) sayth; Simpliciter necessaria Rex appellat, quae vel expresse Uerbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendaue, vel ex Uerbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ Uetus Ecclesia elicuit. Obserue, that he speakes of things absolutely necessary to salvation, and then I say, if the Church be subject to errour, how can we be sure, that Her Deductions from Scripture, are necessary, or only probable; true, or false; though to her they may seeme, true, and necessary? You say, it is impossible that the present Church should oppose itselfe, and do not reflect, by this vety saying, yourselfe must suppose that the Church can teach nothing but truth. For, if she may erre in some Points, and believe aright in others, those errours may be opposite to some truth which she believes, though she do not marke that opposition. You say (Pag: 215. N. 46.) no mans errours can be confuted who togeather with his errour doth not belieue [...] grant some true Principle that contradicts his errour. If then the Churches errours may be confuted, as you will suppose they may, she must belieue some truth that contradicts her errour; and therefore if it be impossible, that the Church can be opposite to herselfe (as you say it is impossible) you must grant, that she cannot belieue or teach any errour; and then indeed it will be impossible for her to oppose herselfe, because truth cannot possibly be opposite to truth.

10. In the same (N. 4.) I must touch in a word; that you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 19.) some may for a tyme haue invincible Ignorance, even of some Fundamentall Article of Faith, through want of capacity, instruction or the like, and so not offend, either in such Ignorance, or errour. But you cite them thus: Ignorance may excuse errours, even in Fundamentall Articles of Faith; omitting that necessary limitation, for a tyme, without which restriction the words sound, as if absolvtely a man may liue, and dy with invincible ignorance of Fundamentall Articles, or of Points absolutely necessary to salvation, and so want meanes sufficient to besaved, without any fault of his; which is not true. For, if he cooperate with Gods holy [Page 639]Grace, they shall be degrees advance to the beliefe of all necessary Points, though for a tyme they were ignorant of them. And here I reflect, that, if a Protestant erre, in, or be invincibly ignorant for a tyme, fo some fundamentall Point, sufficiently proposed, and believed by other Protestants, they differ in the beliefe of fundamentall Points, and the ignorant party sins not damnably; and yet they sin damnably, who disbelieue any Point sufficiently knowne to be revealed by God, though otherwise it be not fundamentall of it selfe: and therfore it is cleare, that in matters of Divine Faith, consideration is chiefly to be had of the formall, and not of the materiall object.

11. In your (N. 7.) you say: God hath left meanes sufficient to determine, not all Controversyes, but all necessary to be determined. Which concession is as much as we desire. For, no man dare say, that God hath given any meanes, only for superfluous vses, or occasions: and therfore seing he hath left meanes for deciding all Controversyes, necessary to be determined, we cannot without injury to his infinite wisdome, imagine that there will never be necessity of determining any. Since then, as I sayd, God hath given Authority to his visible Church for determining such Controversyes, he will not faile to replenish her with Wisdome to discerne, what be the occasions, wherin they ought to be determined, according to the exigence of particular circumstances. Thus the Apostles called a Councell, vpon occasion of difference amongst Christians about the Law of Moyses, and the first foure Generall Councells, which commonly Protestants pretend to receiue, were gathered vpon severall occasions, of emergent Heresyes. The Scripture it selfe was not written all at once, but as occasion did require: and the same Holy Spirit, which assisted Canonicall Writers in writing, did appoint to them the tymes, and occasions, for which their writings would be most seasonable; yet after they were once written, it was necessary to belieue them, as also the Decree of the Apostles in their Councell registred (Act: 15.) and other Generall Councells, and commands of the Church. If Controversyes rise to such a height, that there is periculum in mora, danger in delaying to determine them, either for avoiding insufferable breach of Charity, and Schisme, or corruptions in manners, or invalidity of Sacraments, which cannot be otherwise prevented; If silence may be interpreted to imply a consent; If errour be like to prevaile, vnlesse it be condemned; if new Heresyes be in danger to take roote, if they be not crushed with speede; if [Page 640]these, or any other causes require the Decision of Controversyes, the Holy Ghost will effectually inspire, and direct his Church, to apply a convenient remedy, according to the Condition of the matter. Neither ought it to seeme strang, that somthing may grow to be necessary, one tyme, which was not necessary at another; and in the meane tyme men may be saved, by an humble preparation of mynd to belieue, and obey, whatsoever the Church shall, in good tyme, determine, or command. And by the way, out of this discourse, we may inferr, that, Scripture alone cannot be a Rule to decide all Controversyes; in regard that such a Rule, or judge must serue for all emergent occasions, and Scripture being always the same, cannot be applyed sutably to all new different circumstances, as I haue often saied.

12. You say; If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined, and yet in the meane tyme men may be saved, why should, or how can, the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation, the end itselfe to which these meanes are ordained, being as experience shewes, not necessary? But, the Answer to this objection, hath been given already. For, some thing may be necessary for some persons, at some tyme, in some Circumstances, which are not necessary vniversally for all Persons, Tymes, and Circumstances; as I specifyed in the Councell of the Apostles; in Canonicall writings (which written vpon some particular occasion, yet require an vniversall beliefe) and in generall Councells, which you and Potter affirme to oblige, as we haue seene aboue. Indeed your peremtory wild demand (Why should, or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall Meanes to determine all Controversyes, be necessary &c:) might well, by your leaue, beseeme some Jew, asking; why should, or how can Christian Religion be necessary to salvation, if for many Ages it was not in Being, and yet in the meane tyme, men were saved? Or, why should, or how can the believing and obeying the Definition of the Apostles in their Councell, or the beliefe of the Gospells, and other Canonicall writings, be necessary to salvation, if for many ages such beliefe was not required, and in the meane tyme men were saued? Or, why should, or how can infallibility be necessary to write the Scripture, if the writing of Scripture was not necessary, but that men were sayed without it? You say in the same (N. 7.) I grant, that the meanes to decide Controversyes of Faith and Religion, must be indued with an vniversall infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth. For, if it may [Page 641]be false in any one thing of this nature, we can yield vnto it but a wavering and fearfull assent in any thing. Which words seeme not to agree with what you add against Charity Maintayned in his (N. 7. & 8.) (that an vniversall infallibility must be granted to that meanes, wherby controversyes in Faith are to be determined, vnless men haue a mynd to reduce Faith to opinion) of which words you say, you do not perceyue, how from the denyall of any of the grounds which Charity Maintayned layd, it would follow, that Faith is Opinion: or from the granting them, that it is not so. For my part, I do not perceyue, how it was possible for you not to perceyue it; since you confess, that without an vniversall infallibility, we could yield vnto such a meanes, but; wavering and fearfull assent a and what is this but opinion, or a meere humane Faith? As contrarily if the Meanes, or Motiue, for which I assent be infallible, and I belieue it to be so, and assent with an act proportionable to that motiue, my assent must needs be certaine, and infallible, and not a wavering, and fearfull assent. If this be not so, why do you require infallibility in the said meanes? Certainly, infallibility is not necessary, to beget, a wavering and fearfull assent.

13. You would gladly free yourselfe of that just imputation, that you confound Divine Faith with opinion. But your tergiversation argues you guilty. You bring I know not what parityes, betwen Faith and Opinion, but decline the maine difference, That Divine Faith, is absolutely certaine and infallible; Opinion not. You being conscious of your Antichristian Doctrine, That Christian Faith exceeds not probability, dissemble the chiefe difference, which I haue declared; and you will never be able to acquit yourselfe of that griēvous, but just accusation, that you change Divine Faith into opinion. Wheras you say, that, as opinion, so Faith, admitts degrees; and, that as there maybe a strong and weake opinion so there may be a strong and weake Faith, and add, that Ch: Ma: if he be in his right mynd, will not deny it. I answer that still you sticke to your false ground, that Christian Faith is not infallible. Otherwise you would not make this comparison, between the weakness, and strength, of Opinion, and Faith, which, in its essence excludes all falshood; As contrarily, Opinion is not free from all feare least it be false.

14. The confutation of your (N. 8.) about the infallibility of Christian Faith, is the subject of my first Chapter, and therfore I need say no more here, except only to aske, what you can vnderstand by these words of yours? But though the essence of Faith exclude not all weakness [Page 642]and imperfection, yet may it be enquired, whether any certainty of Faith, vnder the highest degree, may be sufficient to please God and attaine salvation. Can the very essence of Faith be weake and imperfect, and yet the degrees therof, be certaine in the highest degree, and exclude that weakness, and imperfection, which the essence doth not exclude? is not the whole essence of Faith, in every degree, or graduall perfection therof? But, as I sayd, (directly contrary to that which your words seeme to sound) the very essence of Faith, excludes all weaknesse, that is, all falshood, and doubtfulnesse, and every graduall entity therof includes such a certainty, though one mans Faith, within the compasse of the same essence, may exceed the Faith of another, in graduall perfections, as contrarily, though Opinion may haue many graduall entityes, yet none of them can exclude formidinem oppositi, a feare that the contrary may proue true, which if any particular degree of intension did exclude, it were not Opinion, but a certaine knowledge, and so could not be a degree of intension, vnder the species, or essence, of Opinion, but an assent, essentially distinct from all Opinion.

15. In your (N. 9.) I obserue that you do not only grant the possibility of a certainty of adherence in the will, beyond the certainty of evidence in the vnderstanding, but also a certainty of knowledge in the vnderstanding, aboue the strength of probable Motives, or Arguments of Credibility. For, you say, they know (marke this word know) what they did but belieue; and are as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospell of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himselfe with their eares, which saw it with their eyes, which looked vpon it, and whose hands handled the word of life. If God can do this with his Grace; seing Christian Faith requires the Grace of God; why do you deny, that by it we are no less assured, that the Objects of Faith are true, than if we had seene them with our eyes &c:? The rest of this number is answered Chap: 1.

16. You are pleased N. 10. to delight yourselfe, and deceiue others, with a wild collection, as you stile it, fathered on Ch: Ma: being only a brood of your owne braine. The case stands thus. Ch: Ma: (N. 8.) hath these words: Out of the Principles which I haue layd (That there must be in Gods Church, some meanes for deciding Controversyes in Faith, and that it must be indued with an vniversall infallibility, in whatsoever it propounds, as spoken by God) it vndeniably followes, that of two men [Page 643]dissenting in matters of Faith, the one cannot be saved without Repentance, vnless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse. For, in that case of contrary beliefe, one must of necessity be held to oppose Gods Word or revelation, sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding, by an infallible Propounder; which opposition to the Testimony of God, is vndoubtedly a damnable sin, whether otherwise the thing so testifyed, be, in it selfe, great, or small. Now what can be more evident than this consequence, and conclusion? And yet you say, The conclusion is true, though the consequence of it from the former Premisses, either is none at all, or so obscure, that I can hardly discerne it: and then you add: the difference may be concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith, is yet overvalued by the Partyes at variance, and esteemed to be so: And lastly you set downe the wild collection I spoke of, and deliver it in these words: God hath provided meanes sufficient to decide all controversyes in Religion, necessary to be decided; this meanes is vniversally infallible; Therfore of two, that differ in any thing which they esteeme a matter of Faith, one cannot be saved. He that can find any connexion between these Propositions, I belieue will be able to find good coherence betweene the deafe plaintiffes accusation, in the Greeke Epigramme, and the deafe Defendants Answer, and the deafe judges sentence: and to contriue them all into a formall categoricall sylogisme. Thus you. But Charity Maintayned never pretended to make a syllogisme, and his words, which I haue even now alledged, cleare him from your vaine imputation, and fond collection. He sayd expressly, (vnless ignorance plead excuse) which makes the errours against Divine Revelation, to be sinfull and damnable; seing he speakes of persons, not excused by ignorance. Neither hath he those words which you add (necessary to be decided) nor those other (which they esteeme a matter of Faith) yea he spoke formally and expressly, of two men dissenting in matters of Faith, and not in Points, which they only esteemed to be matters of Faith. And because you thinke it impossible, to contriue his discourse into a formall categoricall syllogisme (which indeed would be impossible to doe with your Additions;) let vs suppose, some Truth to be revealed by God, and sufficiently propounded to the vnderstandings of two, by a Propounder infallible in himselfe, and by them certainly believed to be such (which is the direct supposition of Charity Maintayned) and that one of them contradicts the other, and consequently by so doing, opposes a Truth testifyed by God, and sufficiently [Page 944]propounded as such: And then what say you to this syllogisme? Whosoever opposes a Truth, witnessed by God, and for such sufficiently represented to his vnderstanding, by a propounder, believed by the party himselfe to be infallible, committs a grievous sin (and so cannot be saved without repentance) but in the case proposed, one of the two contradicting partyes, opposeth a Truth, revealed by God, and sufficiently propounded to his vnderstanding, by such an infallible propounder: Therfore he committs a grievous sin. Yourselfe here (N. 13.) grant, that they cannot be saved who oppose any least part of Scripture, If they oppose it after sufficient declaration, so that either they know it to be contained in Scripture, or haue no just probable Reason, and which may moue an honest man to doubt, whether or no it be there contayned; as it happens in our case, wherin we suppose, that the erring party is in sinfull errour, by reason of opposing, an infallible Propounder, of Divine Truths, whosoever that Propounder be. This very thing you grant also in the (N. 11.) where you say: Indeed if the matter in agitatiō were plainly decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversyes, and the partyes in variance knew it to be so, and yet would stand out in their dissension; this were in one of them, direct oposition to the testimony of God, and vndoubtedly a damnable sin. Which is the very thing that Ch: Ma: clearly affirmed. And now, you haue lost your jeast, out of the Greeke Epigramme, turned by you into a Satyre. Thrice happy had it beene for you, to haue been deafe, dumbe, and blind, rather than to haue ever heard, or spoken any thing, or that others should haue seene those vast absurdityes, and wicked Heresyes of yours, which openly destroy Christian Religion! But there is a just judge, who is neither deafe, nor dumbe, nor blind, but heares, and sees, and punisheth all pride, contempt, and Heresy, and the Approbators of them, if they do not repent, and in tyme declare to the world such their Repentance.

17. You speake (N. 11.) to Ch: Ma: in this manner: You may hope that the erring Part, by reason of some veile before his eyes, some excusable ignorance, or vnavoydable prejudice, does not see the Question to be decided against him, and so opposes only what you knowe to be the word of God, and he might know, were he voide of prejudice. Which is a fault, I confesse, but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often. Concerning which words I aske; how can that be a sin, which proceeds from some excusable Ignorance, or vnavoidable prejudice? For, if the cause of the errour be vnavoydable, and consequently invincible, and, as you [Page 645]expressly say, excusable, how can the errour itselfe be sinfull? Or, if it be a fault, as you say it is, how is it not a grievous fault, consisting in a culpable opposition against Divine Revelation, which you perpetually profess to be damnable? Or, how can a grievous and damnable fault be incident to good and honest men?

18 To your saying (N. 12.) That it is against Charity to affirme, that mē are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions; I answer, as yourselfe, and every one must answer to the like objection in a hundred other occasions; that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions; if their not seing those consequences, proceede from some voluntary, vincible, roote, as ignorance and errours against divine Faith are sinfull, and damnable, when they are Effects of sinfull causes.

19. In the (N. 13.) I will only touch in a word, that in saying (S. Cyprian and Stephen might both be saved, because their contrary beliefe was not touching any point contayned in Scripture.) You either grant, that it is not a Point of Faith, That, Baptisme conferred by Heretikes is valid, (Wherin, for ought I know, you contradict the chiefest number of Protestants, and in particular your English Church) or els that somthing may be a Point of Faith, which is not contained in Scripture.

20. In your (N. 14.15.16.17.) there is no difficulty. Only it is cleare that you voluntarily alter the state of the Question, wherin Ch: Ma: alwayes supposed, that speech was of Points, contained in Scripture, and that a man opposed the Scripture, culpably: For which cause, (N. 17.) he sayd: According to Protestants, Oppose not scripture, there is no errour against Faith. Oppose it in any least Point, the errour (if Scripture be sufficiently proposed, which proposition is also required, before a man can be obliged to belieue even Fundamentall points) must be damnable: Which words you shamefully conceale, out of guiltyness, that they prevented all your Answers (about Ignorance, or such accidentall and variable circumstances, to which you sly) before you gaue them: Seing it appeares that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Scripture sufficiently proposed; and (N. 15.) you say, That such Points are fundamentall. Our B. Saviour saith (S. Marke 16.16.) he that does not belieue shall be damned. And S. Paul, (Gal: 5.20.21.) having reckoned some vices, and among the rest, Sects, concludes; They who doe these things, shall not obtaine the [Page 646]kingdome of Heaven. Will you now stand vp, and blaspheme, and say, that our Saviour and S. Paul should not haue pronounced damnation, against disbelievers, Sects, and Heretykes, without adding your limitations; to wit vnless ignorance excuse, or a generall Repentance obtaine pardon?

21. In your (N. 15.) you giue a new explication of Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall, That these Points either in themselves or by accident, are Fundamentall, which are evidently contained in Scripture, to him that knoweth them to be so. Those not Fundamentall, which are there-hence deducible, but probably only not evidently. How many things may be observed in these words: First, it answers not plainly to the Question of Ch: Ma: which was; whether is there in such denyall (of a Point contained in Scripture, and sufficiently proposed, as Ch. M. expressly speakes) any distinction betwixt Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall, sufficient to excuse from Heresy? As certainly there is not. Secondly, by this distinction of yours, all that is sufficiently proposed to be contained in Scripture, is a Fundamentall Point, and every errour in such Points must be a Fundamentall errour, and destroy Faith, Church, and salvation: and so you grant, what Ch. Ma. desired in his Question, though you thought not fitt to Answer it clearly and in direct termes, but to involue things, by talking of matters nothing to the purpose; and therfore I say, Thirdly; Points deducible from Scripture but probably only, are not Points of Faith, which requires certitude, but may be denyed without sin, if one haue probable reason, for his denyall, as yourselfe confess (N. 14.) that it is a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contayned in Scripture, if he who denyes it, knew it to be so, or haue no probable reason to doubt of it: Otherwise not. Ch: Ma: as I sayd, spoke expressly, of Points sufficiently knowne to be contayned in Scripture, that is, of matters of Faith; and by what logicke can you distinguish Points of Faith, into Points which are of Faith, and points which are not of Faith, as things which are deduced from Scripture probably only, are not matters of Faith; as we haue seene out of your owne words. Doth not Logick teach, that the Diuisum, must be affirmed of everie one membrorum dividentium, and will you affirme faith of that which is not Faith?

23. In your (N. 16.) To the Question of Ch: Ma; whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed, as containing all Fundamentall Points of Faith, as if believing it alone, we were at liberty to deny all other Points [Page 647]of Scripture; you answer, It was never alledged to any such purpose. But, as in other Points, so in this, you speake for Protestants, without any commission, or warrant from them. For, who knowes not, that nothing is more common with them, than to say, that Protestants may be saved, and are brethren, as agreeing in the substance of Faith, because all of them belieue the Creed; which reason were plaine nonsense if they may belieue the Creed, and yet not be of one Faith, nor hope of Salvation, by reason of their disagreement in other Points? Or what availes it them, to agree in necessariò credendis, all which you say the Creed containes, (which yet is very false) if they differ in agendis, in Articles of Faith, by which they are directed for Christian Practise; Seing Protestants differ not only in credendis, but in agendis? Howsoever, I take what you giue, that the Creed cannot be pertinently alledged, as if believing it alone, Protestants may disagree in other Points, and yet remaine Brethren; and so by this very answer, you grant, what Charity Maintayned intended to proue, that disagreement in any one Point of Faith, be it great, or little, cannot stand with Salvation, on his side, whose errour is culpable: As wholosome meate, taken alone, may nourish, but if the same man receiue poyson, he shall not escape death, in vertue of that meate, which otherwise might haue conserved him in life, and health. Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocunque defectu. One damnable errour, is enough to worke perdition, though a man belieue all Truths, except that which is contrary to such an errour.

22. I haue no more to say about this first Chapter, except only that you might haue comprized, the substance therof, in few lines, or words, if you had not perverted the state of the Question, by flying to accidentall, and changeable circumstances, and vsing needless, and endless repetitions of such variable circumstances.

[Page 648]

CHAP: XI. The Ansvver to his second Chapter CONCERNING THE MEANES WHERBY THE REVEALED TRVTHS OF GOD ARE CONVEYED TO OVR VNDERSTANDING, And vvhich must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion.

1. I Find by experience, That the reducing of your dispersed, and often repeated discourses, to some heads, frees me of much vnnecessary labour which otherwise must haue beene spent, in speaking to every particular Section of yours. For, in this Chapter, I find litle, but either passion, or calumny, or begging of the Question, or what is answered already, till I come to your (N. 30.) which also containes nothing but a matter of fact, whether Brierly, and Ch. Ma:, and other Catholique Writers, haue abused Hooker in saying, that he teaches, that Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God, by the testimony of scripture itselfe, but by some other meanes, namely the Church. For my part, I haue read, and considered the place, cited by Ch: Ma: out of Hooker (Lib: 3. Sect: 8.) and find, that you are like those charitable people, who are content to want one eye, vpon condition, that their adversary be deprived of both. You are willing, that Hooker contradict Himselfe; yourselfe; and evident reason itselfe, rather than he should seeme to favour vs. I say, he must contradict reason, which can never proue, that Scripture is written by Divine inspiration, as I know you will not deny, seing all the contents of Scripture, might haue bene set [Page 649]downe in writing, without the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost. You say (Pag: 114. N. 156.) 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 belieue a Booke of S. Austines, to containe nothing but the truth of God, and yet not to haue beene inspired by God himselfe) against such men there were no disputing out of the Bible. In which words you confess, that one cannot gather that a writing is inspired by God, even though he did belieue, that the contents therof were all true. You make him also contradict yourselfe, who resolue the beliefe of Scripture into the tradition of all Churches: ād C: Ma: specifies not the present Church, but saith ōly, that Hooker acknowledged that we belieue Scripture for the Authority of the Church. He must also contradict himselfe, who I suppose liking not the Puritans privat spirit, and proving that it is not the word of God which doth, or possibly can assure vs, (as may be seene in Charity Maintayned (Pag: 42. N. 7.) citing the place of Hooker, leaves nothing for our motiue to belieue it, except the Church. Yet no man denyes, but what we first belieue for the Authority of the Church, may afterward be illustrated and confirmed by Reason: as Hooker saith, The former inducement (the Authority of Gods Church) prevailing somwhat with vs before, doth now much more prevaile, when the very thing hath ministred farther reason. And yourselfe in this Chapter, (N. 47.) explicate some words of Potter in this very sense which now I haue declared: And therfore consider, whether you do well in relating Mookers words, to leaue out these words (which are immediatly joyned to those which you cite) If I belieue the Gospell, yet is reason of singular vse, for that it confirmeth me in this my beliefe the more. Is this to say, that naturall reason (as it is distinguished from tradition or Authority of the Church, in which sense we now speake of it) is the last thing into which our beliefe of Scripture is resolved, seing such a confirmation by Reason, comes after we haue believed? You say, that when Hooker saith, When we know the whole Church of God hath that o [...]inion of the Scripture &c: the Church he speakes of, seenes to be that particular Church wherin a man is bredd: where I put you in mynd, of what you sayd in another place, that, A, Church signifyes a particular Church, and, The, Church, (as Hooker speakes) signifyes the vniversall. How then do you say, That by, The, Church he signifies a particular Church? Or how is the Distinction of, A, and, The, Church [Page 650]such as you would haue men belieue. But this I let passe, and aske you, what finally you will haue Hookers opinion to be concerning the meanes for which we belieue with certainty Scripture to be the word of God? The private Spirit? You know he was an Anti-Calvinist, and the private spirit could not sute with his genius. Naturall Reason? That is evidently against reason, as we haue shewed, and you grant▪ And when he speakes most of reason, he speakes of infidells, or Atheists, calling in question the authority of Scripture, who may be perswaded by Sanctity of Christian doctrine &c: So there remaines only the Authority of the Church, if you will haue him to say anything. Dr: Covell in his defence of Hookers Bookes (Art: 4. Pag: 31.) saith clearly: Doubtless it is a tolerable Ovinion in the Church of Rome, if they goe no further, as some of them do not (he should haue sayd, as none of them doe) to affirme, that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves, but so esteemed by vs, for the Authority of the Church. These words of Covell were cited by Cha: Ma: (N. 26.) but it seemes you would take no notice of them, and who could better vnderstand Hookers mynd, than this his Defendant? By the way, we may obserue, how hard it is to agree about the sense of holy Scripture, which is more sublime than humane Writings, if we cannot agree about the meaning of men.

2. And by this occasion, I must turne backe to your (N. 11.) where you quarrel at some words of Charity Maintayned, and giue them a meaning clearly contrary to his sense, and words. You speake thus: You in saying here, that, scripture alone cannot be Iudge, imply that it may bo called in some sense a Iudge, though not abone; yet to speake prop [...]ly (as men should speake when they write of Controversyes in Religion) the scripture is not a Iudge of Cōtroversyes, but a rule only, ād the only rule for Christians to iudge thē by But in this imputation, you haue no reason at all, to interpret Charity Maintayned, as you doe. For, He, in saying Scripture alone cannot be judge in Controversyes, tooke only the contradictory of that, which, even in this place, you affirme Protestants to belieue: Scripture alone is the judge of Controversyes, and therfore it was necessary, for Him to declare his mynd, by the contradictory proposition, that, Scripture alone is not the judge of Controversyes, which is very true, though i [...] be not a judge of Controversyes, either by itselfe alone, or in any other sense; and you know, he doth expressly, and purposely, and largely, proue, that it is against the nature of any Writing whatsoever, to be a Judge; and therfore when you say, men should speake properly, when they write of Controversyes in Religion, and yet confess that Protestants [Page 651]have called Scripture the. Judge of Controversyes, and that to speake properly the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversyes, you taxe Protestants only, and cannot so much as touch Charity Maintayn [...]

3. Here also I may speake a word to your (N. 15.) as belonging to interpretation. You say; To execute the letter of the Law, according to rigour, would be many tymes vnjust, and therfore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it, wherof in Religion there is no vse at all. I pray you, would it not be many tymes vnjust, to execute the letter of the Scripture, taken without a true and moderate interpretation? And for this very cāuse, there is great vse of a Judge, and Authenticall interpreter; otherwise some miscreant might murder his mother and brother, vpon some mistaken Text of Scripture, that idolaters were to be taken out of the world; subjects might rebell; no warr would be judged lawfull, no oathes to be taken in any case &c: And here, I willingly take what you (N. 17.) giue me, that, in Civill Controversyes, every honest vnderstanding man is sit to be a Iudge; but in Religion none but he that is infallible. This I take, and inferr, that you wholy enervate the vulgar Argument of Protestants (that Judges are to be obeyed though they be not infallible, and therfore that we cannot inferr the Church to be infallible, because we are commanded to heare Her) not considering this difference, which here your selfe giue, betweene a Judge in Civill Controversyes, and a Judge in Religion, wherin such a Iudge is required whom we should be obliged to bel [...]ue to haue judged right. Which are your owne words; wheras in Civill matters we are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge, or not to resist it, but not always to belieue it [...]ust, which are also your words.

4. Neither will I omitt here your saying (N. 27.) When Scripture is affirmed to be the Rule by which, all Controversyes of Religion are to be decided, those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe. [...]or, as that generall saying of Scripture, He hath put all things vnder his fee [...]e, is m [...]st true, though yet S. Paul tells vs, that when it is sayd, he hath put all things vnder him, it is manifest, he is excepted who did put all things vnder him: So when we say, that all Controversyes of Religion are decidable by the Scripture, it is manifest to all, but cavillers, that we do and must except from this generality, those which are touching the scripture it selfe. Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his owne, may say, all my substance is in this shipp; and yet never intend to deny that his shipp is part of his substance, nor yes to say, that his ship is in it selfe. Or as a man may say, that a whole house is sipport [...]d [Page 652]by the foundation, and yet never meane to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house, or to say, that it is supported by it selfe. Or as you yourselves vse to say, that the Bishopp of Rome is head of the whole Church, and yet would thinke vs but captious Sophisters, should we inferr from hence that either you made him no part of the whole, or els made him head of himselfe.

5. Answer. Are all those Protestants Cavillers, who teach, that we may know by Scripture it selfe, that it is the word of God, and consequently, that it may decide this Controversy concerning it selfe? Doth not Potter (Pag: 141.) say; That Scripture is of Divine Authority, the believer sees by that glorious beame of Divine light which shines in Scripture; and by many internall Arguments found in the letter it selfe? And doth not the Scottish Minister Baron, after he had confuted the opinions of others, about the private spirit, and the Doctrine of Catholikes, concerning the Church, finally resolve, that Scripture is knowne to be the Word of God, by certaine criteria, or markes, found in the Scripture it selfe? And therfore it cannot be denyed, but that when Protestants teach, that all Points of Faith may be learned by Scripture, they must either say, that this Point of Faith, (Scripture is the word of God) may be learned by Scripture, or els contradict themselves, as indeed they must, and for that cause, ought to grant, that besides Scripture, there is some other Meanes, to propose Divine Revelations, and Scripture it selfe, with the true interpretation therof. Your examples, may be turned against you, by those your Brethren, who deny both the private spirit, and the Authority of the Church, for assuring vs with certainty, that Scripture is the Word of God; and they will tell you, that if a ship must either be within itselfe, or no where, a marchant, shewing a ship of his owne, and saying, all my substance is in this ship, must either grant that the ship is in itselfe, or els that he spoke vntruly in saying all my substance is in this ship; and the like they would say of a foundation, that if it support the whole house, and cannot be supported by any thing but by itselfe, it must support it selfe; and then they would informe you, that seing not only the contents of Scripture, but also Scripture itselfe, are objects revealed by God, which revelation can neither be knowne by a private spirit, which you and they hold to be a foolery, nor an infallible Church, which all of you hold to be Papistry, it followes, that. Scripture must be believed for itselfe, or els not be believed at all. And the same we may answer, ad hominem, that if the Pope could not be head of the whole Church, but he must be [Page 953]head of himselfe, it could not be sayd, that he is head of the whole, vnless it be also granted, that he is head of himselfe, but we deny that fond supposition, that he cannot be head of the Church, vnless he be head of himselfe; as contrarily Protestants teach; that the Scripture cannot be knowne by an infallible Church, nor, by the private spirit, and therfore it must be knowne by itselfe. The same they would answer to those words, he hath put all things vnder his feete, that he could not be excepted who did put all things vnder him, if indeed those first words, he hath put all things vnder his feete, could not be verifyed, vnless he who put all things vnder his feete, were put vnder him. Neither can you avoide this retortion of your brethren, except by saying, that we do not infallibly belieue Scripture to be the word of God; ād therfore there is required no infallibility in [...]he Church, from which you say we receiue Scripture, or els, that Scripture is not a materiall object, which we belieue; or both; as indeed you affirme, both that Faith is not infallible, and that, Scripture is not a materiall object of our Faith. And finally, every one who hath care of his soule, must out of these inextricable labyrinths of Protestants, conclude with Catholikes, that for believing with certainty, that Scripture is the word of God, we must rely on the Church, with this condition also, that she be believed to be infallible, which infallibility is absolutely necessary, if once, with all Christians, we belieue Christian Faith to be infallibly true.

6. To your (N. 34.) I answer: That all those Bookes of Scripture, are to be acknowledged for Canonicall which the Church receives for such: Before which declaration, of the Church, all they were very secure, who differed about some Bookes, because they always believed the Authority of Gods Church, which could not faile to propose in due tyme all things necessary for salvation. But for the contrary reason, Protestants relying vpon the sole written word, cannot be safe; in regard that they, not knowing, what Points in particular be necessary to salvation, to make all sure, must be obliged to know in particular all that is contayned in all the Bookes, which diverse learned men, even of their owne Sect, acknowledg to be Canonicall, least otherwise, they may chance to remaine in ignorance, or errour, of some matter necessary to salvation.

7. The same Answer serves for your (N. 36.) For, it is a Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemy to speake of Esther, and diverse other Bookes of Scripture, as Luther speakes of them, after the Definition of [Page 654]Gods Church to the contrary. Wherof see Charity Ma. (N. 9. Pag: 45.)

8. Your other Sections, or numbers, till the 48. concerning the sayings of Luther (whom I know you defend against your Conscience) and the Canon of the English Protestant Church, (which now hath no existence, and her 39. Articles being, or having been, vnder Censure, may perhaps be altered) I let pass, not to loose tyme. Only I cannot omitt your words (N. 47.) directed to Charity Maintayned: You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather; but to me it is sufficient; that it is nothing to the purpose. Belike, if it had been to the purpose, that is, against you, you would not haue let me say even so much Truth togeather.

9. In your (N. 48.) you speake to Charity Maintayned in these words: Out of liberality you will suppose, that Scripture, like to a corporall light, is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our vnderstanding to assent: Yet not withstanding this supposall, Faith still (you say) must goe before Scripture, because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes: So the Scripture only to those that haue the eye of Faith. Thus you. But it is reason that the words of Charity Maintayned should be set downe as they are, and not lamely and imperfectly, as you giue them. These are his words, (Part: 1. Chap: 1. N. 12. Pag: 52.) Let us suppose, (not grant) that Scripture is like to corporall light, by it selfe alone able to determine, and moue our vnder standing to assent; yet the similitude proves against themselves (Protestants) for light is not visible, except to such as haue eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. And therfore to hold the similitude, Scripture can be cleare only to those who are endued with the eye of Faith, or, as Potter sayth (Pag: 141.) To all that haue eyes to discerne the shinning beames therof that is, To the believer, as immediatly after he speakes. Faith then must not originally proceed from Scripture, but is to be presupposed, before we can see the light therof; and consequently, there must be some other-meanes precedent to Scripture, to beget faith, which can be no other than the Church.

10 This is the discourse of Charity Maintayned, and you must not contradict it, vnless you will proclaime your selfe a Pelagian, that we are able by our naturall forces, or vnderstanding, to belieue as we ought, in order to Eternall Happynesse, as the Eye of our Body can by the naturall abilitie thereof see colours. For, as I shewed in the Introduction, we being not able of our selves, to produce any one Act [Page 655]of supernaturall Divine Faith, need the Assistance of the infused Habit, of Faith, which is a Theologicall Vertue, or somthing equivalent to it, to enable our vnderstanding, for the exercise of every such Act; and therfore the aggregatum of our vnderstanding, and that Helpe, is for the believing of Scripture, as our corporall eye is for seeing of light, or colours. And then, Scripture will correspond to light; our vnderstanding with that supernaturall Helpe, to our eye; and the Act, of believing to the Act of Seeing. This being premised, it will be found, that either your Objections vanish into nothing, or that you must be guilty of Pelagianisme, as Christianity Maintayned sayd (Pag: 70.) You say: If Scripture do moue and determine our vnderstanding to assent, then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent, as the cause must be before its owne effect, now this very assent is nothing els but Faith, and Faith nothing els than the vnderstandings assent. And therfore vpon this supposall, Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture, as the effect from its proper cause: and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of Faith, vnto which it moves and determines, and consequently if this supposition of yours were true, there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, Scripture itselfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the vnderstanding to assent, that is, to belieue them, and the verityes contained in them.

11. This is your Objection, which goes vpon a false ground, and doth not distinguish, between the Act, and Habit of Faith, or somthing eqvivalent to it in actu primo, enabling our vnderstanding, to exercise supernaturall Acts of believing. For, Scripture doth moue and determine our vnderstanding only to the Actus secundus, or an Act of Faith, but not to the Habit of Faith, or somewhat equivalent to it (which must answer to our corporall eye) which cannot be produced by Scripture. If you had considered this Truth, you would not haue gone forward, and sayd; neither is this to say, that the Eyes with which we see, are made by the light by which we see. For, you are mistaken much, if you conceiue that in this comparison, faith Answers to the Eye. But if you will not peruert it, the Analogy must stand thus; Scripture must Answer to light; The eye of the soule, that is, the vnderstanding, or the faculty of assenting, to the bodily eye, and lastly, assenting, or believing, to the Act of seeing. For, I haue told you, that our vnderstanding in order to Acts of Faith, alone, cannot be compared to our corporall eye, which by its owne naturall force can see a proportionate [Page 656]object, and so your whole Analogy is made voide, and all that you ground vpon it. Thus we haue heard even Potter saying, That Scripture is of Divine Authority, the Believer sees by that glorious beame of light that shines in Scripture. I would know, of what Beliefe the Doctour speakes? Of Faith in Act, or in Habit? If of beliefe in Habit, then they are Believers, before they see that glorious beame of light which shines in Scripture. If he meane, the Act of Faith, then by that Act, he sees that glorious beame, which Act must therfore be the Eye, wherby he saith the Believer is sayd to see. And he speakes yet more clearly, in these words following; The Church is the watchman, that holdeth out the light in open View, and presenteth the shining beames therof to all that haue eyes to discerne it. Therfore he supposes eyes, to which the Scripture is represented: which eyes being not only the naturall Power of our vnderstanding, must be somthing els▪ And the Protestant Amesius (de Circulo) after he had spoken much of the light of Scripture, comes to say; Tantùm fide vt oculo opus esse statuimus, quae in spiritum resolvitur tanquam in causam. Where you see, he compares Faith to an Eye, and we may aske him, whether he meane of habituall, or Actuall Faith, and apply to his Answer (whatsoever it be) the same reflection, which I made even now concerning Potters words. The like difficulty, and Argument may be made against the private spirit; which if it be a particular Revelation (that Scripture is the word of God) distinct from the Revelations contained in Scripture, it followes, that Scripture doth not containe all Divine Revelations; and that our vnderstanding, with that Revelation, must be the eye, wherby Scripture is seene, and not be produced by Scripture. If it be not a Divine Revelation, it must be tryed by the Beliefe of Scripture, and so that Beliefe must be an eye precedent to the private spirit, and consequently be an eye to itselfe, and both come before, and follow itselfe: yea, whatsoever that spirit be, certaine, or vncertaine, a Revelation, or not a Revelation, yet it must serue for an Eye togeather with the vnderstanding, to see the Scripture. Wherby it still appeares, that not our vnderstanding alone, but it with some other Helpe (not produced by the Scripture) must be compared to our corporall Eye. The same may be sayd of Barons Criteria, which cannot be seene without some particular light of the Holy Ghost, and therfore our vnderstanding with that light, is the Eye, not produced by the Scripture, but presupposed to the beliefe of Scripture; And lastly, you who teach, that we belieue [Page 657]for the Authority of the Church, must say, that the eye wherby we see Scripture, is our vnderstanding togeather with the Tradition of the Church: Which Tradition therfore must be knowne, and believed before we belieue Scripture, and not be produced by Scripture.

12. Wheras you say, Transsubstantiation is fruitfull of such monsters (contradictions) but they that haue not sworne themselves to the defence of errour will easily perceiue, that jam factum facere, and factum infectum facere, are equally impossible: you speake wickedly, and ignorantly. We haue heard Dr. Taylor (in his Liberty &c: §. 10. N. 16.) confessing, that Christians belieue the Mystery of the Trinity with as much violence to the Principles of naturall and supernatur all Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the Point of Transubstantiation. And it is certaine, that this sacred Mystery of the Trinity, to any learned Philosopher, containess farr greater dissiculty, than any that can be objected, against Transubstantiation. And yourselfe, vpon a certaine occasion, could say to some Protestants, Either deny the Trinity, or admitt Transubstantiation; and it was answered, we will rather admitt this, than deny that. And with good reason. For, if we respect humane discourse, there are, as I sayd, more difficult objections, against that Mystery, than against this. And if we regard Revelation, Scripture is more cleare for the reall Presence, and Transubstantiation, than for the Mystery of the B. Trinity. And if regard were to be had of Heretikes, more haue hertofore impugned the Doctrine of the Trinity, than of the Reall Presence, and Transubstantiation. But no wonder, if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith, to the weight of naturall Reason, taking hold of the present tyme, are glad vnder the name of Transubstantiation, to vndermine the Doctrine of the B. Trinity, and all the prime verityes proper to Christian Faith. The other part of your Affirmation; That, jam factum facere, and factum infectum facere, are equally impossible, is extreme bold; seing so many great learned men hold the first, and no man the latter, being betweene them as great difference, as betweene, Est, Est; and, Fuit, non fuit. But I feare, you do not vnderstand, what learned men meane by a Reproduction of the same existent thing, or jam factum facere, which signifyes only that the same thing is, and is; wheras every body knowes, that factum infectum facere is to say, That which was, was not; A manifest Contradiction. Yet withall I must add, that no Doctrine of the Catholique Church, doth necessarily depend on that Question, Whether it be impossible, jam factum facere. But enough [Page 658]of this, least others haue occasion to say of me, as you say truly of yourselfe, in the close of this (N. 48.) I digress.

13. I know not well what to make of your long, and distracted discourse (N. 49.) we do not deny, but that Protestants, and other Heretikes, may assent to some Mystery of Faith, by a humane opinion, and perswasion: but that assent of theirs, is not true Divine supernaturall Faith; God not giving his particular Grace, for believing one Article of Faith, to him, who denyes another, equally proposed, as revealed by God, wherby even the infused Habit of Faith is destroyed. Vnlearned Catholikes, may exercise a true Act of Faith; because indeed their assent, comes to rely vpon a firme ground, that is, Divine Revelation, propounded by an infallible meanes, Gods Church; wheras Heretikes, haue no such ground for the resolution of their Faith, as hath beene shewed, in severall occasions.

14. For gaining tyme, and saving vnnecessary paines, I had omitted to take notice of your (N. 51.52.) vnless your proceeding had forced me to say at least thus much: that whosoever will reade, ād compare the words of Ch: Ma. with your Answer, shall find, that he speakes clearly, and that you do so involue, and obscure, and alter, what he spoke plainly, that I know not what to make of your words. He tells you, that the Scripture is not such a first principle in Christianity, that it may not be proved by another belonging to Christians, namely by the Authority of the Uisible Church of Christ, as yourself grant; and to say, as you doe, that the Church, or Tradition of the Church, is a Principle not in Christianity, but in Reason, nor proper to Christians, but common to all men, for ought I can judge, is repugnant to Reason and Christianity. For, what hath naturall Reason alone to doe with the Church of Christ, which cannot be knowne, except by some supernaturall Arguments, as Miracles, Sanctity, Scripture, Revelation &c.

15. I do not vnderstand these your words (N. 52.) addressed to C. M [...]. That one part of Scripture may proue another part Canen [...]all, and need no proofe of its owne being so, you haue produced diverse Protestants that deny it, but who they are that affirme it, nondum constat. I pray you, where did Ch: Ma: say, that there is any part of Scripture, which needs no proofe of its being Canonicall? Doth he not proue the necessity of a Living guide, even by this Argument, that otherwise we cannot be assured, what Booke, and parts of Scripture, are Canonicall? And for discerning what Bookes be Canonicall or suppositious, are not Protestants [Page 659]wont to proue, that such or such a Booke which they are pleased to stile Apocryphall, is not conforme to other parts of Scripture, and therfore cannot be Canonicall? Do not yourselfe say (N. 27.) The Question whether such or such a Booke be Canonicall Scripture, may be decided negatively out of Scripture, by she wing apparent and irreconciliable contradictions between it and some other Booke confessedly Canonicall? And may we not proue affirmatively, for example, that those Texts of the old Testament, which are cited in the New, are Canonicall, because they are cited for such, in Bookes which we belieue to be Canonicall? I beseech you to what purpose, or vpon what occasion given, do you (N. 51.) vtter these words; As if the Scripture might not be the first, and most knowne Principle in Christianity, and yet not the most knowne in all sciences. Or as if to be a first Principle in Christanity and in all sciences. Were all one. Charity Maintayned said, if Potter meane that Scripture is one of those Principles which being the first, and most know ne in all sciences, cannot be demonstrated by other Principles; he supposes that which is in Question, whether there be not some Principle, for example, the Church, wherby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture. Do not these words speake of the first Principle, among Christians, who alone receiue Scripture, and not of Principles in Metaphysicke, Mathematicke, &c: which were nothing to the purpose? Or who ever dreamed, that Scripture could be the most knowne in all sciences, seing it is not knowne by any naturall science, but depends on Divine Revelation? Yea, doth not Ch: Ma: expressly say? (That if Potter meane, Scripture to be one of those Principles which being the first and most knowne in all sciences; cannot be Demonstrated by other Principles, He supposes that which is in question.) Which words declare, That Scripture is none of those Principles which are most knowne either in all naturall sciences, or in Christianity.

16. Out of what hath beene sayd very often, it is easy to answer, and retort all that you haue in all your sections till the (N. 62.) For, to vs who belieue, the Church of God to be infallible, diversity of Tranlations, or corruptions, can bring no harme; seeing we are sure, that the Church can neverapproue any false Translation, or corruption, nor ground vpon them any Point of Faith. But for you, who deny the infallibility of the Church, and rely vpon Scripture alone, false Translations [Page 660]or corruptions, may import no less, than the losse of your soules, by being led into some damnable errour, or left in ignorance of some Point necessary to salvation. For, to rely vpon Scripture alone, and yet not to know with certainty, what Scripture in particular is Canonicall, and incorrupted, is to take away all certainty from it, and from the Faith of Protestants, grounded on it alone. The Church did exist before any Scripture was written, and must last, although we should imagine that all Scripture were lost, as some say it happened to the Old Testament; at least it lay hid. Only I must note for answer to your (N. 58. and 59.) that, Catholikes object to Protestants not only difference of Translations, of which you speake (N. 59.) but that one of them most deeply condemnes the Translation of the other, as Ch: Ma: (Pag: 52. N. 16.) sets downe at large. As for the vulgate Translation, approved by the sacred Councell of Trent, we are sure, that it can containe no errour against Faith; and for diverse Readings; we are certaine, that the Church can never approue any one that is false, or settle any doctrine vppon it, as I sayd even now. But to treate at large of this Translation, would require a Uolume, and is not for this tyme for my, (or even your) purpose. In your (N. 61,) you pretend to make good, or excuse Luther, who in the Text where it is said (Rom: 3.28.) We account a man to be justifyed by Faith, translates (justifyed by Faith Alone:) and in stead of proving, you only ask; What such great difference is there between Faith without the works of the Law, and Faith alone without the works of the Law? Or why does not, without, Alone, signifie all one with. Alone, Without? Answer: there is as great difference between those two Propositions, as betwene Truth, and Falshood. That a man is justifyed by Faith without the works of the Law, is a truth believed both by Catholiques and Protestants: for both of vs belieue, that Faith concurres to justification. But that other Proposition: A man is justifyed by Faith alone without the works of the Law, signifyes that we are not justifyed by the works of the Law, but by Faith alone, that is by nothing but by Faith, which is false, and excludes justification by Hope, Charity, and works of Christian piety: and accordingly Luther being admonished of this shamefull falsification, answered, poenitet me quod non addiderim & illas duas voces, omnibus & omnium (vz.) sine omnibus operibus omnium legum. Besides; it is strang, you will defend this falsification, of (Alone) seing (Pag: 406. N. 32.) you wish, that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat [Page 661]of justification by Faith, without the works of the Law, were never read in the Church, but whē the 13. Chap: of the 1. Epist: to the Corinth. Concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be, to prevent misprision, read togeather with thē. But then good Sr. what danger of misprision must it needs be, when people shall think S. Paul spoke of Faith Alone as Luther makes him speak? To this may be added what you haue (Pag: 218. N. 49.) of the danger of justification by Faith alone. Neither I, nor others with whom I haue confered can make any sense of your other workes, Or why does not, Without &c. The translation of Zuinglius, This signifyes my Body, in stead of, This is my Body, is rejected by Protestants themselves: where of see Brereley (Tract: 2. Cap: 3. Sect. 9. Subd. 3.)

17. In your (N, 62.) till the 80, inclusiue, you vainly triumph, as if you did invincibly proue, that according to our Groundes, mens salvation depends vpon vncertaintyes: All which I haue answered at large, hertofore.

18. Concerning your (N. 83,) I desire the Reader to consider what Charity Maintayned; recites out of Dr: Couell about our vulgate Tanslation of Scripture, and he will find, that your Answer to that particular, is but a vaine speculation, and that he supposes the Translation, which is called the Bishops Bible (and is approved in England) to be the best, as coming neerest to the vulgate; which had been no proofe at all, vnless he had also supposed the Vulgate to be the best, all things considered, and so made it a Rule to Judge of the goodness, and quality, of that English Translation.

19. To your (N. 86.) I answer, that if Dr: Field, when he saith (in his Treatise of the Church, in his Epistle Dedicatory to the L. Archbishop) Seeing the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few haue tyme and leasure, fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them, what remayneth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world, is that blessed Company of holy Ones, that how should of Faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is. the Pillar and Ground of Truth, that so they may imbra [...]e her Communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgment. If; I say, Dr. Field did not thinke of any company of Christians invested with such Authority from God, that all men were bound to receiue their decrees (as you say he did not) I can only say, that when he spoke of searching out that Blessed Company of holy Ones &c: he spoke of a Chimera, or of a thing impossible, and yet he saith, that there remaineth for [Page 962]men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, only this, that they search out which among all the societyes in the world, is that Blessed Company of holy Ones &c: (which had bene nothing els, but to bring men to desperation, by prescribing one only meanes, for salvation, and that an impossible one:) And that he, and other Protestants do but cosin the world, and speake contradictions, or nonsense, when they talke of a perpetuall visible Church, which cannot erre in Fundamentall Points, and whose Communion we are to embrace; and yet tell vs, that such a visible Church, cannot be designed in particular, where, and which, she is. For, this is all one as to make her invisible, and vncognoscible, and of no vse at all; and therfore they being forced by manifest Scripture, to assert, and belieue, a perpetuall visible Church, we must, without asking them leaue, necessarily inferr, that this Church, by their owne necessary confession, must be designable, and cognoscible, in particular. You say; By all societyes of the world, it is not impossible, nor very improbable, he might meane all that are, or haue beene in the world, and so include even the Primitiue Church. But this is no better then ridiculous. For, he saith; What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all societyes in the world, is that Church of the liuing God, which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, that so they may imbrace her Communion &c: You see he speakes of that society of men, which is the Church, and which is the Pillar of Truth, and would haue men search it out, wheras the Primitiue Church, neither is, but hath beene; nor was it for, but directly against, the Doctours purpose, to advise men, to search out the Primitiue Church, and her Doctrine, which had required tyme and leasure, and strength of vnderstanding, which, he saith, few men haue, and therfore he must vnderstand, a Church to be found in these tymes, whose Directions they should follow, and rest in her judgment. To say as you doe, that we embrace her Communion, if we belieue the Scripture, endeavour to find the true sense of it, and liue according to it, is very fond; as if the Doctour spoke of Scripture, when he named the Church; and in saying, we are to embrace the Communion of the Church, he meant we should embrace the Communion of Scripture (which had beene a strang kind of phrase) and in advising vs to seeke out that society of men, and that Company of Holy Ones, he vnderstood, not men, but the writings of men. Do not your selfe say, that the subject he wrote of was the Church, and that if he strayned too high in commendation of it, what [Page 663]is that to vs? Therfore it is cleare he spoke not of the Scripture, in commendation wherof you will not say he strayned too high, but of the Church, and of the Church of our tymes, and so saith; the Controversyes of Religion in our tymes are growne &c: But why do I loose tyme, in confuting such toyes, as these? It being sufficient to say in a word, that Protestants in this capitall Article, of the invisibility, and infallibility of the Church, are forced to vtter some mayne Truthes, in favour of Catholikes, though with contradiction to themselves.

20. In your (N. 87.) You do but trifle. Charity Maintayned (N. 18.) said, That the true interpretation of Scripture ought to be rece [...]ved from the Church, is proved &c: To this you answer: That the true interpretation of the Scripture ought to be reveaved from the Church, you need not proue, for it is very easily granted by them, who professe themselves ready to receaue all Truthes, much more the true sense of Scripture, not only from the Church, but any society of men, nay from any man whatsoever. But who sees not, that this is but a cavill, and that Charity Maintayned, to the Question which was in hand (from whence the interpretation of Scripture was to be received?) answered, it is to be received from the Church. And I pray, if one should say, the knowledge, or truth of Philosophy is to be received from Philosophers, would you say, this need not be proved, nor even affirmed, to them who profess themselves ready to receiue all Truths, not only from Philosophers, but from any man whatsoever?

21. You labour (N. 90.91.92.) to proue▪ that Protestants receiue not the Scripture vpon the Authority of our Church; but in vaine. For what true Church of Christ was there, when Luther appeared, except the Roman, and such as agreed with her, even in those Points, wherin Protestants disagree from vs, and for which they pretend to haue forsaken our Communion? Doth not Luther (in his Booke against Anabaptists) confess, that you haue the Scripture from vs? And Doue, in his persw sion to English Recusants &c: (Pag: 13.) sayth: Wee hold the Creed of the Apostles, of Athanasius, of Nyce, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, and the same Byble which we receyved from them. And Whitaker (Lib: de Eccles: &c: Pag: 369.) confesseth, that Papists h [...]ue Scripture, and Baptisme &c: and that they came from them to Protestants. That you receiue some Bookes, and reject others which the vniversall Church before Luther received, argues only, that you are formall Heretikes, that is, voluntary choosers, and that, not believing the infallibility [Page 664]of the Church, you haue no certainty of any Booke, or parcell, or period of Scripture. And wheras you say (N. 90.) that we hold now those Bookes to be Canonicall, which formerly we rejected from the Canon, and instance in the Booke of Machabees, and the Epistle to the Hebrewes, and add, that the first of these we held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregoryes tyme, or els he was no member of our Church, for it is apparent He held otherwise, and that the second we rejected from the Canon in S. Hieromes tyme, as it is ev [...]dent out of many places in his workes. I answer, that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Bookes to be Canonicall, which formerly she rejected from the Canon: and if there were any doubt concerning these Bookes of Scripture, they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church, but by some particular persons: which doubt the Church, did cleare in due tyme, as I haue declared heretofore, and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Machabees, as also Charity Maintayned (Part: 2. Pag: 195. which you ought not to haue dissembled) did answer the same Objection made by Potter. Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrewes, I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. (N. 42. & seqq.) writes excellently of this matter, and demonstrates that the Latine Church never rejected that Epistle, as he proves out of Authors, who wrote both before, and after S. Hierome, and that S. Hierome relyed vpon Eusebius, and therfore your absolute Assertion, that this Epistle was rejected in tyme of S. Hierome, is no lesse vntrue, than bold. Neither ought you to haue concealed the answer of Char: Maintayn: (Part: 2. Chap: 7. Pag: 197.) where he saith thus: Wonder not if S. Hierome speake not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament, since vpon experience, examination, and knowledge of the sense of the Church, he might alter his opinion; as once he sayd (ad Paulinum of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that it was put out of the number by the greatest part of men; and yet elswere he receives it as the Epistle of S. Paul. And if you will haue a generall explication of S. Herome, concerning his rejecting of Bookes, not admitted by the Hebrewes, heare it in his owne words (advers: Ruff: Apolog: 2.) wheras I haue reported what the Hebrewes vsed to object against the History of Susanna, and the Hymne of the Three Children, and the Story of the Dragon Bel, which are not in the Hebrew: I haue not declared, what I thought, but what the Jewes were wont to say against vs, and he calls Russinus a foolish Sycophant, for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrewes, [Page 665]about these parts of Daniel. And S. Hierome explaining himselse in this manner, is acknowledged by Covell (Answ: to Bourges Pag: 87.) and Bankcroft (Confer: before his Majesty:) How then will you excuse your Church, which in her sixt Article, saith in generall, of all the Bookes which you esteeme Apocryphall, among which are the History of Susanna, the Hymne of the three Children, and that of the Dragon: (The other Bookes, as S. Hierome saith, the Church doth reade for example of life, and instruction of manners: but yet it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine) How can she (I say) be excused, since S. Hierome, even according to the Confession of your owne Brethren, doth explaine himselfe, that he vttered only what the Jewes were wont to say against vs, and cals Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary? So as insteed of S. Hierome, and the Church of God, you put on the person of Ruffinus against S. Hierome, and of the Synagogue, against the Church of Christ our Lord; And so your whole Canon of the Old Testament, relyes vpon the Authority of the Jewes. Thus far Charit: Maint: Which you did not well to conceale: And while you will not receaue the Canon from the vniversall Church before Luther, you send men to the Jewes. Now, that S. Hierome received the Epistle to the Hebrewes for Canonicall, appeares out of his Epistle ad Dardanum, where he saith of this Epistle of S. Paul, and the Apocalyps of S. John; Nos vtraque suscipimus; we receaue them both, though we haue heard him say before (ad Paulinum) that the Epistle to the Hebrewes was put out of the number by the greatest part of men. But howsoever this were, particular Opinyons do nothing concerne the Definitions of the Church, as I saied.

22. You say (N. 92.) How can we receiue the Scripture vpon the authority of the Roman Church, which hath delivered at severall tymes, Scriptures in many places, different and repugnant, for authenticall and Canonicall? Which is most evident out of the place of Malachy, which is so quoted for the sacrifice of the Masse, that either all the anc [...]ent 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, accordig to the vulgar Edition, but aboue all, to any one, who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtu [...] and Clement, so evident, that the wit of man cannot disguise it.

23. Answer. It is intolerable in you, to presume, that your word must be taken, without so much as offering any least proofe, for what you say; wheras you could not be ignorant, but that all difficultyes, [Page 666]which either Protestants, or any other Heretikes, could object against vs, haue beene considered, and confuted by learned Catholikes. And why did you not cite, those different and repugnant Texts, which you mention in Malachie? Yet the Reader at aventure, may read Bellarmine (De Missa L. 1. C. 10.) and Corn: à Lapide vpon (Malach 1.11.) where they learnedly proue the holy Sacrifice of the Masse, out of that place, and solidly answer all the objections to the contrary. For that, which you mention of the Story of Jacob in Genesis compared with the Ep [...]e to the Hebrewes; I wish you had so declared your objection, that I might haue applyed a particular, and determinate answer therto. Now I can only conjecture, what you meane, and desire the Reader, if he desire satisfaction in this matter, to peruse what Corn: a Lapide writes vpon (Heb: 11.21.) where he learnedly answers the difficulty, which may seeme to be in this place, compared with the (47. Chap: V. 31. of Genesis) see also the annotation of the Rhemes testament vpon the said place of S. Paul, and the annotation of the Doway translation vpon (Gen: 47.31.) who declare this very well; and the former she wes that in your Translation, you clearly falsify the Text of Scripture. I wonder you do not blush to talke of the Bible of Sixtus and Clement, having seene the full Answer which Ch: Ma: giveth to that objection made also by Potter; which is a signe you could not indeed confute what Ch: Ma: said therin, (Part: 2. Chap: 6. N. 3.)

24. Your (N. 93.94.95.96.67.) haue bene sufficiently answered already; yet I will touch some Points. You say (N. 93.) If it were true that God had promised to assist you, for the delivering of true Scripture, would this oblige him, or would it follow from hence, that he had obliged himselfe to teach you, not only sufficiently, but effectually, and irresistibly, the true sense of Scripture?

25. Answer. You will needs be still confounding effectually, and irresistibly: wherof I spoke enough hertofore. For the present, I say, that God hath obliged himselfe, so to teach the Church effectually, the true interpretation of Scripture, that we are infallibly certaine, she is free from all errour in Faith; which is a priviledge absolutely necessary; as those things are not which you specify (N. 96.) That, he should not only guard them from all errours, but guide them to all profitable Truths, such as the true senses of all Scripture would be and that he should de end them irresislibly from all vices, and infuse into them irresistibly all vertues. These things, I say are not necessary, as true Faith is necessary for constituting one a member of the Church; which hath beene proved [Page 667]hertofore, even out of Protestants. Who will not wonder at these words of yours to Ch: Mat? If you say, he cannot do this without taking away their free will in living; I say, neither can he necessitate men to belieue aright, without taking away their free will in believing and in prefessing their beliefe. For who sees not, but that by this meanes, you take away the infallibility of the Apostles, yea of our Saviour himselfe, whom you belieue not to be God? Or els you must grant that men may be infallible (by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost) without taking away their free will: and so, you must either contradict yourselfe, or blaspheme against the infallibility of the Apostles, and certaine truth of Christian Religion.

26. The Answer which you giue (N. 97.) to the place, which Ch: Ma: (N. 18.) cited out of S. Austine, I would not belieue the Gospell, vnless the authority of the Church did moue me, is easily confuted. That which moved the Saint, to belieue the Gospell, was not the authority of any particular Church, but of the vniversall, which deserves as much credit, and is as infallible in one age, as in another. For, if the whole Church of this age could erre, what Priviledge of infallibility could we yield to the age before this (and so vpward from one to another) more than to this present age? and so we could not ground any certainty, vpon the Tradition of the whole Chur [...] of all ages, vpon which even yourselfe pretend to rely for the be [...]ere of Scripture. Your other saying (The Christian Tradition being as fall against Man [...]ha [...]s, as it was for the Gospell, He (S. Austine) did well to conclude, that he had as much reason to disbetieue Mantchaeus, as to belieue the Gosp [...]ll) overthrowes the maine ground of Protestants, that all thinges necessary to salvation, are contained in Scripture alone. For now it seemes you admitt a Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus, distinct from that Tradition wherby the Church delivers the Gospell, and yet in this second Chapter (Pag: 114. N. 155.) You say, Scripture alone and no vnwritten Doctrine, having atte [...]ation from Tradition truly vniverfall, for this reason we conceiue, as the Apostles persons, while they were living, were the only Iudges of Controversyes, so their writings, now they are dead, are the only Rule for vs to Iudge them by. If being pressed, you tell vs perforce, that there was no other Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus, but the Tradition which delivered Scripture, and that they might be convinced of errour by Scripture alone, you manifestly contradict S. Austine (Cont: Ep: Fund: Chap: 5. cited by Charity Maintayned N. 18.) I would not [...]elieue the Gospell, vnless the Authority of the [Page 668]Church did moue me. Them therfore, whom I obeyed saying, belieue the Gospell, why should I not obey, saying to me, do not belieue Manichaeus? Where we see S. Austine professes to disbelieue the Doctrine of Manichaeus, vpon the same Authority, for which he believed Scripture, which he professes to haue beene for the Authority of the Church (as you also pretend to receiue the Scripture from the Church) and therfore both the Scripture, and Doctrine, or interpretation therof, we must receiue from the Church: Which appeares more by the immediatly following words of S. Austine alledged by Charity Maintayned in the same (N. 18.) Choose what thou pleasest. If thou shalt say, belieue the Catholikes; They warne me not to giue any credit to you. If therfore I belieue them, I cannot belieue thee. If thou say, do not belieue the Catholikes, thou shalt not do well, in forcing me to the Faith of Manichaeus, because by the preaching of Catholikes I believed the Gospell it selfe. If thou say, you did well to belieue them commending the Gospell, but you did not well to belieue them discommēding Manichaen [...] Dost thou thinke me so very foolish, that without any reason at all I should belieue what thou wilt, and not belieue, what thou wilt not? Thus far S. Austine. From whose words, Cha: Ma: makes this reflection: Do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men, to whom S. Austine spake, when they would haue men belieue the Roman Church delivering Scripture, but not to belieue Her condemning Luther, and the rest? Against whom, when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church, S. Austine may seeme to haue spoken no less prophetically, than doctrinally, when he sayd. (Lib: de Utilit: cred Cap: 14.) Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded, of them before all others, by whose authority I was moved to belieue, that Christ commanded any good thing? Canst thou better declare to me, what he sayd, whom I would not haue thought to haue beene, or to be, if the beliefe therof had beene recommended by thee to me? This therfore I believed by fame strengthened with celebrity, consent, antiquity. But every one may see, that you so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving authority. What madness is this? Belieue them, that we ought to belieue Christ: But learne of vs, what Christ said. Why I beseech thee? Surely if they were not at all, and could not teach me anything, I would more easily perswade my selfe, that I were not to belieue Christ, than that I should learne any thing concerning him, from any other, than them by whom I believed him. [Page 669]If therfore, saith Cha: Ma: we receiue the knowledg of Christ, and Scripture from the Church, from her also must we take his Doctrine, and interpretation of Scripture.

27. The application of S. Austines words in your (N. 99.) to any particular Church, is impertinent, and doth not infringe the strength of S. Austines Argument; who, as I haue sayd, received the Gospell vpō the credit of the vniversall Church. ād not vpō the Authority of any particular Church, or private person; and of the vniversall Church, he had all reason to say, that, as for her Authority he believed the Gospell, so for the same authority, he disbelieved the Doctrine of Manichaeus, which that vniversall Church condemned. But you equivocate when you do not distinguish between all the Churches of All Ages, and all the Churches, or vniversall Church, of every Age, which must be no less infallible, than all the Churches of all Ages, and is distinguished from everie particular Church of every age; vpon which mistake your whole objection goes (N. 99.) about an Arian or a Grecian that they may pretend to make vse of S. Austines argument. But wheras you say, the ancient Goths or Wandals were converted to Christianity by the Arians, it is but to doe a secret favour to the Arians your brethren. For the Goths were not converted by the Arians from Gentilisme to Christianity, but being first converted, were afterward perverted by the Arians, as may be seene in Baronius (Ann: 370.) This answer confutes your passionate, bitter, declamation, vented in your (N. 101.)

28. Your (N. 100.) demands, whether Charity Maintayned be well in his wits, to say, that Protestants would haue men be [...]eue the Roman Church del [...]vering Scripture, wheras they accuse her to deliver many Bookes for Scripture, which are not so? And do not bid men to receiue any Booke which she delivers, for that reason because she delivers it.

29. Answer as aboue; that either you received the Scripture, vpon the credit of the Roman Church, and such Churches as agreed with her, or else you received it meerly vpon your owne fancy, admitting, and rejecting Bookes at your pleasure; and to this day you can haue no certainty of the Bible, vnles you receaue it for that Reason, because the Church delivers it. And your admitting some Bookes, and rejecting others, which the Church receives, doth only proue that you are formall Heretikes.

30. You say (N. 103.) As to be vndersiandible is a condition requisite [Page 670]to a Iudge, so is not that alone sufficient to make a Iudge; otherwise you might make yourselfe Iudge of Controversyes. I wonder you would spend tyme in such toyes. The maine Question being, whether the Church, or Scripture be Judge, or Rule of Controversyes in Faith, Charity Maintayned (N. 19.) proves, that the Scripture cannot be such a Judge, because it is not intelligible to all, that is, to vnlearned persons, as the Church is, and therfore inferrs, that, not the Scripture, but the Church, must be Judge. And is not that a good consequence? Besides, you say, that Charity Maintayned in the beginning of his (N. 19.) which you impugne, vndertooke only to proue, that, Scripture is not a Judge: Therfore you grant, that he proved all that he vndertooke in that place, though he added, by way of supererogation, that the Church must be that Judge; which was the chiefe thing he intended to proue in this Chapter, and which followes evidently of the Scriptures not being Judge, it being supposed, that either the Scripture, or Church must be. A grievous Crime in Charity Maintayned to proue a pertinent, and most important Truth!

31. The words of the Apostle (Rom: 14.5.) Let every one abound in his owne sense, are prophanely applyed by you, as if every one might follow his owne sense, for the interpretation of Scripture, which delivers Divine Revelations, and you confess, that to disbelieue objects so revealed, is damnable in it selfe. S. Paul speakes of things indifferent, and which, at that tyme, were neither commanded, not absolutly forbidden to the Jewes in the Old Law, which then was mortua, but not mortifera, dead, but not deadly.

32. Your (N. 104.) till the (N. 106.) inclusiuè, haue beene answered at large. You suppose (N. 108.) and (N. 113.) that to find out the true Church, every one must be able to examine the succession of visible Professours of the same doctrine, through all Ages, or els to examine the Church by the conformity of her doctrine, with the doctrine of the first Age, as you speak (N. 108.) Both which we deny, and affirme, that the Catholique Church of every Age, carryes along with her, so many conspicuous Notes of the true Church, and all her enemies appeare with so many Markes of Errour, that no man, who seriously thinkes of his Eternall Happyness, can chuse, but clearly see the difference, and behold a way so cleare, ita vt stulti non errent per eam. This answer is solid, and evident, for vs. But you, who teach, that we receaue Scripture from the vniversall Tradition of the [Page 671]Churches of all Ages, and not for the Testimony of the present Church, how will you enable all men to examine, whether the Scripture, and much more whether every Booke, and parcell of Scripture, hath bene delivered by all Churches, even till you arriue to the Primitiue Church, and by it include the Apostles? Wherin we may vse these your owne words (N. 108.) This tryall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity, which no vnlearned can haue, because he that hath it, cannot be vnlearned. You say also; How shall he (an vnlearned man) possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of visible Professors, which held always the same doctrine which they now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary; vnless he hath first examined, what was the doctrine of the Church in the first Age, what in the second, and so forth? And whether this be not a more difficult worke, than to stay at the first Age, and to examine the Church by the conformity of Her Doctrine, with the Doctrine of the first Age, every man of ordinary vnderstanding may Iudge. But I would know, how one can examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first Age, except by the monuments, and Tradition of all the Ages, which intervene betwixt the first Age, and his, which no vnlearned can doe, because he that can doe it, cannot be vnlearned? And so it seemes, you will haue vnlearned men, despaire of all meanes to find the true Faith, Church, and salvation. Will you haue them passe, as it were persaltum, immediately from this present Age, to the first, or Primitiue Age of the Church, without the helpe of writings, or other meanes of the middle Ages? What remedy therfore can there be to overcome these difficultyes, except an infallible beliefe, that the Vniversall Church of every Age cannot erre? And that otherwise, all will be brought to vncertaintyes, euery man of ordinary vnderstanding may Judge.

32. For Answer to your (N. 110. till the 122.) inclusiuè, I say: No man indued with reason, will deny the vse of Reason, even in matters belonging to Faith. But we deny, that Reason is not to yield, to Authority, when assisted by Gods Grace, it hath once shewed vs some infallible Guide, and Authority, to which all must submitt, and so as it were cease to be different particular men, and be in a manner, one vnderstanding guided by one visible infallible Judge; for want wherof, Protestants remaine irreconciliably divided, into as many opinions, as they are men of different vnderstanding, and will, yea [Page 672]one man is divided from himself, as he alters his Opinions. Reason then may dispose, or manuduct vs to Faith, but the Object into which Faith is resolved, is the Divine Revelation, at which, Reason did point, and to which it must submitt: Otherwise Faith were but Opinion; which even Dr: Potter affirmes to be a good consequence: And it should not be the Gift of God, but the Act of it should be produced by the force of nature, and the Habit be an acquired, and not infused Habit, which is evidently against Scripture, as I proved in the Introduction. I wonder how you dare alledge Scripture as you do; as if the places, which you alledg (N. 116.) for trying of Spirits, did signify, that we are to try them by humane Reason, and not by the Doctrine of the Church, and Holy Scripture interpreted by Her. But in this you shew yourselfe to haue drunke, the very quintessence of Socinianisme.

33. Charity Maintayned had Reason to say (N. 29.) What good states men would they be, who should ideate, or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselves a Church? And (N. 22.) What confusion to the Church, what danger to the Commonwealth, this denyall of the Authority of the Church may bring, I leaue to the consideration of any judicious, indifferent man. For if it be free for every one, to thinke as he pleases, who will hinder him, from vttering his thoughts, in matters which he conceives belong to Faith, and to conforme his practise to his thoughts, and words? And by that meanes sowe discord in the Church, and sedition in the Commonwealth. And therfore what you say (N. 122.) that men only interpret for themselves, is not alwaies true, but their selfe interpretation may indeed redound to the hurt of other, both Private ād Publicke Persons, and Communityes, if their thoughts, chance to pitch vpon some object, which may be cause of mischiefe.

34. Howsoever, (N. 118.) You seeke to shift off the place of S. Austine, which Charity Maintayned cited (N. 21.) You see that you goe about to overtrow all Authority of Scripture, and that every mans mynd may be to himselfe a rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every Scripture. (Lib: 32. cont: Faust:) Yet it is certaine by Reason, and Experience of Protestants, and other, old, and moderne Sectaryes, that to take away a Living Judge, is to make every mans mynd a Rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every Scripture. For the Circle, of which you speake here, and in many other places, I haue shewed hertofore at large, that no such thing can with any probability be objected against [Page 673]vs, but most clearly, and vnanswerably, against your Brethren.

35. It seemes you were well furnished with idle tyme, when (N. 122. it should be 121.) you could at large examine, and seriously exagitate, these words of Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 66. N. 22.) Behold what goodly safe Propounders of Faith arise in place of Gods vniversall visible Church, which must yield to a single Preacher; a neighbour; a man himselfe, if he can read, or at least haue eares to heare Scripture read. Which words (good safe Propounders of Faith) who sees not to be spoken ironicè, out of just indignation, that men should reject the determination of Pope, or Church (as Potter expressly does in that Page 247.) and then send vs to the Declaration, of a particular Preacher, of a Neighbour &c: Surely the Doctor having rejected the Pope and Church, should haue proposed, some better and safer meanes, and did ill to propound such, as every one sees are fallible, and in no wise safe. But I shall be guilty of your fault, if I stay longer vpon such trifles.

36. Your (N. 123.) hath beene answered already, and in your (N. 124.) you do not so much impugne Charity Maintayned as Dr: Potter cited by Him (Part: 1. Pag: 67. N. 23.) in these words: Dr: Potter acknowledgeth, that besides the Law, there was a Living Iudge in the Iewish Church, indued with an absolutly infallible direction in cases of moment; as all Points belonging to Divine Faith are. The question then must be, not whether Dr: Potter spoke true, but whether Charity Maintayned cited him truly, as I am sure He did. For, the Doctor, (Edit: 2. Pag: 25. Lin: 2. a fine.) writes thus: The High Priest in cases of moment had a certaine Priviledge from errour, if he consulted the divine Oracle by the judgement of Vrim (or by the breast-plate of judgement, wherin were Vrim and Thummim) wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction. Thus He. And that you may see he speakes of such an infallibility, as He denyes to the Pope, and Church; Marke his words immediatly following: If any such promise from God to assist the Pope, could be produced, his decisions might then justly passe for Oracles, without examination; Till then, his words with vs weigh so much as his reasons, no more Where you see, He grants to the high Priest, so great and so large, a Priviledge, that if any such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced, his decisions might then justly passe for Oracles, without examination. Which is a large grant, and from which, every good Christian may well inferr, that, if such an infallibility were granted to the high Priest, and Synagogue [Page 674]to the Jewes, much more ought we to yield an absolute infallibility, to the Vicar, and Church of Christ.

37, But (N. 124.) You answer, or Object, First; Where was that infallible direction in the Iewish Church, when they should haue received Christ for their Messias, and refused him? Or perhaps this was not a case of moment.

38. Answer. Possibili posito in esse, nullum sequitur absurdum. Nor is it any wonder, that what was prophecyed, should be performed. Perpetuity was not promised to the Old Law, (of which it is sayd Ezech: 7.26. The Law shall perish from the Priest) but to the Church of Christ; of which it is sayd, the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her. The Church is free, and signifyed by Sara, wife to Abraham; the Synagogue was signifyed by Agar the bond woman (Gal: 4.24.) Agar was sent away, and repudiated, not Sara. The Church is vniversall, in respect of all that shall be saved, because none can be saved out of it, as even Calvin expressly grants, (Instit: Lib: 4. Cap: 1. N. 4.) Extra ejus gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio, nec vlla salus. But diverse were saved out of the Synagogue. The Synagogue was not perfect, (Heb: 7.19.) The Law brought nothing to perfection. And in this sense, the ceremonyes and Sacraments of the Synagogue, are called weake and poore elements (Gal. 4.9.) But the Church of Christ is perfect, and the Sacraments of the New Law, not only signify, but giue Grace. For which cause S. Austine (in Psalm: 73.) saith: The Sacraments of the new Testament giue salvation; the Sacraments of the Old promised a Saviour. The Synagogue contayned a shadow of good things to come, (Heb: 10.1.) The Church hath the light itselfe, that is Christ, (John: 1.9:) No wonder then, if the shaddow faile, when the fullness of light appeares; and no wonder, if our Saviour being present at the Councell of the Jewes, and having so preached the Gospell, that after some houres he sayd, Consummatum est, It is consummate: No wonder, I say, if the Jewes might be permitted, at that tyme to erre. S. Leo (Serm: 6. de Passion: saith) Tu verò, (he speakes to Caiphas) a quo jam alienabatur haec dignitas, ipse tibi es executor opprobrij, & ad manifestandum finem veteris instituti, pertinet eadem diruptio Sacerdotij. He speakes of Caiphas, tearing his garments. Contrarily you may remember, that the Priests, being consulted by Herod, about the Messias, did giue a true answer concerning him. Yet good Sir, you may reflect, that the Point for which the high Priest, directly, and immediatly [Page 675]sayd, He hath blasphemed, was not because he then expressly pretended to be the Messias, but because he made himselfe the Son of God; vpon which, Caiphas did rend his garments, and afterward, they accused him before Pilate, because he made himselfe the Son of God: and do not you, with other Socinians, hold it to be indeed a blasphemy to say, that our Saviour Christ is the Son of God, and consubstantiall to the Eternall Father; and do they not in their Catechisme expressly say, that it is against Scripture, and rectam rationem, right reason? Which wicked heresy of yours being once supposed to be true, the high Priest may easily be excused from errour, and blasphemy, and so by this example, you in particular, ought not to proue that he erred in a case of moment, but that he spoke truth. Neither can you blame him, for taking the words of our Saviour, (that, he was the Son of God) in a litterall sense, seing all orthodoxe Believers vnderstand it so, as indeed it is so to be vnderstood. And in the meane tyme, are not you true blasphemers, by whose Doctrine, Caiphas may be excused from blasphemy? And (ò impiety!) our Saviour had blasphemed in making himselfe the Son of God, if your horrible Doctrine were true.

39. Secondly, you answer, that Dr. Potter mght say very well, not that the high Priest was infallible, (for certainly he was not) but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed, though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed. But then, how could the Doctor say, that the high Priest had a certaine priviledge from errour, wherby he had an absolutly infallible direction? Is not that to be not only obeyed, but of necessity believed, which proceeds from an absolutly infallible derection? Or how could the high Priests determination be of necessity obeyed, if his determination had beene repugnant to any Point of Faith, as it might haue happened, if he had no infallible direction? Or will you now grant that one may, and must, dissemble in matters of Religion? If you grant this last, the ground for which you excuse Protestants from schisme, falls to the ground.

40. Thirdly, you answer; It is one thing to say, that the living judge in the Iewish Church, had an infallible direction: another, that he was necessitated to follow this direction. This is the Priviledge which you chalenge. But it is that, not this, which the Doctor attributes to the Iewes. As a man may truly say, the wise men had an infallible direction to Christ, without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it, and could not doe otherwise. This Answer is no more solid, and no lesse repugnant to [Page 676]Dr. Potter, than the former. For he saith: If any such promise from God to assiste the Pope could be produced, his decisions might then justly passe for oracles, without examination. Now how could any mans decisions passe for oracles, if the promise from God to assist him, be not effectuall, but that he may actually resist or reject such an assistance, and so teach the contrary of that, towards which he is assisted by God? Therfore the Doctor must be vnderstood, of such an assistance, as it is certaine, the party assisted will follow, which is the very Priviledg, which, you say, we chalenge, though we say not, that we are necessitated, as you misreport vs; for we know very well, that there is a great difference, betwixt an absolute necessity, and infallibility of an effect, as I haue declared hertofore. And indeed, to say; that the high Priest had an infallible assistance, which in fact might be resisted, is to attribute no more to him, than to every man, for performing his Duty, if he concurre with Gods inspirations, and directions, or sufficient Grace. Yourselfe say (N. 148.) That the whole depositum of truth was commtted to every particular Church, nay to every particular man, which the Apostles converted. And yet no man, I thinke will say, that there was any certainty, that it should be kept whole inviolate by every man and euery Church. Which words confirme my saying, that by your interpretation, the Doctor attributes no more to the high Priest, than to every man; which yet we haue seene to be directly against his words, and meaning, and that he ascribes that to the high Priest, which he denyes to the Pope, to whom he professes, that if he granted as much as God promised to the high Priest, his (the Popes) decisions might justly passe for oracles, without examination: Which surely is more, than is granted to every man; neither would either he, or you, deny to the Pope that sufficient Grace, and assistance, to performe his Duty, which Assistance you grant to every man. To your example of the wise men: I answer; if God did efficaciously decree, that the birth of our B. Saviour, should be published to the world, by their eye-witnessing, he gaue them such direction, as in his infinite wisdome, he saw they would follow de facto; though without either constraint, or necessity, as you would not deny to be very possible, if you had beene versed in solide Divinity, or read and vnderstood, our Catholike Authors vpon the matter of Grace.

41. All that you haue from the (N. 125. till 136.) inclusiuè, is answered already. Only I will say, that we do not proue the Church to be infallible, because so it seemes to vs most fitt, as you doe, who rely [Page 677]meerly vpon humane discourse; but seing the Question between vs, is, whether the Church, or Scripture alone, be the infallible Rule, or Judge of Faith, if we proue that the Church is vsefull for such a purpose, and that the Scripture alone cannot possibly be such a Rule, it followes, that not the Scripture can be such a Rule, but that the Church must be a Judge, of Controversyes. Thus all your roving arguments through diverse numbers vanish into nothing.

42. In the end of your (N. 126.) you say that Charity Maintayned inferred vainly that with monthes and yeares, as new Canonicall Scriptures grew to be published, the Church altered Her Rule of Faith, and Iudge of Controversyes; which yet is a true consequence, if, as Charity Maintayned expressly sayes as the Church by little and litle received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility. Protestants grant that after the canon was perfited, infallibility ceased to be in the Church; and why must they not say, that as Bookes of Scripture were written, so she by degrees lost her infallibility, as being needeless for those points which grewe to be evidently declared by those Bookes? For which cause they teach that when the whole Scripture was written, the Church wholy lost infallibility; and heere enters your conceypt that to him to whom the way is cleare, a guide is not necessary; Therfore the evidence of Scripture, made infallibility in the Church vnnecessary.

43. In your (N. 137. 138.) you dissemble the force of Ch: Ma: his Argument, which is: the Church was once indued with infallibility; therfore you cannot affirme, that she lost it, without alledging some evident Text of Scripture for your assertion; which, with you who rely vpon Scripture alone, ought to be a convincing Argument. Your fond instance about the King of Sweden, with the rest of that (N. 138.) hath beene answered already.

44. I need say little to your (N. 139.140.) having confuted at large your distinction between being infallible in Fundamentalls, and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls. And to your words (N. 140.) directed to Charity Maintayned; For the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of infallibility, in some Points, and not in others, that is a wild notion of your owne, which we haue nothing to doe with. I Answer: if you meane to defende the cause of Potter, or other Protestants, and not of Socininians only, you must of necessity haue to doe with that wild notion. For, seing it must be granted, that before Scripture was written, the Church [Page 678]was infallible in all matters belonging to Faith both Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall (because otherwise we could not haue believed Her in any one, and so there had beene no meanes to attaine a Divine infallible Faith) and that after the Canon of Scripture was persited, the Church remaines infallible in Fundamentall Articles, but may erre in Points not Fundamentall, (both which things are granted by Protestants:) I hope you will not deny, but that the conclusion deduced from these Premises, must be; That she lost part, and kept part of that infallibility, with which she was endued, before Scripture was written: and that you haue an obligation to shew by some evident Text of Scripture, that the Church, by the writing therof, was deprived of infallibility in Points not Fundamentall, and conserved with infallibility in Fundamentall Articles; beside what I sayd even now, that according to your instance of a way, the Church should haue bene deprived of infallibility, when by writing of some Scriptures, some points were made cleare in writing, which before were believed only for the Authority of a Guide, that is, the Church. And now, consider whether Charity Maintayned may not say to you, as you with your wanted humility speake to him, jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis.

45. Your (N, 141.) hath beene answered in my confutation of your (N. 124.) concerning the infallibility of the high Priest and Jewish Church. in your (N. 142.) you say to Charity Maintayned; For particular rites, and ceremonyes, and orders for government, our Saviour only hath left a generall injunction by S. Paul, let all things be done decently and in order. But what order is fittest, i. e. what tyme, what Place, what Manner &c: is fittest, that he hathleft to the discretion of the Governours of the Church. But if you meane, that he hath only concerning matters of Faith, prescribed in Generall, that we are to heare the Church, and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to beliue: The Church being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers, this in effect is to say, He hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue. Besides, it is so apparently false, that I wonder you could content yourselfe, or thinke we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proofe.

46. Answer. My hope was at the first general view of this section, to haue answered it in very few words. But vpon particular examination I find it to involve so many points of moment, that to vnfold them, will require some little more tyme, and paynes. First, you cite Ch: Ma. [Page 679]imperfectly. His words (Part: 1. P. 69. N. 23.) are; He (Dr. Potter) affirmes, that the Jewish Sinagogue retained infallibility in herselfe, notwithstanding the writing of the old Testament; and will he so vnworthily and [...]justly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament? Expecially if we consider, that in the Old Testament, Lawes, Ceremonyes, Rites, Punishments, Judgments, Sacraments, Sacrifices &c: were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jewes, than in the New Testament is done, our Saviour leaving the determination, or Declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church, which therfore stands in need of infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue. To these words you say: I pray walke not thus in generality, but tell vs, what particulars? And then you distinguish Rites, and Ceremonyes, and Orders for Governement, from matters of Faith; which indeed is no distinction, if the matter be duly considered. For, although diverse Rites and Ceremonyes, may chance to be of themselves indifferent, and neither forbidden, or commanded, to be practised, or omitted; yet to be assured, that indeed they are indifferent, and not sinfull, or superstitious, and so infectiue of the whole Church, we need some infallible authority. And particularly this is true for the Hierarchy, or Governement of the Church (as I sayd hertofore) which is a Fundamentall point, if any can be Fundamentall, to the constituting a Church. For this cause Charity Maintayned expressly said, that our aviour left to his Church the determination, or declaration of particulars; but you thought fit to leaue out the word declaration, wheras we cannot certainly rely vpon the determination of any person, or community, without a power and infallibility to make a Declaration, that the thing determined or ordained is lawfull: and so a Determination, or Ordination, must suppose, or imply in fact, a declaration. Do not you pretend to leaue vs for our superstitious Rites, and Ceremonyes, because you could not in conscience conforme yourselves to them? And heere I may put the Reader in minde of the words which I cited aboue out of Moulin (Epist 3 to Dr. Andrewes) Non potui dicere primatum Episcoporum esse juris divini, quin Ecclesijs nostris, notam haereseos inurerem. Enimvero obsirmare animum adversus ea quae sunt juris divini, & Deo jubentipertinaciter refragari planè est haeresis, sive id Fidem attingat five disciplinam. Thus your demand, what particulars Charity Mait [...]yned vnderstood, is answered, namely, that he vnderstood all particulars, which occasion [Page 680]might require to be ordained, determined and declared, by the Church; but in the meane tyme, where, or when did Ch: Ma: say, or dreame, that which you say is apparently false, that our Saviour hath only concerning matters of Faith, prescribed in generall, that [...]re to heare the Church, and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to belieue. Your conscience cannot but beare witness, against your owne words, that Charity Maintayned hath expressed a thousand tymes our doctrine, that we are bound to belieue, whatsoever is sufficiētly proposed as revealed by God; professing every where, that this is the Ground for which he avouches, that of two disagreeing in matters of faith; one must be in a damnable state: and that for this cause, we are bound to belieue every particular truth, contained in Scripture, or defined by the Church, which are millions: And therfore not the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned, but your imputation is apparently false. Yet, to say the truth, that Doctrine which you say is apparently false, ād no less falsely imputed to vs, might be very true, if it should stand, or fall by the strength only of the argument which you object against it, though perhaps it did seeme to you a great subtility.

47. The Church, say you, being nothing els but an aggregation of Believers, this in effect is to say, he hath left to all believers to determine what particulars they are to belieue. To which I may answer, as you say to Charity Maintayned. I wonder you would impugne that, as apparently false, which must be apparently true, if the ground of all your doctrine be true, That every mans Reason prescribes to himselfe, and determines what he is to belieue; and so your kind of Church, being nothing but an aggregation of believers in that manner, it followes, that it is left to all Believers, to determine, what particulars they are to belieue. The like may be sayd of the Councell of Apostles, which consisted of the Apostles, who determined not only, what others, but what themselves were to belieue, if they had not believed it already, (as de facto they did belieue it before the Councell) and so the Apostles had determined, what the Apostles were to belieue. The same may be applyed to Generall Councells, who determine even what they themselves are to belieue; and vniversally, if we do conceiue any congregation, to be infallibly assisted by God, they may declare, what themselves, and others are to belieue, though that congregation be nothing but an aggregation of such Believers. Yourselfe confess, that, the Governers of the Church may determine Rites, Ceremonies, &c: for the [Page 681]whole Congregation and so for themselves according to your inference; yea, if you vnderstand the matter as you should, in determining Rites &c: they determine, what every one is not only to practise, but to belieue also, as I sayd aboue; and so all believers may determine in this sense, what they are to belieue. But the truth is, you erre, even in Philosophy, not considering, that when a thing is determined by a Community, endued with sufficient Authority, to command, and define, the obligation falls not, vpon the whole collectiuè, compared with the whole, that is adaequate with it selfe, but as the whole respects a particular member, or part, from which it is truly distinguished, as includens ab incluso, and the whole a singulis partibns, in the manner, that a mans soule is distinguished, from a man. Besides, the precept of Faith, or Believing, is not a pure Ecclesiasticall precept, but a Divine command, obliging All, and Every one, to belieue whatsoever the Church propounds as revealed by God, which therby becomes an Object of Faith. And I hope you will not deny, but that although it were granted, that a man cannot oblige himself, nor a community it self, by their owne Authority, or command; yet God may, and doth, oblige, all, and every one, to belieue, whatsoever is propounded as a Divine truth, by such an infallible Propounder, as the Church is, which, in that sense, may truly be sayed to determine what all are to belieue. We may also add, that by the Church are vnderstood the Pastours and Prelates therof, who are not the whole Church collectiuè, but may command, and define, for the whole Church. Lastly; what doth this your answer belong to the Point, of which Charity Maintayned spoke? That, there is a greater necessity of some infallible authority, in the Church of Christ, than in the Synagogue of the Jewes, because the Lawes, Rites &c were more particularly, and, as I may say, minutely determined in the Old, then in the New, Law, which therfore stands in need of some Living Judge to determine, for all the many varietyes, and different occasions, that may present themselves.

48. Your (N. 143.) is answered in three words, that when S. Paul, (1. Cor. 16.11.) sayd, All these thinges chanced to them in figure; Every body sees, that he meant not of the temporall, but of the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall state of the Jewes, and so if they had one high Priest, who was endued with infallibility, much more ought we to belieue, that there is such an infallibility in Gods Church: And the Reader, by comparing the words of Charity Maintayned, with your Objection, [Page 682]will of himselfe see, that you labour to seeke, but can find no solide matter against him. Neither did he ever say, that the Ecclesiasticall Government of the Jewes was a Patterne for the Ecclesiasticall Government to Christians (as you would make him speake) but expressly, that the Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ, (for, those are his words.) Now to be only a type and figure argues imperfection: To be a Patterne, expresses perfection, as being a Rule, modell, and an idea of that, in respect wherof, it is a Patterne.

49. You needed not in your (N. 144.) pretend to doubt what discourse Ch. Ma. meant, when in the beginning of his (N. 24.) he sayd; This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus. For, it was easy to see, that he spoke of that discourse which he held in his immediatly precedent (N. 23.) His discourse was, that the Church of the Old and New Law did exist (respectiuè) before any Scripture was written, as there he shewes at large, and consequently, that Tradition, and not scripturedid then beget faith; which is also clearly confirmed, by the place which Ch. Ma. cited (N. 24.) out of S. Irenaeus, whose meaning you do pervert against himselfe, and even against yourselfe. The words of the Saint (Lib: 3. Cap: 4.) are; 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 yield assent, who belieue in Christ, having salvation written in their harts by the spirit of God, without letters or inke, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition. It is easy to receaue the truth from Gods Church, seing 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 we not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches, and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question? These be the words of S. Irenaeus cited by Charity Maintayned, which declare, that Tradition is sufficient, and powerfull, to produce Faith, even with facility, (as S. Irenaeus expresses himselfe) though no Scripture had beene written: And this he affirmes, not by way of conjecture, or discourse, what God would haue done, if there had beene no Scriptures, but that, de facto, there was existent such a powerfull Tradition, as to it not one, nor some, nor few, but many nations did yield assent without letters or inke, that is, without Scripture: And in this Chapter, (N. 159.) you say; Irenaeus [Page 683] tells vs 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. From whence you inferr, That a man may be saved, though he should not know, or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God, if he belieue Christian Religiō, wholly and entirely, and liue according to it. If this be true, doth it not follow, that Scripture alone is not the only, nor a necessary Rule of Faith, seing by tradition alone, men may be saved, though they should not know, or not belieue Scripture to be the word of God? And that by this concession, you directly blott out, the very title of this Chapter, which is, Scripture the only Rule wherby to judge of controversyes?

50. Now let vs heare, what you can Object against Charity Maintayned, in this matter. You say: (N. 144.) In saying, what if the Apostles had not left Scripture, ought we not to haue fellowed the order of Tradition? And in saying, that to this order many Nations yield assent, who belieue in Christ, having salvation written in their harts, by the spirit of God, without letters or inke, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition; doth he (S. Irenaeus) not plainly shew, that the Tradition he speakes of, is nothing els, but the very same that is written: Nothing but to belie [...]e in Christ? To which, whether Scripture alone, to them that belieue it, be not a sufficient Guide, I leaue to you to Iudge.

51. Answer: First, this your Answer, though it were never so true, leaves Charity Maintayned in possession, of what he endeavoured to proue out of S. Irenaeus, against the Title of your Chapter (Scripture the only Rule wherby to Iudge of Controversyes) to witt, that Tradition, and therfore not only Scripture, is such a Rule. For, dato non concesso, that Scripture containes all Points necessary to be believed, it followes not that the Church also may not be infallible, and guide vs by Tradition, as by Gods vnwritten Word. You teach here, (N. 126.) That, all the necessary Parts of the Gospell are contained in every one of the foure Gospells; And yet you say, That they which had [...]ll the Bookes of the New Testament, had nothing superfluous: For, it was not superfluous but profitable, that the same thing should be sayd diverse tymes, and be testifyed by diverse witnesses. So, say I, it had not beene superfluous, but very profitable, that the same truth should be revealed by God in Scripture, and by the infallible Tradition of the Church, which you must grant to haue happened in the tyme of the Apostles; when the first Bookes of Scripture were Written. For, as Scripture was not superfluous, though it found another infallible Rule before it, which also [Page 684]even according to Protestants, remained for some tyme with it (namely till the Canon of Scripture was perfited) so Tradition neither was, nor is, superfluous, though there be another infallible Rule (Scripture) with it.

52. Secondly: When you say, That the Tradition S. Irenaeus speakes of, is nothing els, but the very same what is written; nothing but to belieue in Christ; to which, whether Scripture alone, to them that belieue it (you should add, and vnderstand it) be not a sufficient Guide, I leaue to you to Iudge: I must answer, as you (N. 142.) speake to Charity Maintayned; I pray walke not thus in generality, but tell vs, what you meane by believing? Only in generall, that he is the Messias, and that without believing him, none can be saved? Or else do you vnderstand, by believing in Christ, all that hath beene taught by him? If you meane the first only; you say nothing to the purpose; because other Articles, are necessarily to be believed, beside that of Christs being the Messias. If you meane the second; that is, all Points taught by our Saviour, and necessary to be believed, as you (N. 159.) say; S. Irenaeus tells vs of some babarus Nations, that believed the Doctrine of Christ; (which certainly containes more than that one generall Article of his being Messias, as even there you declare, that it comprehends the Believing of Christian Religion, wholly and entirely; that is, (the matter of the Gospell) you know we deny, that for all such truths, Scripture alone can be a sufficient Guide, and to take the contrary without proofe, is to begg the question. Nay, even for that of believing in Christ, I wonder you would say, that you leaue it to the judgment of Charity Maintayned, that Scripture alone is a sufficient Guide, (in the Principles, and proceedings of Protestants) seing you know that He knowes, and the whole world knowes, how vastly they disagree about believing in Christ, some believing him to be the Son of God, and Consubstantiall to his Father: Others denying it: Some saying, he satisfyed for our sins, others denying it, as you know the Socinians doe. So that, take away the Authority and infallibility of Gods Church, the agreement of Christians in believing in Christ, will terminate in the meere Name of Christ, and the Title of Saviour, with endless contentions, about the Thing signifyed by that Name, and Title. Put then all your Assertions togeather, the strength of them will end in this contradiction, that the only Rule of Faith is Scripture▪ and yet that a man may be saved without believing it to be the Word [Page 685]of God, yea though he doubt or reject it, being proposed by other Parts of the Church, as you expressly say in the same (N. 159.)

53. But, you say, S. Irenaeus his words are just as if a man should say, if God had not given vs the light of the Sun, we must haue made vse of candles and torches: If we had had no eyes, we must haue felt out our way: If we had no leggs, we must haue vsed crutches. And doth not this in effect import, that while we haue the Sun, we need no candles? While we haue our eyes, we need not feele out our way? While we enjoy our leggs, we need not crutches? And by like reason, Irenaeus in saying, if we had had no Scripture, we must haue followed Tradition, and they that haue none, do well to doe so, doth he not plainly import, that to them that haue Scripture, and belicue it, Tradition is vnnecessary? Which could not be, if the Scripture did not containe evidently the whole Tradition.

54. Answer: You may vnderstand the words of S. Irenaeus, and moue others to vndestand them as you please; if you will first suppose, your owne doctrine to be true, that is, if to begg the question, may passe for a good Rule, to interpret Authors. If I say, you suppose, or take as granted, that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith; and, that it containes evidently all things necessary to salvation; you may compare it to the Sun, to Eyes, to leggs; and the Church to Candles; to feeling out our way; to crutches; yea (if she might erre,) to the Synagogue of Satan, and lastly to Nothing, because indeed every errour in Faith, destroyes Faith, and Church. But if you conceaue as you ought, that the Church gives Being to the Scripture in order to vs; that by Her Eyes, or Testimony, we belieue Scripture to be the word of God, as yourselfe grant; that by Her subsistence, as I may say, it hath beene conserved and subsists; you will be forced, to invert your similitudes, and interpretation of S. Irenaeus, and say; do not his words import, that if candles should faile, the Sun will last, and (as the Prophet David saith Psalm: 18.) Nec est qui se abscondat a calore ejus: And that in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum, that is, in manifestatione Ecclesiam, saith S. Austine. If through the difficulty and obscurity of Scripture we cannot feele out our way, (as the disagreements of Protestants shew, they cannot) we may see by the eyes of the Church, by which we did first see Scripture itselfe, and then, do not the words of S. Irenaeus plainly import, the direct contrary of that which you inferr? That to them who haue Tradition (as all they must haue, who belieue Scripture, which we receiue by Tradition) Scripture [Page 686]is vnnecessary, (as you speak of Tradition) and so is not to be the only Rule of Faith; nor is there any necessity at all, that it containe evidently the whole Tradition, as you inferr, which is most evidently false, seing S. John writes, that the world, could not containe all, that might haue been written, of our B. Saviour. To say nothing, that one Tradition, and that the chiefest of all other, in the account of Protestants, is, that Scripture is the Word of God, which you profess cannot be proved by Scripture itselfe.

55. And, now we haue a cleare Answer to your Objection out of S. Irenaeus, (as if he had taught that Scripture containes evidently the whole Tradition.) You cite not the place: But it is (Lib: 3. Cap: 1.) where he saith: We haue received the disposition of our salvation from no others, but from them, by whom the Gospell came vnto vs. VVhich Gospell truly the Apostles first preached, and afterwards by the will of God, delivered in writing, to vs, to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith. These words you alledge, and in your margent cite Bellarmine (de Verbo Dei Lib: 4. Cap: 11.) answering them much to your advantage, as you pretend. But you dissemble his first Answer, which demonstrates that S. Irenaeus doth in no wise favour your pretence. Bellarmine in Answer to Kemnitius who made this same Objection out of S. Irenaeus, saith; Respondeo, Irenaeum non dicere, nihil aliud Apostolos predicavisse, quàm quod scripserunt, sed solùm scripsisse Evangelium quod antea praedicaverant, quod est verum, & non contra nos. I answer, that S. Irenaeus doth not assirme, the Apostles to haue preached nothing els beside that which they wrote: but only that they wrote the Gospell which they had preached before, which is true, and not against vs. Now how can you impugne this Answer of Bellarmine, otherwise than by begging the question, and supposing, that the Evangelists, cannot be sayd to haue Written the Gospell, vnless they wrote all that the Apostlès preached? Which you know we deny, and the contrary is evident out of S. John, as I sayd even now, and hertofore proved at large: Though it be also most true, that they wrote all that was necessary to be written; but then you must proue, that all that was necessary to be believed, or was preached, was necessary to be written, (and not delivered by Gods vnwritten Word, or Tradition, as it was before any Scripture was extant) which you will never be able to proue out of S. Irenaeus, or Holy Scripture. This Answer to the words of S. Irenaeus is confirmed out of the same Chapter, where he saith, Marcus [Page 687]Discipulus &c: Marke the Disciple and interpreter of Peter did also deliver to vs in writing those things which were preached by Peter, and Luke the follower of Paul set downe in a Booke the Gospell which was preached by him. (S. Paul.) And afterward John the Disciple of our Lord, and who leaned vpon his brest, did also write the Gospell while he remained at Ephesus in Asia. Now it cannot be doubted, but that S. Marke had many things from the mouth of S. Peter, and S. Luke from S. Paul, which they did not set downe in writing; and yet you see, it is sayd, he (S. Luke) wrote Evangelium, the Gospell; and for S. John, he professes, that our Saviour did innumerable things, which are not written, and yet it is sayd, edidi Evangelium, he set forth the Gospell, and the Apostles delivered interpretations of Scripture to the first Christians, which are not set downe in writing, as yourselfe confesse. If any say, S. Irenaeus calls Scripture the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith. I answer: Those words cannot be referred, Scripturis, to the Scriptures, (which is S. Irenaeus his word) but to the Gospell, as appeares by the Word, futurum, (fundamentum & columnam Fidei nostrae futurum) seing we cannot say, with congruity of Grammar, Scripturis futurum, ād therfore it must be referred to Evangelium, Gospell, Evangelium columnam Fidei nostrae futurum, which (Gospell) is of a larger extent, than Scripture; though no man denyes, Scripture to be, in a good sense, the Pillar and Fundation of truth. Of the second answer which Bellar gives, I haue spokē largely (Chap: 2.) and shewed how egregiously you abuse him against his direct intention, meaning, and words.

56 Thus you haue an answer to your (N. 145.) Where you say, that at the most we can inferr from S. Irenaeus but only a suppositiue necessity of having an infallble Guide, and that grounded vpon a false supposition, in case, we had no Scripture, but an absolute necessity herof, and to them who haue and belieue the Scripture, which is your assumption, cannot with any colour from hence be concluded, but rather the contrary. The Answer, I say, to this, is given already; for, as I sayd, S. Irenaeus speakes not by way of discourse, or conjecture, or as it were of prophecy, what God would haue done, in case the Apostles had left no Scriptures, but he speakes of Tradition really existing, wherby the want of Scripture might haue beene supplyed, and which he expressly saith, the Apostles delivered to those, to whom they committed the Churches; Yea, he affirmes, that, de facto, many Nations were converted, by yielding assent to it; and so, de facto, there was, in that, and will be, in the like, case, a necessity of an infallible Tradition, and a Living [Page 688]Guide: And although that, or the like occasion, had not happened, yet the thing being contingent (Yea and in your particular Doctrine, the Scripture being not a materiall Object of Faith, which all are bound to belieue, which in effect is, as if it were not at all) the Church could not be to seeke, whensoever the occasion might happen, but must be indued with a permanent Authority, and infallibility, for all events; as it is contingent, that, for example, theft be committed in a Commonwealth; yet there is not only a suppositiue, but an absolute necessity, that the Commonwealth be indued with an absolute constant power, to punish theeves &c: Neither ought you to say absolutly, (for as much as belongs to our question) that it is a false supposition, to suppose that Scripture had not beene written. For, (besides that the Church of Christ was in being, some yeares before any part of the New Testament was written) it is all one, that there be no Scripture, and that we haue it not, or haue no reason to belieue it, yea or may reject it, as you saie; seing therfore, many Nations were saved, without knowledge of Scripture, or any obligation to know it, as S. Irenaevs supposes, it alone is, in order to vse, and vs, as if it had never beene written; and so, as I sayd, inferrs an absolute, and not only a suppositiue necessity of some Living Guide. And this, it seemes, you did perceiue, when you sayd, that Charity Maintayned did not well, to inferr an absolute necessity of a Living Guide, to them who haue, and belieue the Scripture: Wherby you must signify, that to those, who either haue not Scripture, or haue not sufficient reason to belieue it, it is all one, as if Scripture had never beene written, and consequently, that de facto there is an absolute necessity of an infallible Guide. Nay, men could not haue had sufficient reason to belieue infallibly the Scripture, except for the Authority of the Church of God, which therfore must be believed to be absolutely infallible before any Scripture be believed; which is directly contradictory to your saying, that the necessity of an infallible Guide is grounded vpon a false supposition, in case we had no Scripture. For, contrarily, if we haue and belieue Scripture, we must first belieue an infallible Church, independently of that supposition, and vpon which that supposition of our believing Scripture must depend.

57. But it seemes, this Authority of S. Irenaeus doth yet vex you. And therfore (N. 146. 147. 148.) you say: That in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith, [Page 689]which vnity was a good assurance, that what they so agreed in, came from some one common fountaine, and they had no other then of Apostolique Preaching.

58. This I haue answered hertofore, and told you, that when the Fathers alledge the Authority of the Church, or Tradition, they suppose the Church to be absolutly infallible, and not only, that accidentally, she teaches at that tyme the truth, which had beene no proofe, but a meere petitio principij. For, if the Church might erre, as you say she hath done, the Heretikes against whom the Fathers wrote, would easily haue answered, that all Churches might erre, and had erred, in such, or such particular Points; and how could you, or any Protestant, impugne such an Answer, supposing once the Church could erre? When Luther appeared, he forsooke the Faith, and Communion, of all Churches, vpon pretence, that they all agreed in errours against Scripture; and how do you now tell vs, that the agreement of Churches was a good assurance that what they so agreed in, came from some one common fountaine, and they had no other but Apostolicall Preaching. In this manner hertofore I retorted against you the saying, which you alledge out of Tertullian, ( Variasse debuerat &c: If the Churches had erred, they could not but haue varied, but that which is one amongst so many, cannot be errour, but Tradition:) That, seing all Churches agreed in a beliefe contrary to the Faith of Protestants, we must affirme, that the thing which is one among so many, can not by errour but Tradition. And your words here, add a particular strength to my retortions, while you say, that the agreement and vnity of Churches about the Fundamentalls of Faith, is a good assurance, that what they so agree in, comes from the common fountaine of Apostolique Preaching. For, those Heretikes might haue answered, that the errours of the Church which they impugned, were not Fundamentall (as we haue proved, that you say the errours of the Roman Church, and such as agreed with Her when Luther appeared, were not Fundamentall) and so the assurance, taken from vnity in Fundamentalls, could be no Argument against them. Besides, I pray you, reflect on your saying, that, Protestants departed not from the whole Church, because they were a part therof, and they departed not from themselves, and then you cannot but see, that those Heretikes in S. Irenaeus his tyme, might haue sayd, all Churches are not at an agreement about matters of Faith, seing we who are a part of the Church, do not agree with the [Page 690]rest; and therfore the agreement which you speake of, is of no force against vs, but you must proue by some other kind of Argument, that our doctrines are false; just as Protestants answer vs, when we object against them the agreement of all Churches against the doctrine of Luther, when he first appeared. Wherfore I must still inferr, that it is not the actuall, or accidentall agreement, but the constant ground therof (that is, the infallibility of the Church) that must assure vs, what is Orthodoxe, and what is Hereticall doctrine. Moreover, whereas you say, In S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith: I beseech you, informe vs, how it could be otherwise then; how can it be otherwise now; how shall it be otherwise for the tyme to come; or for any imaginable tyme, than that all Churches are at an agreement in Fundamentalls of Faith? Seing you professe through your whole Booke, that if they faile in Fundamentalls, they cease to be Churches; and so it is as necessary for all Churches to agree in Fundamentalls, as for all men to agree in the essence of man: And you might as well haue sayd, that at S. Irenaeus his tyme, the Definition did agree, or was all one with the Definitum, as that all Churches agreed in Fundamentalls. If therfore it was easy to receiue the truth from Gods Church in S. Irenaeus his tyme, as he affirmes, and you grant, it will be no lesse easy to doe it in these our tymes, seing the Church can never faile in Fundamentall Points of Faith, and so it was easy for Luther, and his companions, to haue received the truth, or rather to haue retained the truths, they found in the Church, seing she was a true Church, and consequently did not erre in Fundamentall Points. From whence it followes, that when S. Irenaeus saith, the Apostles haue most fully deposited in the Church, as in a rich store-house, all things belonging to truth, it must be vnderstood, that she cannot but keepe that depositum sincere for Fundamentall Points, even according to Protestants; and you say here (N. 164.) The visible Church shall always without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven, for otherwise it will not be the visible Church, in which sense, that depositum is not committed to private persons, though otherwise never so qualifyed, and therfore all that you haue (N. 148.) is of no force, even in the Principles of Protestants. And then further, seing indeed any errour against divine Revelation, is damnable, and without Repentance destroyes salvation, as you grant; it is impossible, that the Church (which must needs [Page 691]enjoy all things necessary to salvation, as we haue heard you even now saying, the visible Church shall always without faile, propose so much of Gods Revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven) It is, I say impossiblle, that the Church can fall into any damnable Errour, but must be vniversally infallible. Which is vnanswerably confirmed, by your doctrine, that it is impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall, and so we cannot know, that she failes not to propose so much of Gods Revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven, vnless we belieue Her, to be infallible in all Points of Faith, as well not Fundamentall, as Fundamentall. And here againe, how could you say, that in S. Irenaeus his tyme all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith, which vnity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in, came from some one common fountaine, and they had no other than Apostolique Preaching: How, I say, could you speake thus, your doctrine considered, that we cannot know what Points are Fundamentall, and so we cannot know, whether Churches be at an agreement in them, and consequently, cannot, from such an agreement in Fundamentalls, haue a good assurance, that what they so agreed in, came from the fountaine of Apostolique Preaching? Every where you are found clearly to contradict yourselfe.

59. In answer to your (N. 149.150.151.152.153.) I will first set downe the words of Charity Maintayned and then answer what you object. Thus saith Charity Maintayned, (Part: 1. Pag: 71. N. 25.) The doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of itselfe. For, either they haue certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture, or they haue not. If not; then the Scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficiēt ground for infallible Faith, nor a meete Judge of Controversyes. If they haue certaine infallible meanes, and so cannot erre in their interterpretations of Scripture; then they are able with infallibility to heare, examine, and determine all Controversyes of Faith, and so they may be, and are, Judges of Controversyes, although they vse the Scripture as a Rule. And thus, against their owne doctrine, they constitute another Judge of Controversyes, beside Scripture alone.

60. Against this discourse, you object with great pompe of words: If we (Catholiks) haue certaine, and infallible meanes, for the choyse of the Church, then we are able with infallibility to determine all Controversyes of Faith, although we pretend to make the Church our Guide. And then say you (N. 149.) We constitute another Iudge of Controversyes, [Page 692]besides the Church alone; nay every one of vs makes himselfe a chooser of his owne Religion, and of his owne sense of the Churches decrees, which very thing we so highly condemne in Protestants.

61. Answer. we haue certaine meanes to belieue with an infallible Faith, that the Catholique Church is an infallible Judge of controversyes, as we haue proved hertofore at large, in diverse Occasions. But then to say, that by this meanes, i.e. by believing the Church to be the Judge of controversyes, we are able of our selves, with infallibility to determine all controversyes, and do constitute another Iudge of controversyes, besides the Church alone. I am so farr from vnderstanding it that to me it seemes no better than non-sense; as a man, who in some cause, makes choyse of a Iudge, whom he believes to be just, wise, and in every respect fit for such an office, cannot be sayd to constitute another judge, beside him, of whom he makes choise, nor to make himselfe Iudge. Do you not teach, that the Church proposes to vs Canonicall Scripture, and that Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith, wherby all controversyes are determined? and yet you will not inferr from thence, that the Church is a Rule of Faith, wherby all controversyes are determined, and not Scripture alone. It is you, who here (N. 153) say; for the latter part of this inference, that every one makes himselfe judg of controversyes we acknowledge and embrace it. We do make ourselves Iudges of controuersyes. And this you must grant, not only for the choyse of your Religion, but for the sense of Scripture, and consequently for determining all controversyes of Faith, and so you are Iudges of controversyes, as Ch: Ma: inferred; wheras Catholikes in all controversyes, hold themselves obliged to follow the determination of the Church, and not of their owne vnderstanding, as you doe. How farr we may, and do make vse of Reason in matters of Religion, we haue declared aboue. And even yourselfe (Pag: 376. N. 56.) speaking of Scripture, say; Propose me any thing out of this Booke, and require whether I belieue it, or not, and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason, I will subscribe with hand and hart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this: God hath sayd so; therfore it is true. Which words, though they cannot be spoken sincerely, and with consequence, by you who resolue Faith into humane probable Arguments of reason; yet they shew, that even in reason, Reason ought to submitt to Authority. We haue also shewed, the difference between the Scripture, which is always the same, and the Decrees of the Church, which, in all occasions, [Page 693]can clearly declare Her meaning, if any difficulty occurre, about her former Decrees, or Definitions.

62. But I pray, where did Charity Maintayned frame this Argument, which you (N. 150.) terme a transparent fallacy? Protestants haue no meanes to interpret, without errour, obscure and ambiguons places of Scripture; therfore plaine places of Scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of Faith. You know, there neither is, nor can be any Question at all, whether plaine places, be not plaine, to those, to whom they are plaine; nor whether such plaine places, may not be a sufficient ground of Faith, in respect of persons, to whom, and Matters, wherin, they are plaine. The Point is, and you know it to be so, whether scripture be plaine, in all Points necessary to be believed, which we deny, and you often affirme, but can never be able to proue; and I haue demonstrated, that even those Texts, which you pretend to be most plaine, and expresly alledge for instances of such plainesse, are not such, but containe difficulty, if we respect the sense, and not the bare words, which may be plaine to Pagans, Jewes, Turkes, and to all who vnderstand the language in which Scripture was written. And therfore you do not satisfy your owne Demand, wherin you speake thus to Charity maintayned. If you aske me, how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these (plaine) places? I aske you againe, can you be sure, that you vnderstand what I or any man else, sayes? They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach, could they haue sufficient assurance, that they vnderstood at any tyme, what they would haue them doe? If not, to what end did they heare them? If they could, why may not we be as well assured, that we vnderstand sufficiently, what we conceiue plaine in their writings?

63. Answer. If he who speakes, be not sufficiently vnderstood, he may be asked, and he who askes, may be satisfyed, by a further declaration of the speaker, which holds not in Scripture, as I am forced often to repeate, Besides, when things are spoken, the present Tyme, Place, Argument, and other circumstances, may giue much more light, than when they are barely written, devested of such helpes. In which case, if a word can be found, but once, in the whole Bible, to signify such, or such a thing, perhaps it may breede a doubt, whether in other places it be not so taken; of which, no doubt would haue beene made, in case that in all places it had the same signification, Yea, we see, that the Apostles did not always vnderstand our B. Saviours words, till he vouchsafed to declare them. And I obserue your owne words; [Page 694] May we not be as well assured, that we vnderstand sufficiently, what we conceiue plaine, in their (the Apostles) writings? Where insine, your certainty and evidence is resolved into (what we conceiue) which are your owne words; and is a poore ground, for an Act of infallible Faith; and, of Protestants disagreeing among themselves, doth not every one, conceiue Scripture to be plaine, in his favour? And yet it is plaine, that two contradictoryes cannot be true.

64. In your (N. 152.) you speake to Charity Maintayned in this manner: In saying, If they haue certaine meanes, and so cannot erre, me thinkes you forgett yourselfe very much, and seeme to make no difference, between having certaine meanes to doe a thing, and the actuall doing of it. As if you should conclude, because all men haue certaine meanes of salvation, therfore all men certainly must be saved, and cannot doe otherwise; as if whosoever had a horse, must presently get vp and ride, whosoever had meanes to fynd out a way, could not neglect those meanes, and so mistake it. If you aske, seing we may possibly erre, bow can we be assured we do not? I aske you againe, seing your eye-sight may deceiue you, how can you be sure you see the sun, when you see it? perhaps you may be in a dreame, and perhaps you, and all the men in the world haue beene so, when they thought they were a wake, and then only awake, when they thought they dreamed.

65. Answer: I aske, whether all points necessary to be be believed, are so very evident in Scripture, that one cannot erre in the meaning of them, but is no lesse assured therof, then he is sure he sees the Sun, when he sees it; Or, they are not so evident? If they be so evident, it followes clearly, that the meanes wherby they are immediatly knowne (namely the very evidence of them) is such, as no man can possibly erre concerning them. For, it is impossible, that our vnderstanding can dissent, from a truth, represented with evidence. And so you haue no reason to blame Ch. Ma., seing by the meanes wherby you vnderstand necessary Points of Faith in Scripture, it is impossible for you to erre. If necessary Points be not so evident, but that one may erre concerning them; Then you must vse some meanes, for vnderstanding them, beside the pretended evidence, which they haue of themselves, which indeed comes to be, not evidence, but obscurity, if it leaue the vnderstanding, with a freedome to dissent. Let therfore these meanes be such, as Protestants are wont to assigne; prayer, knowledge in languages, conferring one place with another &c. Which depending vpon humane industry, cannot exceed probability, (as we haue heard Whitaker de Eccles: [Page 695]contr. 2. Quest: 4. confessing) and cannot assure vs of the true sense of Scripture; which is against your sayings (N. 150.) That you haue certayne meanes of not erring in and about the sense of those places, which are so plaine and cleare, that they need no interpretation, and in such we say our Faith is contained. For, if to vnderstand such places you need the meanes and helpe of Prayer, Language &c: it is cleare, they are not so cleare, that they need no interpretation. And so you must be content to acknowledge, in these two numbers, a contr [...]diction to yourselfe, and a causelesse blaming Charity Maintayned in the former of them, if yourselfe speake Truth in the latter; that is, you must either grant that one cānot erre in necessary Points of Faith, or els that the Scripture is not evident, but needs an interpreter of Scripture for such Points; which if it need, seing the meanes assigned by Protestants, can affoard no more than probability only, which is not sufficient to erect an act of divine Faith, it followes that we must haue recourse to an infallible Living Guide. Thus I haue confuted your objection against Charity Maintayned; That He seemes to make no difference, between having certaine meanes to doe a thing, and the Actuall doing of it. For, I haue told you, that when the meanes to doe a thing, is seated in some cause, which hath not freedome to the contrary Action, there is good reason, not to distinguish between the enjoyning such meanes, and the doing of the thing, or at least not doing the contrary, that is, in our case, not erring, against that which is evident in Scripture: as whensoever fire hath all requisites, to burne a combustible matter, it cannot but doe so. Now our vnderstanding is of that nature, that it cannot dissent, from a truth evidently proposed for such; and therfore if all texts of Scripture, containing necessary Points of Faith, be evident (as you say they must be, and that otherwise they could not be necessary) our vnderstanding, cannot possibly dissent from them, and so not to erre, and not to be able to erre, proue to be inseparable: which holds particularly, in your doctrine that certainty cannot consist without evidence, ād consequētly our vnderstāding cannot dissēt from any thing which is presēted to it as certaine, because it cannot dissent, or deny, that which to it is evident.

66. Your instances to the contrary, proue only, that either you did not consider, what you object; or argue an excessiue confidence, that the world would, without examination, take for true, whatsoever you wrote. As if, say you, to Ch: Ma: you should conclude, because all men haue certaine meanes of salvation, therfore all men must certainly [Page 696]be saved and cannot doe otherwise, as if whosoever had ahorse must presently get vp and ride: whosoever had meanes to find out a way could not neglect those meanes and so mistake it. But all these toyes are answered already. For, the meanes to heaven, is, as our B. Saviour sayes, to keepe the commandements, by our freewill, assisted with Gods Grace, and therfore it doth not follow, that, although we may, we must needs be saved, because our will may resist Gods Grace; as also it is in your will not to get vp and ride, though you haue a horse: but it is not in the power of our vnderstanding, to dissent from evident truth. Your similitude of finding a way, may be turned against you, if it be supposed, that one hath the way before his eyes, and is certaine that it is the way. In which case, he cannot mistake his way, though by his freewill he may goe out of it; as one may, with his will not obserue what God commands, but cannot possibly perswade himselfe that it is not commanded, if it be evidently represented to his vnderstanding, that it is commanded: as one cannot but be sure, that he sees the sun, when he sees it; which is your owne example, to proue, that we may be assured that we do not erre: But then you do not well to say, that our eye sight may deceiue vs, or that we may possibly erre; it being impossible, that our eye, and vnderstanding, being well disposed, towards an object evident, can faile to see, and vnderstand actually, if such an object, be placed within the spheare, or compasse, of their actuity: And therfore, if Scripture be evident whosoever can assent to it, cannot possibly dissent from it. Before I end this number, you must be intreated to remember what you teach (Pag; 329. N. 7.) that it is necessary to Faith, that the object of it should not be so evidently certaine, as to necessitate our vnderstanding to an Assent, that so there might be some obedience in it, which can hardly haue place where there is no possibility of disobedience, as there is not where the vnderstanding does all, and the will nothing. Now, if the vnderstanding be not necessitated, by the evidence of Faith, or contents of Scripture; you must find some other meanes, to moue the vnderstanding, namely, such as Protestants vsually prescribe, which cannot exceede probability, nor is sufficient for an Act of Faith. And so your Arguments, and Similitudes, grounded vpon the plaine evidence of Scripture, cannot be rightly applyed by you, seing it is not an evidence, sufficient to assure the vnderstanding, without some other meanes, which being but probable, if you will arriue to certainty, you must still haue recourse to the Church.

[Page 697]

67. Your (N. 151.) going vpon a false supposition, that our first Proofes, and Arguments, for the infallibility of the Church, are taken from Scripture, need no Answer, seing we haue proved the contrary, at large. It is true, that having once found the true Church, and by Her authority, Canonicall Scriptures, we do with good reason, proue out of them the authority, and infallibility of the same Church; with other particulars concerning her, which were not knowne by the first generall notion of her being the true Church; but this is done without any pretence, of such evidence as must force every mans vnderstanding to assent, in that manner as the Principles of naturall Sciences, do necessitate vs; and therfore, there alwayes remaines a necessity of a Living Judge.

68. In your (N. 154.) I find nothing, but an Aggregatum of diverse Heads, of which we haue treated at large; as the infallibillty of Christian Faith; how farr the Motives or arguments of credibility, concurre to an act of Faith; The manner we hold in proving the Church, and believing those articles which she proposes; what vse there is of Reason in finding out the Church; that in vaine you distinguish betweene Christianity, and Popery, as you speake, seing there can be but one true Christian Church &c: And therfore, I will goe forward, having first toucht in a word, that wheras you say to vs, you should require only a morall and modest Assent to the proposalls of the Church, and not a Divine as you call it, and infallible Faith: It seemes you confesse, that your Faith is not to be called Divine, as you professe it not to be infallible, and therfore indeed not Divine, but a meere humane perswasion, even in those Points, wherin you chance notto erre.

69. To your (N. 155.156.157.158.159.160. of which for the substance I haue spoken hertofore) I will only say; That you are still taking vpon you, to declare the Doctrine of Protestants, in their name, without any commission from them. Thus here you talke, as if no Protestants held, that Scripture may be proved, to be the word of God, by Scripture it selfe, the contrary whereof we haue shewed, in particular of Baron, and Potter. And Ch. Ma. (Part: 2. Chap: 3. Pag: 91.) cites Dr. Willet (in his meditation ypon the 122. Psalme Pag: 91.) who puts among whirle-points and buboles of new Doctrine (as he speakes) That the word of God cannot possibly assure vs what is the word of God. And whatsoever you take vpon you, yet Ch. Ma. had reason to say, that seing it is, to Protestants, a most necessary Point of Faith, to know what Bookes be [Page 698]Scripture, and that this Point cannot be proved by Scripture; it followes, that all matters of Faith, are not contained in Scripture: wherby it appeares, that God hath not tyed his testimony or Revelation, to his written word alone, but that you must of necessity admitt Tradition, or His vnwritten Word, and so not learne all necessary Points from Scripture. And if one Tradition must be believed by Faith, you can bring no positiue Rule, or reason, why there may not be some other Traditions, without any prejudice to the perfection of Scripture.

70. In your (N. 160.) you impugne these words of Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Pag: 73. N. 26.) If Dr. Potter answer, that their Tenet, about the Scriptures being the only judge of Controversyes is not a Fundamentall Point of Faith; then as he teacheth, that the vniversall Church may erre in Points not Fundamentall, so I hope he will not deny, but particular Churches and private men, are much more obnoxious to errour in such Points; and in particular in this, that the Scripture alone is judge of Controversyes: And so the very Principle vpon which their whole Faith is grounded, remaines to them vncertaine; and on the other side, for the selfe same reason, they are not certaine, but that the Church is judge of Controversyes. Against which discourse you object; A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this Principle, that whosoever possibly may erre, he cannot be certaine, that he doth not erre. And vpon this ground what will hinder me from concluding, that seing you also hold, that neither particular Churches, nor private men are infallible even in Fundamentalls, that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity, remaine to you vncertaine? A judge may possibly erre in judgment, can he therfore never haue assurance that he hath judged right? A traveller may possibly mistake his way, must I therfore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber? Or can our London Carryer haue no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to London? These, you see, are right worthy consequences, and yet as like your owne as an egg to an egge, or milke to milke.

71. Answer. I hope it will be found that you triumph before any possibility of victory, on your behalfe, and that your Objection will be turned against yourselfe. Where find you in Charity Maintayned any Argument depending vpon this principle, that whosoever possibly may erre, he cannot be certaine, that he does not erre? This is your fiction, not any principle of Ch. Ma. His principle is in this. Whosoever possibly may erre, by relying vpon some Principle, Ground, or Reason, he [Page 699]cannot be certaine, that he doth not erre, as long as he followes that Principle only, without addition of any other helpe, or greater light, or certainty. For, if the Principle be of it selfe false, fallible, or contingent, it cannot possibly, being left to itsel [...]e, produce an infallible Assent; which is the very Ground for which you teach Christian Faith to be fallible. But it doth in no case follow from hence, that absolutly whosoever may possibly erre, he cannot be certaine, that he doth not erre: vnless you add this necessary restriction; he cannot be certaine that he doth not erre, as long as he grounds himselfe, only vpon that Principle, which he believes to be fallible, and subject to errour, though for other things, or vpon other certaine and infallible Grounds, he may be, and is, sure, that he neither doth, nor can erre, while he relyes vpon those infallible Grounds.

72. For better vnderstanding of this matter: We may distinguish a double infallibility. The one may be termed Personall, or belonging to, or accompanying the Person: The other we may call Reall, or taken from the thing itselfe. If God promise his assistance to some person, that he shall never erre, even in things of themselves obscure; this man shall be sure never to erre; not in vertue of any intrinsecall evident Principle, but by reason of that Divine assistance. But if one haue no such promise, or Priviledge, yet is directed by some Principle, evident to humane Reason, he is certaine, that he neither doth, nor can, erre, by a certainty, derived from evidence of the Thing it selfe, as long as he relyes vpon that certaine ground. Now to our purpose. You cannot be certaine of this proposition (Scripture alone is the totall Rule of Faith) by evidence of sense, or some Principle knowne to naturall Reason, but only by certainty, proceeding from infallible supernaturall Assistance: And therfore, seing you deny any such Assistance to the vniversall Church, and much more to particular Churches, or private persons, for Points not Fundamentall (as you acknowledge this to be) it followes, that you can haue no certainty of it; which is the thing that Charity Maintayned affirmed: and so it proves to be very true, that whosoever may erre, cannot be certaine that he doth not erre, if he depend, vpon Grounds, subject to falshood, and errour; as contrarily, whosoever doth not erre, because he relyes vpon evident Principles, or vpon some extrinsecall Authority, being in it selfe, and being believed to be, Infallible, he is sure he cannot erre in such matters, though he may erre in other, knowne by some probable reason, or fallible Authority. If you [Page 700]say; A thing may be certainly knowne, or believed, because it is evidently contained in Scripture, which we belieue to be infallible. This evasion answers not my argument. For, if you imagine a thing to be so evident in Scripture, that there is required no more than evidence of sense, or Reason, to see, and read, and know the Grammaticall signification of the word; then whosoever does so, he is certaine, not only that he doth not, but that he cannot erre, seing he is evidently certaine, that he sees, reades, and vnderstands the Grammaticall signification of the word. If beside the sayd knowledge, or ability to see, read &c. there be other meanes required (as certainly there are) to know what is (not the Grammaticall signification, but) the meaning of the word, intended by the Holy Ghost, in that place; then if those meanes be fallible, and only probable, no man can, by the assistance of them alone, be certaine, that he doth not erre. But if the meanes be, and be believed to be infallible, he is sure, that he neither doth, nor can erre, by vsing those meanes; and so to erre in a way (in which one is certaine, that he doth not erre, and yet may erre, as long as he retaines the meanes of that Certainty, and followes them) is an impossible thing. Thus your owne Objection turnes vpon yourselfe, and makes good the discourse of Charity Maintayned.

73. But you vrge vs, and say: Vpon this Ground, what will hinder me from concluding, that seing you also hold, that neither particular Churches, nor private men are in fallible, even in Fundamentalls, that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity, remaine to you vncertaine.

74. Answer. Your inference were very good, if in the beliefe of the Fundamentalls of Christianity, we did rely vpon the Authority of particular Churches, or private men. But we rely vpon the Authority of the vniversall Church, which is absolutly infallible. Contrarily, for you, who rely vpon no infallible Authority, of any Church, but vpon your owne fallible discourse, or the Scripture interpreted by fallible meanes, nothing, I am sure, can hinder vs from concluding, that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remaine to you vncertaine. Still you are wounded with your owne weapons. And to turne also against you your owne similitudes: A Judge may possibly erre in judgment, if he proceed only vpon probable reasons, that he Judges according to Law; neither can he haue assurance that he hath judged right, if his sentence be grounded vpon such reasons only. If in some other case he haue assurance, that he hath judged right, it must be grounded vpon certaine, [Page 701]and evident reasons, which can never faile, nor he ever can fall into errour, by following such reasons, or rules. Neither can your London Carryer, or any other, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his witts, mistake the waie, which he knowes with absolute certainty and evidence; as you aboue all others must grant, who say, that we need no Guide for Controversyes of Faith, because, as you pretend, you haue a cleare way, namely Scripture, which therefore if you can mistake, and know the meaning therof only probably, you must confess the necessity of some Guide, to direct, and keepe you in that way. Your owne caution (in the middle of the day) might haue put you in mynd, that Faith is obscure, and like a light in a darke place, as S. Peter speakes; which therfore is a way, which may not only be mistaken, but cannot be assuredly found, without the direction of some infallible Guide. How many wayes, do your Arguments strongly recoyle against yourselfe, without the least hurt to your Adversary! Even your vaine conclusion (these you see are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like your owne as an egg to an egge, or milke to milke) must be applyed against yourselfe, that as one egg is really different from another, so your consequences are really different from those of Charity Maintayned, though to your friendes they may perhaps haue seemed to be all one: But indeed, being examined, proue to be as like to those of Charity Maintayned, as an apple to an oyster.

75. By what I haue sayd, your (N. 161.) is fully answered, and your Examples appeare to be clearly impertinent. For, these Propositions, the snowe is black, the fire is cold, &c: are false, and the contrary true, as is evident to sense and reason; not so; that Scripture is the totall Rule of Faith, the truth, or falshood wherof, must be tryed by some other meanes, and you can haue none certaine, if you take away the infallibility of Gods Church. And I wonder you can say, concerning these words of Charity Maintayn. (for the selfe same reason Protestants are not certaine that the Church is not Judge of Controversyes) the Ground of this Soph [...]sme is very like the former; viz: That we can be certaine of the fallhood of no Propositions, but these only which are damnable Errours. For, you know, that we spoke not of whatsoever truth, or falshood, but of a Proposition, the truth or falshood wherof, cannot be knowne, by sense, or naturall Reason, but only by Revelation, in which if the vniversall Church may erre, for Points [Page 702]not Fundamentall, we cannot possibly haue certainty of the truth of them, as I haue proved; and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument, we may be certaine that snow is not blacke, nor fire cold; therfore we may be certaine of truths, which can be knowne only by Revelation, for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ, and much more private men, may erre.

76. To your (N. 162.) I need only say, that a publike and vniversall Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith, and interpret Scriptures must be infallible; otherwise it might either be disobeyed, or els men would be forced to obey exteriourly, that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Errour, as hertofore I haue declared, and shewed a large difference betweene a Judge in Civill causes, and Controversyes in matters of Faith, alledging to that purpose, your owne words (Pag: 59. N. 17.) That in Matters of Religion, such a Iudge is required, whom we should be obliged to belieue, to haue judged right. So that in Civill Controversyes, every honest vnderstanding man is fitt to be a Iudge; but in Religion, none but he that is infallible. And yet so farre you forget yourself as to object to vs in this (N. 162.) I hope you will not deny, but that the Iudges haue Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversyes; and yet I hope you will not say, that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations. Infallble while they proceed according to Law. How then can you distinguish betwene a Judge in Civill, and a Judge, in Controversyes of Religion, vnless you grant not only a conditionall, but an absolute infallibility to this latter, whereby he is sure never to erre, whereas a Judg in Civill matters may erre, by not proceeding according to Law? If therfore the Propositions, which were publikly defended in Oxford, (that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith, and to interpret Scripture) be patient of your Explication, I can only say, that they either say nothing, or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith, by obeying the Commandements of the Church, against their Conscience. I haue read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes (Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae) who teaches, that no man ought now, after the tyme of the Apostles, who were infallible, to be punished by Excommunication, as long as he followes the dictamen of his Conscience; and how do you tell vs, that now one may be excommunicated for an errour in Faith? Though you admit no infallible Judge, to declare the sense of Scripture; and that those Texts which seeme evident to some, appeare obscure [Page 703]to others, as is manifest, in the examples which you alledge as evident, of our Saviours Passion, and Resurection, which diverse Heretikes haue either denyed, or vnderstood in a different way from the doctrine of Gods Church; and yourselfe in particular, belieue that his suffering, and Death, was not the Death and Passion of God; and that his Sufferings did not merit, and satisfy for mankind; and that he remaines in Heaven, with a Body of a different nature, and Essence, from that which he had vpon Earth; which is to deny his Resurrection, for substance, and Death, for the fruite therof. You say; The Doctor (who defended the saied Conclusions together with the Article of the Church of England, attributeth to the Church, nay to particular Churches, and I subscribe to his opinion, an Authority of determining Controversyes of Faith, according to plain and evident Scripture and vniversall Tradition, and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule. But how doth this agree, with the whole Scope of your Booke, that the Bible, the Bible, the Bible, is the only Rule; and with your express words heere, (N. 155.) that no vnwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly vniversall? Seing, beside Scripture, you grant a Tradition, which you say gives an infallibility, to him who proceeds according to it: Which shewes that there is some infallible vnwritten word, or Tradition. You say: But what now if I should tell you, that in the yeare 1632. among publike Conclusions defended in Doway, one was, that, God predeterminates men to All their Actions. I answer: That, if you will inferr any thing from hence, it must only be this; that, as the Question about Predetermination is not defined by the Church, but left to be disputed in Schooles, with an express command of our Supreme Pastour, that one part do not censure another; so if you grant, that, out of the sayd Propositions defended in Oxford, I may inferr, that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith, or at least, that you are not certaine it is so, nor can condemne vs Catholikes for holding the contrary; if, I say, you grant this, you overthrow that Ground, in which alone, all Protestants pretend to agree, and of which if they be not absolutly certaine, the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous. You overlash in supposing, we say, that the Church cannot erre, whether she vse meanes or no. But we are sure, that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End, of not erring, so also he will not faile, to moue Her essectually to vse such meanes, as shall be needfull for that End. Your (N. 163.) about a place of S. Austine, I haue answered very largly hertofore

[Page 704]

77. In your (N. 164.) you say: Why may not the Roman Church be content to be a Part of that visible Church which was extant when Luther began, and the Grecian another? And if one must be the whole, why not the Greeke Church as well as Roman? There being not one Note of your Church, which agrees not to Her as well as to your owne,

78. Answer. If you speake of the true Church of Christ in Greece, she is so farr from being divided from the Roman, that she doth not only agree with, but submitts to▪ Her, and receives from her, Priests ordained in Rome it selfe, and brought vp in Catholique Countries. The Scismaticall Grecians, to their division from the Roman Church, haue added Heresy, as even Protestants confesse, and so are neither the whole Church, nor any Church, at all; it being indeed, no lesse than a kind of blasphemy, to affirme, that, Conventicles of Heretikes, can be the true Church of Christ Dr: Lawde (Pag: 24.) saith of the Errour of the Grecians; I know and acknowledge, that Errour of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, to be a grievous errour in Divinity. And, (Pag: 154.) I would faine know, what Article of the Faith doth more concerne all Christians in generall, than that of Filioque? Which Errour of the Grecians, hath beene condemned by three Generall Councells, in which the Grecians were present, and to which they gaue consent; namely, the Councell of Lateran vnder Innoc: 3. Anno 1215. The Councell of Lyons vnder Gregory the 10. Anno 1273. The Councell of Florence Anno 1438. And you must consider, that the Grecians hold Generall Councells, to be Rules of Faith. Of this matter, Brierly (Tract: 1. Sect: 7. Subdiv: 2. Marg: 11. Pag: 202.) speakes very well, and shewes, even out of Protestant Writers, the beginning of the Errours of the Grecians, and their defections from the Roman Church, and in particular saith, that, twelue tymes, or therabout, hath the Greeke Church reconciled itselfe to Rome, and afterwards fallen from thence, being the rupon now at last wholly oppressed with barbarous Turcisme. And here I may well alledge the saying of S. Antonin: (Part: 4. Tit: 11. Cap: 7.) that since the Grecians divided themselves from vs, they do daily more and more faile in Wisdome, in temporall power, in good life, neither hath any of them wrought miracles. And yet, notwithstanding all this, even the Schismaticall Grecians, do agree with Catholikes, almost in all the Points, in which the Protestants disagree from vs, as Brierly in the same place, demonstrates, out of Protestant Authors: And the same is set downe in Charity Maintayned [Page 705](Part: 1. Chap: 5. N. 48.) citing in particular Potter, who (Pag: 225.) denyes not but they belie [...]e Transubstantiation. By all which it appeares, that of the Greeke Schismaticall Church, you say to vs against truth all, that there is not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your owne: Seing by the novelty of Her Errours, her Alterations, Contradictions, and Heresy, she must want Antiquity, Unity, Perpetuity, Vniversality for tyme, and place, as is obvious to every one to Judge, by what we haue sayd.

79. You say (N. 165.) Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend, that Luther, and other Protestants, opposed the whole Church in matter of Faith.

80. Answer, we haue lately heard you say (N. 152.) Perhaps you may be in a dreame; and perhaps you and all the men in the world haue beene so, when they thought they were awake, and then only awake, when they thought they dreamed. Which it seemes, proves to be your owne case; who pretend to be awake, and yet dreame, of men in the Moone, agreeing with Luther, when he first arose, which either is a dreame, or all those learned Protestants who are cited by Charity Maintayned (Part: 1. Chap: 5. N. 9. and N. 12.) were in a dreame. As he who sayd, It is impudency to say, that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospell. (And I may say, that far greater impudency it were to affirme, that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe, and other Cristian Catholique natious, and consequently, that it is the greatest impudency to deny, that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spredd over the whole world) As he who affirmeth it to be ridiculous to thinke, that in the tyme before Luther, any had the purity of Doctrine; as he who sayd, if there had beene right b [...]l [...]evers which went before Luther in his office, there had then beene no need of a Lutheran Reformation; as he who sayth, The Truth was vnknowne at that tyme, and vnheard of, when Martin Luther, and Vldericke Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospell; As he who saith: We say, that before the dayes of Luther, for the space of many hundred yeares, an vniversall Apostasy overspred [...] the whole face of the earth; As he, who teacheth, that from the yeare of Christ three hundred and sixteene, the AntiChristian ād Papisticall Raigne had begun, raigning vniversally, and without any debateable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty yeares. (that is, till Luthers tyme;) As he who affirmes, th [...] it the true Church was interrupted by apostasy from the true Faith; As Calvin, who saith of [Page 706]Protestants in generall; we haue beene forced to make a separation from the whole world. As Luther who saith; At the first I was alone. The particular names and places of these Protestants, may be seene in the now cited place of Charity maintayned, with more other speaking to the same purpose. With what modesty then cā you say, that, it is not easy to be determined that Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole Visible Church in matters of Faith? If any will interpret your words, so, as that you do not deny, but that Luther opposed the whole Visible Church (it being evident that he did so) but that the things wherin he opposed Her, were not matters of Faith; this interpretation, will serue only, to make good that Luther was inexcusable, in dividing himselfe from the whole Church, for matters not belonging to Faith.

[Page 707]

CHAP: XII. THE ANSWER TO HIS THIRD CHAPTER ABOVT FVNDAMENTALL AND NOT FVNDAMENTALL POINTS.

1. WHosoever peruses the Third Chapter of Ch: Ma: and considers vnpartially, with what clearnesse and methode it is written, and compares with it your Answer, cannot but judge, that you proceed with much confusion, snatching at words, or, periods, and amusing men with fond, vnlearned subtiltyes, and by Points, as if your chiefe care had beene to divert, or as I may say, hood winke the Reader, for the maine Controversy, by petty diversions. In proofe of what I say, I beseech the Reader to run over the first fiue numbers, or Sections of Ch. ma. and he will find I doe you no wrong.

2. I wonder, you will always be taking pleasure in toyes and vntruthes. First: (N. 4.) you affirme, that if we say we agree in matters of Faith it is ridiculous, and that we define matters of Faith to be those wherin we agree. So that, to say, you agree in matters of Faith, is to say you agree in those things wherin you do agree. And then (N. 5.) That we are all agreed that only those things wherin we do agree, are matters of faith; which you put in a distinct letter as out Doctrine, and then add these words of your owne: And Protestants, if they were wise, Could do so to [...]; wheras you know it to be both ridiculous, and vntrue, that we haue any such saying, and that we define matters of Faith, to be all those Objects, which are sufficiently proposed by the Church, as revealed by God, without dependance of any mans agreeing, or disagreeing in them; though it be true, that by consequence, whosoever agrees in such truths, must agree among themselves, for those truthes; as, proportionably, Quae sunt eadem vni tertio, sunteadem interse. And, our deduction is this; Whosoever agree in the [Page 700] [...] [Page 701] [...] [Page 702] [...] [Page 703] [...] [Page 704] [...] [Page 705] [...] [Page 706] [...] [Page 707] [...] [Page 708]beliefe of all things revealed by God, agree in all matters of Faith: Catholikes agree in the beliefe of all things revealed by God: Therfore they agree in all matters of Faith. But we are not so foolish, as to say, that if a Catholike should inculpably deny a thing revealed by God, and so disagree from other Catholikes, that therfore our Faith were changed, because all do not agree in those Objects, in which they may chance inculpably to disagree. You define the Religion of Protestants to be the Bible, and that all who belieue all plaine Texts therof, are true Protestants, and do agree in matters of Faith, and therfore must agree among themselves in such Points. Now I aske, whether you will define matters of Faith to be those wherin Protestants agree? If you say, yes; then I take your owne words, and say; this is ridiculous, and as if we should say, Protestants agree in those things wherin they agree. If you answer, No; but that matters of Faith, are those which are clearly contained in Scripture, whether or no, Protestants, or any other belieue them; then you both answer, and confute your owne Objection, and turne it against yourselfe. You say, it is ridiculous to say, we agree in matters of Faith, and are all agreed that only those things wherin we agree are matters of Faith; And yet you say, Protestants if they were wise, would do so too: which is to say, Protestants if they were wise, would do that which you say is ridiculous. Nay according to this your wholsome advise, if they will be wise, they must not regard, what indeed is matter of Faith (as being revealed by God) but only, that they procure to agree among themselves, and then say, that they agree in matters of Faith; which is to say, they agree in those things wherin they do agree: which is the thing you object against vs. Neverthelesse, I know not well by what Logike you will inferr, that we speake, as if one would say, we agree in those things wherin we agree; vnless perhaps, by some such wild Syllogisme as this: All matters of Faith are those wherin we agree; but we agree in all matters of Faith; Therfore we agree in all those things wherin we agree: as if you say; every mā is a reasonable creature but every reasonable creature is a man; Therfore every mā is a mā. If you would to the purpose, you might say; whatsoever we agree in, is a matter of Faith; but we agree in the belief of the Trinity &c. Therfore the beliefe of the Trinity &c. is a matter of Faith. But howsoever this be; we vtterly deny that definition of Faith, and leaue it to Protestants, that they may be wise according to the wisdom of your advise, and definition.

3. To the rest of this (N. 5.) as also to your (N. 6.) I answer, that [Page 709]you would gladly divert vs to particular disputes: But it is sufficient to say in generall, That whatsoever is knowne to be proposed by the Church, as revealed by God, is a Point of Faith in respect of him, to whom it is so proposed. Neither it is pertinent to this present Worke; to dispute in what subject infallibility resides. Let me now tell you, that which may suffice for the present, that, those three meanes of agreement, which you mention, (the Pope; A Councell with him; The vniversall Church) haue never yet, nor ever shall, nor ever can be found, to disagree. And it is no fayre dealing in you, to omitt, what Ch: ma: hath concerning this matter (Part: 2. Chapt: 5. N. 15. and 16.) where he answers the objection, ād discovers the falsifications of Potter, in citing Catholique Authors, about this point. But to proue that the vniversall Church cannot be infallible, or a meanes of agreement, you say (N. 6.) And indeed what way of ending Controversyes can this be, when either part, may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and they receiue not the decree, therfore the whole Church hath not received it. Answer. I know no man hath greater obligation, to answer your Objection, than yourselfe; who teach, that by vniversall Tradition, we know Scripture to be the word of God. For, if one should say, what way of determining, what Scripture is the Word of God, can this be, when if any deny it, they may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and they receiue not such, or such Scriptures, therfore the whole Church (or vniversall Tradition) hath not received them. If you answer, that the number, or Authority, of a few is not considerable in comparison, or opposition to all the rest, nor ought to prevaile against the contrary suffrages, as you speake (Pag: 68. N. 43.) I answer; First, that if the Church be fallible, it is not the number, but the waight of reason, which ought to prevaile. And secondly; you cannot but see, how easy it is for vs, to say the same; That, it imports not, if some, who are not of consideration, in respect of all the rest, disagree from them. But the truth is, your Objection is of no force, vnless you helpe it out with your wonted refuge of begging the Question, and supposing, the Church not to be infallible. For, if she be infallible, whosoever oppose Her decrees, and Definitions, by doing so, become Heretikes, and cease to be members of the Church, nor can pretēd that they are part of the Church and they receiue not the decree: Therfore the whole Church hath not received it: As I sayd aboue, that Schismatiques cannot pretend to be members of the Church, after their separation. And this your subtility [Page 710]is directly against Dr. Potter (Pag: 57.) saying. Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholique Verity maintayned by this Church (or the Catholique visible Church) as doe Heretikes, or perversly drvides himselfe from the Catholique Communion, is doe Schismatikes: the condition of both is damnable. The Scriptures and Fathers cited here by the Mistaker, proue this, and no more: and therfore prone nothing against Protestants, who never denyed it. Now why do you not aske your client, Potter? How any man can oppose the whole Church, or depart from Her Communion, seing they who oppose and depart, may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and do not oppose, or depart from themselves: and therfore Protestants, who the Doctour saith, never denyed it, must deny it, if they will belieue you; or you must deny yourselfe, if you will belieue them. Your (N. 7.8.) are meere words without any proofe, and deserue no other Answer.

4. Your whole (N. 9.) is plainly impertinent, Charity Maintayned, (Part: 1. Chap: 3. N. 1.) declared, how Protestants are wont to abuse the distinction of Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall, to many purposes of theirs; and among the rest, to this: That, if you object their bitter and cotinued discords in matters of Faith, without any meanes of agreement, they instantly tell you, they differ in points not Fundamentall. In which words, it is cleare, that Ch. Ma. intends only to shew, what vse Protestants make of the sayd distinction; and that he speakes truth, you neither do, nor can deny, the thing being notorious. But you decline the matter, and say; I desire you to tell me, whether they do so, or doe not so, (that is whether they differ in points only not Fundamentall, or do nor differ in them) If they doe so, I hope you will not find fault with the Answer. But your hope in this, is persumption. For, although it were granted, (which yet is very false) that they differ only in Points not Fundamentall; yet I haue reason to find fault with the answer, because they giue it, to shew that notwitstanding their disagreement in Points not Fundamentall, yet they are Brethren, and may all be in state of salvation; which to affirme, is both very false, and very pernicious: seing that errour in any Point revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed for such, is damnable, and excludes salvation, even according to your owne doctrine; and therfore this Answer doth not free them, from what Charity maintayned objected, that they abuse this distinction: and to this you should haue answered, without declining it, by impertinent diversions, and demands. The other part of your [Page 711]Dilemma is this: If you say they do not so, (that is, differ, not only in not Fundamentalls) but in Points Fundamentall also; then they are not members of the same Church one with another, no more than with you: And therfore why should you object to any of them, their differences from each other, any more then to yourselves, their more and greater differences from you? Thus you; still flying a direct answerto Ch. Ma., and yet granting perforce all that he desires. If, say you, Protestants differ in Points Fundamentall, then they are not members of the same Church one with another: And then, say I, they perniciously abuse people, with this distinction, to perswade them the direct contrary of that, which even yourselfe here inferr: to perswade men, I say, that they are members of the same Church, and capable of salvation, and Brethren, though according to your supposition in this part of your Dilemma, they differ in Points Fundamentall. And this is that to which you should haue answered, whether they do not abuse this distinction, and either haue acquitted, them, or done Ch. Ma. Right by an open confession of his saying truly, They abuse this distinction. You say, If Protestants differ in Fundamentalls, they are not members of the same Church one with another, no more than with vs Catholikes. If this beso; the more vnreasonable, inconsequent, and vnjust are they, in pretending to be Brethren one to another, and yet enemyes to vs: wherby you do still more and more make good, that they abuse this distinction, in pretending to be Brethren one to another, and not to vs; especially if we call to mynd, that many of their chiefest learned men, in diverse most important matters, agree with vs▪ against other Protestants, and yet they must be Brethren, and we enemyes, even in those very Points in which they agree with vs against other Protestants; which is very prodigious.

5. Your last words, either passe my vnderstanding, or else are no better than ridiculous. You say to vs: Why should you object to any of them, their differences from each other, any more than to yourselves, their more and greater differences from you? For my part, I can draw no better Argument from these words than this: we object to Protestants, who pretend to be Brethren of the same Church, substance of Faith, and hope of salvation, that they differ in Fundamentall Points of Faith (for, as I sayd, you speake expressly of such Points, in this second Part of your Dilemma) therfore we may as well object to ourselves, their more and greater differences frō vs; frō vs, I say, who daily proclaime to the world, that neither they, nor any other Heretikes are our Brethren, or of the same Faith, [Page 712]Church, and hope of salvation. How can we object to ourselves a thing wherin we proceede with most evident consequence, and Truth? If indeed we did pretend to be their Brethren, then we might, and ought to object against ourselves, the great differences between them, and vs; as now with reason we make such an objection against them. But our case being directly contrary to theirs, we are obliged to proceed in a contrary way, and to professe, that there can be no communication, of light with darkeness, of falshood with truth, of Heresy with Catholique doctrine.

6. You say in your (N. 10.) What els do we vnderstand by an vnfundamentall errour, but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved? I aske, whether he may be saved with Repentance, or without it? If only with Repentance, you make no difference between Fundamentall and vnfundamentall Points; because with repentance any errour may be forgiven, be it never so Fundamentall. If you meane, a man may be saved with such an errour, even without repentance, you contradict yourselfe, who perpetually affirme, that, errours not Fundamentall are damnable in themselves, and cannot be pardoned, without repentance. And I haue proved it to be impossible, that any culpable errour can be forgiven without relinquishing it.

7. To yuur (N. 11.12, 13.14.) I haue answered in severall occasions. Only for your (N. 11.) it must be remembred, that I haue proved Communion in Liturgie, Sacraments &c: to be essentiall to the Visible Church; which makes your similitude of renouncing the vices of a friend, and yet not renouncing a friend, to be impertinent; because vices are not essentiall to a friend, as externall Communion is essentiall to the Church; which therfore must needs be forsaken, when one departs from that which is essentiall to her.

8. Your (N. 15.16.17.) containe no other difficulty, except that which yourselfe create out of nothing, while you faine, this roving argument, and then impute it to Cha: Ma: Whosoever disbelieues any thing knowen by himselfe to be revealed by God, imputes falshood to God and therfore errs Fundamentally. But some Protestants disbelieue things; which other belieue to be testifyed by God; therfore they impute falshood to God, and erre Fundamentally. But why do you seeke to deceiue the ignorant, with such Sophismes, as these? Doth not Charity Maintayned speake expressly of the case wherin, there is Question between two contradicting one another cōcerning some Point, which God hath revealed? And therfore one of the litigants, must really erre against Divine Revelation, [Page 713]on, and be a formall Heretike, if ignorance chance not to excuse him; which though perhaps some will conceiue, may happen in one or two or a few, yet to belieue, that whole congregations, and Churches, should be excused by invincible ignorance-, notwithstanding all meanes of knowledg, that God failes not to affoard, can be neither discreete Charity, nor charitable discretion, but a dangerous, and pernicious occasion, and incitement, to sloath, and neglect of seeking the true religion, vpon confidence of finding a lawfull excuse, by ignorance. You say (Pag: 21.) If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in any Errour, by any sin of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such Errour is as the cause of it, sinfull and damnable. And (Pag: 19. and 20.) you deny not, but that the far greater part of Protestants, faile in vsing sufficient diligence to find the truth, and that their errours are damnable; therfore Ch: Ma: might well say, not only that, per se loquendo, of two dissenting in matters revealed by God, one must oppose his divine revelation, and Veracity (which is evidently true) but also, that de facto it is so in many millions, yea in the far greater part of Protestants, who therfore erre culpably against the divine Testimony, and committ a deadly sin, not because others, as you speak, belieue a thing to be revealed by God (which Ch. ma. never sayd, nor dreamed) but because they themselves ought to haue believed, that same thing to be revealed, which others did belieue to be such, and indeed was such. Thus then you ought to reforme your distracted Syllogisme: Whosoever disbelieves any thing knowne, and which ought to be knowne, by himselfe, to be revealed by God, imputes falshood to God, and therfore errs fundamentally: But some Protestants (you say millions, yea the greater part) disbelieue those things, which others belieue to be testifyed by God, and which are, and ought to be knowne by themselves to be so testifyed; Therfere some Protestants (yea millions, and the greater part of them) impute falshood to God, and erre Fundamentally.

9. But yet, that it may further appeare, how much you wrong Ch: Ma: I must set downe his words, which, (Chap: 3. N. 3.) are these: The difference among Protestants consists not in this, that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know (as the distinction ought to be applyed) but that some of them disbelieue, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what others belieue to be testifyed by the word of God, wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall: Because [Page 714]till Points Fundamentall be sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God, it is not against Faith to reject them, or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to belieue them: And the like is of Points not fundamentall, which as soone as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths, they can no more be denyed, than Points Fundamentall propounded after the same manner. What could be sayd more clearly, to shew, that Ch: Ma: spoke not of whatsoever kind of Objects, but expressly of such, as are really testifyed by God, and not only believed to be such by others, but also sufficiently proposed to a mans selfe as Divine Truths, and which therfore bring with them, a most strict obligation to be believed? Your little respect to truth, hath forced me to be longer in this point, than I expected, or desired to be. And I hope it appeares, that you had no other cause, except want of Charity to Charity Maintayned, to feare that his hart condemned him of a great calumny, and egregious sophistry, in imputing Fundamentall and damnable errour to disagreeing Protestants; because forsooth, some of them disbelieue, and wittingly oppose, what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God: Seing Cha: Ma: expressly required, that what others believed to be testifyed by God, should also be sufficiently proposed to ones selfe, before he could be obliged to belieue; which sufficient proposition being supposed, yourselfe do not deny, but it is a damnable errour, to disbelieue any such truth.

10. Your (N. 18.) hath two good propertyes, Falshood; and Confusion, or Obscurity. You cite Ch. Ma. speaking thus: The difference among Protestants consists not in this, that some belieue some Points of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know, and there you stop; but Charity maintayned added these words: but that some of them disbelieue, and directly, and wittingly, and willingly oppose, what others do belieue to be testifyed by the word of God, wherin there is no difference between Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall &c: Now I pray, is there not a maine difference, between ignorance, or a not knowing, or Nescience of a thing which another believes, and a positiue opposition, or actuall beliefe of the contrary to that which another believes? How many truths are there which men do not know, and yet erre not against them, be cause their very ignorance keepes them from any judgement concerning them, by way of Affirmation or negation; but they carry themselves privatively, or in a certaine manner passively, or abstractively, as if there were no such objects?

[Page 715]

11. But let vs heare what you object against so manifest a truth. You say, I would gladly know, whether you speake of Protestants differing in profession only, or in opinion also. Answer. I vnderstand not well what you meane, by differing in profession only, or in opinion also. Do you meane, that they make profession of differing in opinion, when indeed they do not differ? This were to dissemble, and ly in matters of Religion. But whatsoever your meaning be; I answer, that Charity Maintayned spoke expressly of Protestants, differing in opinion, one disbelieving what another believes, as you confesse out of His words: But you are willing to raise difficultyes, where otherwise none could appeare.

12. But then, you say, If they differ in opinion, then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions: It being impossible and contradictious, that a man should know one thing to be true, and belieue the contrary, or know it and not belieue it. And if they do not know the Truth of each others opinions, then, I hope, you will grant they are ignorant of it. If your meaning were, they were not ignorant, that each other held; these opinions, or of the sense of the opinions which they held; I answer, this is nothing to the convincing of their vnderstandings of the truth of them, and these remaining vnconvinced of the truth of them, they are excusable if they do not belieue.

13. Answer. Though it be much against my inclination, yet truth commands me to say, that here you shew, either great ignorance, or else write directly against your owne knowledge, where you will needs confound, pure ignorance, with positiue Errour; the difference of which I shewed even now: and what Logician is ignorant, of the division of ignorance into Ignorantiam purae privation is, and Ignorantiam pravae disposition is: that is, a meere want of knowledge of some truth, or a positiue errour contrary to it? And by your leaue, your saying [ If they differ in opinion, they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions] is so far from being true (speaking of pure ignorance) that it implyes contradiction to say, He who errs, is ignorant; seing to be purely ignorant, in the sayd division of ignorance, is one member into which, ignorance is divided; and one membrum dividens cannot in good Logicke include the other, and therfore errour cannot include pure ignorance: For it were to say, one hath no knowledge at all, and yet hath a false knowledg, or, a privation is a positiue entity, and a Nothing a Something. Your objection, He who errs, knowes not the contrary Truth, [Page 716]and if he knowe not the truth, he is ignorant of it, is a meere mistake, or equivocation. For, that he who errs knowes not, or is ignorant of the contrary, by a pure ignorance or Nescience, I deny: That he is ignorant by a positiue errour, or ignorance prauae dispositionis, I grant: and so, when you assume, He who knowes not the truth, is ignorant of it, you must distinguish according to the double sense of ignorance, which hath beene declared, and not speake with such confusion. This same distinction I find in Dr. Potter (Pag: 243.) where speaking of some Fundamentall Articles of Faith, he hath these words: These are so absolutly necessary to all Christians, for attaining the end of our Faith, that is, the salvation of our soules; that a Christian may loose himselfe, not only by a positiue erring in them, or denying of them; but by a pure ignorance, or nescience, or not knowing of them. Where you see, he distinguishes between error, and not knowing: and therfore one may be ignorant of what another believes, and yet not erre against it, or disbelieue it: As it is one thing, not to be hot, and another to be hold. Now Charity Maintayned expressly distinguishes between pure ignorance, and errour; and therfore you do very ill, first to confound them, and then vpon that affected mistake frame your Objections. The same equivocation you haue (Pag: 25.) where you make a shewe of great subtility, but indeed the Reader will finde nothing but vanity, as I shewed in that place.

14. You say to Charity Maintayned (If your meaning were, they were not ignorant, that each other held these opinions, or of the sense of the opinions which they held &c:) I answer, that this saying of yours is nothing to the purpose. For, though de facto Protestants are not ignorant, what opinion other Protestants hold, and therfore their disagreement is more patent, and not only against the opinions by whomsoever they might chance to be held, but also against opinions knowne to be defended by them whom they will needs call Brethren: Yet indeed it is meerly accidentall, and in no wise necessary to our present purpose, that one Protestant should be conscious, or know that he differs in opinion from another. For, if it were revealed to some in the Indyes, that Christ is God, and Saviour of the world, and he did assent to that truth, while another in Europe, did dissent from the like Revelation sufficiently proposed, this second doth truly disbelieue, what the former believes, no lesse than if he had knowne, that the other believes it; And therfore Charity Maintayned said; Protestants [Page 717] disbelieue, and wittixgly and willingly oppose what others do belieué to be testifyed by the word of God, without saying vnnecessarily, that they disbelieue, what they know others belieue, because, as I sayd, this knowledge is not necessary for our present purpose, concerning the disagreement of Protestants, in matters of Faith. Much lesse to the purpose, yea directly against syncerity, is your saying; That if their vnderstandings be not convinced, they are excusable if they do not belieue. Seing Charity Maintayned did speake of objects sufficiently proposed as revealed by God; which are his expresse words, in this very number, which you impugne.

15. In your (N. 19.20.21.23.) nothing occurrs of difficulty, which hath not beene answered elswhere: And you falsify Ch. Ma. when (N. 20.) you say he concludes that there is nodifference betweene errours in Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall; wheras he expressly saith in his (N. 3.) (which here you answer) and (N. 4.) that they do not differ in this, that both of them are against Gods Revelation, and damnable, (which yourselfe often grant) yet you know, that in other respects, he puts a maine difference betweene them, even in the number next precedent, and declares the matter at large. Surely this is no good dealing!

16. In your (N. 22.) you still voluntarily mistake the state of the Question; though Charity Maintayned had stated it very clearly (N. 3.) as we haue seene; i. e. that when we treate, whether errour excludes salvation, we speake of Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, and not in case of invincible ignorance, want of instruction, or the like. This being presupposed, Charity Maintayned (N. 4.) saith thus; Dr: Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make vse of their distinction, doth sinally overthrow it, and yields as much as we can desire. Speakinge (Pag: 211.) of that measure and quantity of Faith, without which, none can be saved, he saith: It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith, or by a generall, and as it were a negatiue Faith, wherby they are not denyed, or contradicted. Now, our question is, in case that divine truth, although not Fundamentall, be denyed and contradicted; and therfore, even according to Him, all such denyall excludes salvation. Thus Charity Maintayned; whose words you cite very imperfectly in this manner: It is enough (by Dr: Potters confession) to belieue some things negatively: i.e. not to deny them; therfore all denyall of any divine Truth excludes [Page 718]salvation. Thus say you; omitting these very next words of Charity Maintayned [now our question is, in case that divine Truths, although not Fundamentall, be denyed and contradicted: And therfore even according to Him, all such denyall excludes salvation.] And that Dr: Potter alwayes supposes a sufficient Proposition, before one can be obliged, not to deny, or contradict those Points of which he speakes, is evident; because one could not be obliged vnder sin, not to contradict them, if they be not sufficiently proposed: Which Proposition he requires Universally, in matters of Faith. And in this very place he saith; There is a certaine measure and quantity of Faith without which none can be saved; but every thing revealed belongs not to this measure. And then he adds the a foresayd words; It is enough to belieue some things by a virtuall Faith, or by a negatiue Faith, wherby they are not denyed. Where it appeares, that, as no man is obliged to belieue those Fundamentall Points, without the beliefe wherof, none can be saved, vnless they be sufficiently proposed; so none can be obliged, not to contradict Points not Fundamentall, if they want sufficient Proposall. And this is yet further demonstrated by Charity Maintayned, who immediatly after the words of which you take notice, and cite as His (though imperfectly) saith thus; After He (Dr: Potter) speakes more plainly, (in the very next Pag: 212.) It is true whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense, Fundamentall, in regard of the divine Authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended; that is, such as may not be denyed or contradicted without infidelity; such as every Christian is bound with humility, and reverence, to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him: (marke, whensoever the knowledg therof is offered to him.) And further, Pag: 250. he saith; where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded, (obserue, sufficiently propounded) there he that opposeth, is convinced of errour, and he who is thus conuinced, is an Heretike, and Heresy is a worke of the flesh, which excludeth from heauen (Galat: 5.20.21.) And hence it followeth, that it is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he belieue all truths of God, wherof he may be convinced that they are from God. Marke, convinced that they are from God, which implyes a sufficient proposall. Now with what conscience could you conceale all these cleare words of Potter, which by Charity Maintayned are set downe immediatly after those which you cite out of Him (Charity Maintaryned) and impugne them? [Page 719]Yea the Doctor (Pag: 213.) in the very same threed of discourse which Charity Maintayned alledged out of his (Pag: 211.) of which you take notice, and endeavour to defend, saith; Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith. In other Points, that Faith which the Cardinall Perron calls the Faith of adherency, or non-repugnance, may suffice; to witt, an humble preparation of mynd to belieue all, or any thing revealed in Scripture when it is sufficiently cleared. You see these words are in effect the very same, which you answer [ it is enough by Dr: Potters confessing to belieue some things negatively &c:] and that He expressly requires, that a thing be sufficiently cleared, before one can be obliged to a non-repugnance, or a non-denyall of it. Which doctrine of Potter being once supposed, certainly this is a good Argument. It is enough for salvation, not to deny some things, when they shall be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God: Therfore the denyall of them, when they are so proposed, is not enough for salvation, but excludes it. Can you possibly haue any thing to object against so manifest a deduction, and truth, as this is?

17. You say, (N. 22.) it is As if you should say: One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey: Therfore without a Horse no man can goe a journey: As if some divine truths, viz: Those which are plainly revealed, might not be such, as of necessity were not to be denyed: And others for want of sufficient declaration, denyable without danger.

18. Answer. You could not, even for a fee, haue pleaded more effectually, in fauour of Charity Maintayned, than now you doe, while your intention is to impugne Him. You grant that truths sufficiently declared, are such as of necessity are not to be denyed. But both Dr: Potter, and Charity Maintayned in the words of which we treat, expressly speake of truths sufficienty declared, as I haue proved; therfore, even by your owne confession, they cannot be denyed; which is the inference of Charity Maintayned. I confesse my selfe to find great difficulty, how to frame any answer to your example of a Horse; because I cannot penetrate, what vse, or application you intended, or could make of it. Only I wish you to consider, that when Dr: Potter saith, it is enough to belieue some things, by, as it were, a negatiue Faith, wherby they are not denyed, so that one haue an humble preparation of mynd to belieue them, when they are sufficiently cleared, that they are revealed, (as we haue heard him speake) he supposes, that it is necessary to salvation to haue such a preparation of mynd: And then [Page 720]your similitude must goe thus: A horse is necessary for a man to goe a journey; therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey; and so we may say; it is necessary (and not only sufficient) for salvation, in preparation of mynd not to reject, any Point sufficiently propounded, as testifyed by God: Therfore, whosoever is not so prepared, excludes himselfe from salvation; which is that we would haue. Or els thus: A horse is enough for a man to goe a journey, not absolutly, but vpon condition, that he be not lame, or extremely weake, or otherwise vnable, to travell. Therfore, if a horse be lame, or otherwise vnable, he is not enough for a man to goe a journey; which consequence will teach vs to make this inference; it is enough for salvation, that one belieue some things with an implicite Faith, not absolutly, but vpon condition, that he be ready to imbrace, and belieue them actually, and explicitly, when they shall be sufficiently propounded in particular: Therfore an implicite Faith, is not sufficient for salvation, if he want such a readiness of mynd; which is our Conclusion. Never the lesse, if your Faith be so strong, that you will needs haue one horse (though lame, and loaden with as many diseases as a horse) to be enough, or sufficient, though not necessary, for a man to goe a journey, and for that cause, that this is no good consequence, One horse is enough for a man to goe a journey, therfore without a horse no man can goe a journey; you know, that not only Catholikes, but Potter; yourselfe; and all Protestants, (as we haue heard you affirme hertofore) and all Christians, must deny the parity; it being most certaine, and evident, that the beliefe of all Points Fundamentall, is not enough for salvation, but is of itselfe, (taken alone) as it were lame, and too weake without a mynd ready not to contradict, whatsoever is sufficiently propounded as witnessed by God, which is absolutely necessary to salvation; and therefore we must still conclude, that all denyall of any Divine Truth, sufficiently propounded, excludes salvation, though one be supposed to belieue all Points which are Fundamentall of their owne nature. These are the best considerations, that I can draw from your example of a horse, which yet you see, make strongly for vs, against yourselfe.

14. You are pleased (N. 24.) to summe vp, or, as you speake, bring out of the cloudes, the discourse of Charity Maintayned in his (Chap: 3. N. 5.) and then you censure it thus: Which is truly a very proper and convenient Argument [...]o close vp a weake discourse, wherin both the Proposition̄s [Page 721]are false for matter, confused and disordered for the forme, and the Conclusion vtterly inconsequent.

20. Answer. You are so far from bringing out of the cloudes, the discourse of Charity Maintayned, that you haue cast over it a cloude, and darknesse, which neither you, nor any body els, will be able to remoue from it, and place it in its owne former light, except by hearing his owne words, which are these. I will therfore conclude with this Argument. According to all Philosophy and Divinity, the Unity and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence therof; and therfore if the nature, and being of Faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes, but from the motiue for which he believes (which is Gods Word or Revelation) we must likewise affirme, that the Unity and Diversity of Faith, must be measured by Gods Revelation (which is a like for all Objects) and not by the smalness, or greatness of the matter which we belieue. Now that the nature of Faith is not taken chiefly from the greatness, or smalness of the things believed, is manifest, because otherwise one who believes only Fundamentall Points, and an other who together with them, doth also belieue Points not Fundamentall, should haue Faith of (formall) different natures; yea there should be as many (formall) differences of Faith, as there are different Points which men belieue, according to different capacities, or instruction &c: And therfore we must say, that vnity in Faith doth not depend vpon Points Fundamentall, but vpon Gods Revelation, equally, or vnequally, proposed: And Protestants pretending an vnity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamentall Points, do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of Faith, as there is multitude of different objects, which are believed by them; and since they disagree in things equally revealed by God, it is evident, that they forsake the very formall motiue of Faith, which is Gods Revelation, and consequently loose all Faith, and vnity therein. In which words we see Charity Maintayned speakes of that vnity of Faith, which is taken from the Formall Object, and which to oppose, is the proper cause of damnation, for erring persons, in all Objects, whether they be great, or small, like, or vnlike, of themselves.

21 Now in this discourse, what false Propositions, what confusion can you finde? You say: Who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits (and therfore of Faith among the rest) is taken from their Act, and their [Page 722]Object? If the Habit be generall, from the Act and Object in generall; if the Habit bespecall, from the Act and Object inspeciall. Then for the motiue to a thing, that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which is moves, who can doubt, that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause; and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect?

22. Answer: To what purpose talk you of the Essence of Habits, seing the Discourse of Cha: Ma: concerned only the Act of Faith, whereby we belieue some Truths, because they are revealed by God, and vpon this ground he proved, that every contrary Act is damnable, and a grievous sinne, which cannot be verifyed of Habits, which of themselves are not sinnes? Now, who can deny, that an Act of Faith takes its nature, Essence, and specification (as Philosophers speak) from the Divine Revelation? And I hope you will not tell vs that the Essence of all Acts, is taken from their Act, and their Object, as if the Essence of the Act were derived from the Act. Dr: Potter (Pag: 139.) saith expressly; The formall Object or reason of Faith, the chiefe Motiue, (mark, motiue) the first and farthest Principle into which it resolves, is only divine Revelation. Obserue, that Divine Revelation only, is the first and last, into which Faith resolves, without mentioning that it is taken from the Act, yea excluding it by the word only (only Divine Revelation.) And (Pag: 143.) he saieth: The chiefe Principle and ground on which Faith rests, and for which it firmely assents vnto those truths, which the Church propounds is divine Revelation made in Scripture. Nothing less then this, nothing but this can erect or qualify an Act of supernaturall Faith, which must be absotutely vndoubted and certaine, and without this, Faith is but opinion or perswasion, or at the most, acquired humane beleef. Which words not only declare, the Essence of Divine Faith, but also express, how by that Essence, it is distinguished from other things, and in particular from humane Faith, perswasion, and opinion, as Cha: Ma: saied, the vnity and distinction of every thing followeth, the Nature and Essence therof. Thus you see, that Cha: Ma: spoke truth, in affirming, that the Nature and Being of Faith, is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes; and that Potter vseth the word Motiue directly in this sense, and to this purpose.

23. What doe you meane in saying; If the habit be generall, the essence is taken from the Act and Object in generall; If the Habit be speciall, from the Act and Obiect in speciall? I am very sure, that every Habit, and Act, exists in particular, though their Obiects be never so generall; and [Page 723]so the Acts to which Habits incline, are particular Acts, producible by those Habits, and nothing, taken only in generall, can be producible.

24. Cha. Ma. and Dr. Potter saied, that our motiue to belieue, is the Divine Revelation, and, which is more, you affirme the same heere, That Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him: And yet you strangely object: That the Motiue to a thing cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves, who can doubt, that knowes that a motiue is an efficient cause, and the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect?

25. Answer; First, The motiue, or Formall Object, of which we speak, is not an efficient cause, in respect of the Habit, or Act of Faith; but, if you will reduce it, to one of the foure kinds of Causes, which are commonly assigned, some will saie it is Causa formalis extrinseca: and perhaps others will say, that you belieue the motiue to a thing to be an efficient cause, because Aristotle defines the efficient cause, to be Principium motus, and you confound motum and motivum; or motion, and motiue. Secondly; Though a motiue were an efficient Cause, your Argument (That it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves, because the efficient cause is is alwayes extrinsecall to the effect) is of no moment. For no man ever dreamed, that the motiue, or formall Object of Faith, is of the intrinsecall essence of the act therof, as Genus and Differentia are intrinsecall to the Species, or Materia and Forma are intrinsecall Composito physico, but that the act, takes its essence from the formall Motiue or object, and essentially is, or includes, a Referēce to it, as every creature essentially hath a Relation to God, who is the Prime and supreme efficient cause of all things, and consequently, as you say, extrinsecall to them. For this cause C: Ma: saied not, that the Motiue to belieue is the essence of Faith; but that the essence or nature of Faith is taken from the Motiue for which a man believes; Which words signify a difference, not an identity, seing a thing is not saied to take from itself, (but to be) its owne Essence. Do not yourselfe say, that the Essence of all Habits is taken from their Act and from their Object? And yet I suppose, you will not grant, that the Act and Object are of the Essence of Habits, as intrinsecall to them: Especially seing naturall Habits, are essiciently produced by Acts, and Acts by Habits (even supernaturall Acts) as by their efficient causes: And therfore according to your words, are always extrinsecall to the effect. And so you answer, and confute your owne selfe.

[Page 724]

26. You doubt what Cha: ma: did meane by these words (Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects.) But his meaning is cleare; that Gods Revelation is the same, whether it be applyed, to Points Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall, and can no more be disbelieved, in one kind of these Objects, than in another, it being no lesse impossible, that the Supreme Verity, and Veracity, can testify a falshood, in a small, than in a great matter; as your selfe here affirme expressly, that Gods Revelation is an equall Motiue, to induce vs to belieue all Objects revealed by him. But you say; this sense is impertinent; which you must giue me leaue to deny. For, if it be alike damnable, to reject Gods testimony, whether the matter be in itselfe, great or small; it followes, that whosoever dissents, from the least Point, sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God, sins damnably, and is not capable of salvation, without repentance; so that of two dissenting in an Object knowne to be a divine truth, one of them cannot be saved, without repentance. And it is strang, that still you will be altering the state of the Question, notwithstanding, that Cha: Ma: expressly declared, that we speake of persons, to whom the Divine Revelation, is sufficiently propounded for such. Where now are the false Propositions, the disorder of forme, the inconsequence of the Conclusion, which you so contemptuously objected to Cha: ma:? But chiefly, where shall we find in all these your diversions, and tergiversations, a direct Answer, to the discourse of Cha: ma:, that the Essence, and vnity, or diuersity of Faith is chiefly to be attended, in order to the Formall object, which is Divine Revelation, and not in respect of the matter, of Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall Points; and consequently, that it is impossible, that when two disagree in matters sufficiently declared to them to be divine truths, both can be saved. Your (N. 25.) hath beene answered at large hertofore.

27. For the answer which in your (N. 26,) you giue to the (N. 9.10.11.) of Ch: Ma: if the Reader will take the paines, to peruse those numbers in Ch: Ma: he will find, that there is a great difference, to take things from the Originall itselfe, and to receaue them from a Coppy, drawne by a partiall hand, of an vnsincere Adversary. Cha: Ma: proves the Church Catholique to be vniversally infallible, because otherwise, she might either propose things contrary to divine Revelation, or els propose for a revealed Truth, that which is not such, which were a damnable sin, and Dr. Potter confesses that the Church cannot erre damnably.

[Page 725]

28. To this you answer, that the Church may do these things by Ignorance or mistake, and so without damnable sin. But this answer is confuted by what hath beene sayd hertofore. For, if it be evident in Scripture, that the Church may erre in some Points, she cannot but know, that she exposes Herselfe to danger, of errour against the divine Testimony, and consequently sins damnable, vnless she hath evident Scripture for what she proposes; which cannot happen when she proposes a falshood. If it be not evident in Scripture, that she may erre in some Points, then you, who take Scripture for the sole Rule of Faith, cannot be sure, that she may erre; especially if we reflect, that, Scripture assures vs (as Protestants grant) that she is Infallible in some (namely in Fundamentall) Points, and doth not tell vs what those Points in particular be. Besides, you teach (Pag: 277. N. 61.) that there is promised to the Church, not only an assistance not to erre in things absolutely necessary, but a farther assistance is conditionally promised, even such an Assistance as shall lead vs, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all, not only necessary, but very profitable truth, and guarde vs from all, not only destructiue, but also hurtfull errours. And therfore to Char: Maint. saying, that a Church not erring in Fundamentalls, doth as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands; as much as lyes in her power to doe; you answer This is manifestly vntrue. For, Gods assistance is alwayes ready to promote Her farther. It is ready, I say, but on condition the Church does implore it: on condit on that when it is offered in the Divine directions of Scripture and reason, the Church be not negligent to follow it. Which words do not well agree with your answer, that, the Church may erre by Ignorance or Mistake and so without damnable sin; seing on the one side, every errour against Divine Revelation, is of itselfe a damnable sin, and on the other, the Church wants not sufficient assistance not to erre, and in fact shall be sure not to erre if she be not negligent to follow Gods Assistance when it is offered in the divine directions of Scriptuae and reason; and therfore her Errours must needs be culpable, as proceeding only from her owne negligence. In this very (N. 26.) which I confute, yourselfe assirme, that she cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamentall, to be believed by Christians, as matters of Faith, if it be vnderstood of such vnfundamentall Points, as she is not warranted to propose by euident Text of Scripture. Indeed if she propose such, as matters of Faith certainly true, she may well be questioned, quo warranto? She builds without a foundation, and says, Thus saith the Lord, wh [...]n the Lord doth not say so: which cannot [Page 726]be excused frō rashnesse and high presumption. But though she may erre in some pointe not Fundamentall, yet may she haue certainty enough in proposing others, evidently and vndeniably set downe in Scripture, and consequently, may be without all rashnesse proposed by the Church, as certaine divine revelatiōs. These be your words, which clearly overthrow, your owne Answer. For, I argue thus: If the Church proceed vpon evident Scripture, she cannot erre in those things. If not; she always exposes herselfe to danger of errour, for the matter (which may proue false) and to certaine actuall errour, for the manner, by proposing as a Point of Faith certainly true, which yet is always vncertaine, if she in such things may be deceaved, as you say she may, whensoever she is not warranted by evident Text of Scripture. Thus by your owne grounds, the Church is either certaine, that she errs not, as relying vpon evident Scripture; or if she haue not such evidence, she is certaine, that she exposes herselfe, and others, to errour against Divine Revelation, which cannot be excused from a great sin of rashnesse and high presumption. And then, when will your excuse of ignorance, or mistake, haue place, which cannot happen when she hath evidence of Scripture, and will not excuse, when she wants such evidence? And so there is no meane, betweene certainty, that she errs not; and committing a sin, by exposinge Herselfe, to a knowne danger of errour against the Divine Revelation.

29. By the way; I would know, how your Doctrine, (That God hath promised to the Church such an assistance as shall lead vs into all not only necessary, but very prositable truth, if we be not wanting to it) agree, with what you say, in your Answer to the Direction (N. 32.) It is not absolutely necessary, that God should assist his Church any farther then to bring her to salvation? Is it not necessary that God keepe his promise? And how do you find fault with Cha. Ma. for saying, that if the Church be infallible only in Fundamentall Points, if she erre not in such Points, she performes as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands, seing he exacts no more than that, which may bring her to salvation, and it is not necessary that God assist her for more than salvation? Or if he absolutely exact more than is necessary; men are bound to doe more than is necessary, and so more shall be necessary, than is necessary; because it is necessary to doe what we are bound to doe.

30. You say to Ch. Ma; The ground of your errour here, is your not distinguishing, betweene Actuall certainty, and Absolute infallibility. But in this, you speake either against your owne conscience, or against manifest truth. [Page 727]For if you say, the meaning of Cha. ma. to be, that whosoever is actually certaine of one thing, must haue an absolute infallibility in all other matters, your Conscience cannot but tell you, that He could haue no such meaning, as if, because I am actually certaine, what I am doing at this instant, I must therfore be infallible, and know certainly, what every one is doing in the Indyes. But if you meane, that it is an errour in Ch: Ma: to say, that if one haue actuall certainty of a thing, he must be infallible both in that, ād all other, for which he hath the same, or like grounds, to make him certaine; then you erre against manifest truth, it being evident, that if I clearly see my selfe to haue an vndoubted Ground, to belieue a thing, it is impossible, that I should erre in any other, for which I also evidētly see, that I haue the same certaine ground. This is our case. If I be actually certaine, by evidence of Scripture, of the truth of one thing, I am certaine, that I cannot erre in any other Point, for which I haue the like evidence of Scripture; as he, who actually assents to a demonstration, knowne to be such, can neither erre in it, nor in any other, knowne to haue the like certainty. This being supposed, your examples proue against yourselfe, as I shewed in an other like occasion.

31. I haue already particularly and at large, answered your (N. 27.28.29.) In your (N. 30 33.34.) you impugne Ch: Ma. whose words I wish you had set downe, as you found them in Him, and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader; whom therfore I must intreate, to peruse the Author himselfe. Ch. Ma. (N. 13.) saith, That, to limite the generall promises of our Saviour for his Church, to Points Fundamentall, as namely, that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her, and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth &c. is to destroy all Faith. For, by this manner of interpreting, and limiting words, whatsoever is delivered in Scripture, concerning the infallibility of the Apostles, or of Scripture it selfe, may be restrained, to infallibility in Fundamentall Points. And in this, Ch. Ma. hath reason. For, seing you haue no certaine Rule of Faith, but Scripture; whatsoever you cannot proue by evident Scripture, cannot be to you, certaine, or a Point of Faith. Let vs then take these words (Matth. 16.18.) The gates of Hell shall not prevaile &c. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church, and those other, (Jo: 16. V. 13.14.16.) The spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with you for ever, which promise, Potter saith (Pag: 153.) was made directly and primarily to the Apostles [Page 728](who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner, than any since them) yet it was made to them for the behoofe of the Church, and is verifyed in the Church vniversall. The first words, The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against Her, Potter (Pag. 153.) limites they shall not prevaile so far, as to sever it from the foundation; that is, that She shall not erre in Fundamentall Points. Now, I beseech you, produce some evident Text of Scripture, declaring, that those words are not to be vnderstood, as they sound, that the Church shall be secure from all errours against Faith, even in Points not Fundamentall, (which errours are gates that leade to hell; seing they are, as you often confesse, damnable in themselves, and so lead to hell and damnation) but with this limitation, that she shall be secured for Points Fundamentall. Produce, I say, some such evident Text of Scripture, and not topicall discourses of your owne. In the meane tyme, while you are busy about that impossible taske, (of producing some such Text)

32. I will ponder the second place. The spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with you for ever; which, Potter saith, is vnderstood of the Apostles, and of the vniversall Church; but so, as being referred to the Apostles, it signifyes all truths, Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall Points; which is a harder explanation, than that of the former words out of S. Matthew: The gates of hell &c. because you are engaged, to alledge some evident Text of Scripture, to proue that the very selfsame, as I may saie, indivisible Text, which is acknowledged to speake, both of the Apostles, and of the Church, must be forced, and as it were racked, to speake one thing of the Apostles, and another of the Church: All truth, for the Apostles; not all, but only Fundamentall, truth, for the Church. Bring, I say, some such evident Text of Scripture. But, it seemes, you did easily perceiue, that no such place could be pretended: and therfore in stead of Scripture, or the Word of God, you offer only your owne conceits, discourses, and seeming congruences, which are far beneath that certainty, which is required for an act of divine Faith. There is not, say you (N. 30.) the same reason for the Churches absolute Infallibility, as for the Apostles and Scriptures. For, if the Church fall into errour it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine, and Scripture. But if the Apostles erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity to whom shall we haue recourse, for the discovering and correcting their errour?

33. Answer. I haue often sayd, that in matters, knowne by revelation [Page 729]only, and depending on the free will, or decree of Almighty God, we are not to proue, by humane reason, what he hath decreed. Protestants grant, that, both the Apostles, and the Church, are infallible for Fundamentall Points. If then, one should make vse of your reason, and say: (There is not the same reason for the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points, as for the Apostles. For, if the Church fall into such errours, it may be reformed by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine, and Scripture. But, if the Apostles haue erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we haue recourse, for the discovering and correcting their errour?) What would you answer? Would you grant, that the Church is not infallible in Fundamentall Articles, because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamentall Points, as there is for the Apostles? That were to deny the common Doctrine of Protestants, and the supposition. If you answer, that though there were not the selfe same reason, or necessity, for the Churches infallibility, as for the Apostles (which is all that that reason proves, and so is a Sophisme a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, as if you should say; This Truth is not proved by this particular reason, therefore there can be no reason for it) yet we cannot doubt, but that there is some reason and cause, whatsoever it be, and therfore you must be content, that Scripture declare God Almightyes Will, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church; in which Promise, seing there is no restraint to Fundamentall Points, it becomes not you, to divide the same sentence, into different meanings, as they are applyed to the Apostles, and as they haue reference to the Church. Beside, if one would imitate you, in determining concerning divine matters, according to humane apprehension, and discourse, he might, in your owne Grounds, quickly dispatch all, and say; that seing the errours of the vniversall Church, can be only not Fundamentall, there is no necessity, of having recourse to any, for the discovering, and correcting them; and so you cannot inferr, that the Apostles for reforming errours in the Church, need be infallible in Points not Fundamentall, no more than you say the Church herselfe is. Thus (Pag: 35. N. 7,) You say, Christians haue, and shall haue meanes sufficient to determine, not all Controversyes, but all necessary to be determined: And what Rule, will you, in your Groundes, giue to determine, what Points are necessary to be determined? except by saying, that eo ipso that they are not Fundamentall, or not necessary to salvation to be believed, [Page 730]they are not necessary to be determined, as you say in the same place; If some Controversyes may for many Ages be vndetermined, and yet in the meane while men may be saved, why should, or how can the Churches being furnished with effectuall meanes to determine all Controversyes in Religion, be necessary to salvation, the end itselfe, to which these meanes are ordained, being, as Experience shewes, not necessary? If then, (may we say) the beliefe of vnfundamentall Points, be not necessary to salvation (which is the end of our Faith) the meanes to beget such a Faith in the Church, which you say must be the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles, cannot be necessary. Which is confirmed by what you say in your Answer to the Direction, (N. 32.) It is not absolutely necessary, that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring her to salvation. How then can it be necessary, in your ground, that the Church be assisted for Points not Fundamentall? Thus, while by your humane discourses, you will establish the vniversall infallibility, of the Apostles, you destroy it, as not being necessary, for discovering, or correcting, either Fundamentall errours, from which the Church is free, or vnfundamentall, which are not necessary, to be corrected, or discovered. Morover, this very reason of yours, proves a necessity of the Churches being vniversally infallible, supposing the truth which we proved (Chap: 2.) that, Scripture alone containes not evidently, and particularly, all Points necessary to be believed; and that even for those which it containes, a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary. For, this truth supposed, I apply your Argument, thus: If any fall into errour by a false interpretation of Scripture, it may be discovered, and corrected by the Church. But if the Church may erre, to whom shall we haue recourse, for correcting her errour? And heere, incidently, I put you in minde, of the Argument which you prize so much, as to glory, that you never could finde any Catholik, who was able to answer it; that if a particular man, or Church, may fall into errour, and yet remaine a member of the Church vniversall, why may not the Church vniversall erre, and yet remaine a true Church? The Answer, I say, is easy, almost out of your owne words, that there is not the same reason, for every particular mans or Churches, infallibility, or security from error, as for that of the Catholik Church. For, if private persons, or Churches, fall into errour, it may be reformed by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the vniversall Church. But if the Church may erre, to whom shall we haue recourse to correct her [Page 731]error? As S. Hierom: saieth (Lib: 1. Comment: in Cap 5. Matth:) Si doctor erraverit, à quo alio doctore emendabitur? But of this I haue saied enough heretofore. Lastly; giue me leaue to tell you, that in this, and other Reasons, which we shall examine, you do extremely forget yourself, and the state of our present Question, which is not now, whether there be the same reason or necessity, for the Churches absolute infallibility, as for the Apostles and Scriptures: But whether we can proue the vniversall infallibility of the Apostles, and not of the Church, by the same Text of Scripture, which speakes of both in the same manner. But let vs heare your other reasons of disparity, betweene the Apostles, and the Church, in Point of infallibility.

34. You say in the same: (N. 30.) There is not so much strength required in the Edifice, as in the Foundation: And if but wise men haue the ordering of the building they will make it much a surer thing, that the Foundation, shall not faile the building, then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation. Now the Apostles, and Prophets, and Canonicall Writers, are the Foundation of the Church, according to that of S. Paul, built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets; therfore their stability, in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built vpon them.

35. Answer. Your conclusion (therfore their stability in reason ought &c:) shewes that you ground yourselfe on reason, not on revelation; and on a reason, which is not so much as probable. For, you will not deny but that God might haue communicated absolute infallibility, both to the Apostles, and to the Church; yet to the Church dependently of the preaching of the Apostles; and then, what would you haue sayd to your owne ground, In reason more strength is required in the Foundation, than in the Edifice, seing in that case, both the Foundation and Edifice, should haue had an immoveable, and firme strength, and stability? Your reason (if you will haue it proue any thing against vs) must goe vpon this principle; that nothing which depends, or which is builded, vpon another for its certainty, can be absolutely certaine; which is a ground evidently false. The Conclusion in a demonstratiue Argument, is abfolutly certaine, and yet depends on Premises. The Church is infallible in Fundamentalls; and yet in that infallibility, is builded vpon the Foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets. The absolute infallibility of the Apostles, was builded vpon our B. Saviours Words, and even his infallibility, as man, was builded vpon the infallibility [Page 732]of his God head; and yet I hope you will not say, that the Apostles, and our B. Saviour, were not absolutely infallible, because they were built vpon another higher infallibility. And I returne your owne words against you, if but wise men (or even men in their wits) haue the ordering of the building, they will make it as sure a thing that the building shall not fall from the Foundation, as that the Foundation shall not faile the building, if it be in their power to doe both these things, with as much certainty, and facility, as to doe one of them. And no wonder; seing the stability of the Foundation is but a Meanes to the End, that the Edifice which is builded vpon it, be stable, and every wise man hath greater regard to the End then to the Meanes, in respect of which, the End may be called, the Foundation vpon which depends the Election of the Meanes; and in vaine it is, that the Foundation cannot faile the building, if the building may fall from the Foundation, And if, for example, to build high, were a meanes to make the building not fall from the Foundation, as digging deepe, makes the Foundation not faile the building, men would be as carefull, to build high, as now they make sure to digg low for better setling the Foundation, and every one would ayme at a tower of Babel. Now the Apostles received of the Holy Ghost infallibility, not for themselves alone, but for the good of the Church, and it is no less easy, for God, to bestowe absolute infallibility, vpon the Church, than vpon the Apostles; vpon the Edifice, than vppon the Foundation; and therfore no wonder if the Church partake of the same stability, and infallibility with Her Foundation, for the substance, not for the manner, that is, as the Apostles were, so the Church is free, from all errour, but so, as the Church received Her Doctrine from the Apostles, and not the Apostles from the Church. You find fault with Charity Maintayned, who making right vse of this metaphore, argues that as a Foundation alone, is not a house, so to belieue Fundamentalls, or the Foundation alone, is not sufficient to constitute a Church, or house of God, without the beliefe of all Points sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God: and now yourselfe ground a matter of greatest moment, (the infallibility of the Church) vpon the same metaphore, very ill applyed, towards any other purpose, except to proue, the contradictory of that, for which you alledge it, and to confute yourselfe, as even now I haue demonstrated. And besides all this; seing, in your Doctrine, we belieue the Scriptures, and the Doctrine of the Apostles, or that there were any such men as the Apostles, for the Authority [Page 733]of the Church, or vniversall Tradition; the Church, to you is the Foundation of your beliefe, that the Apostles were infallible, and consequently, if your deduction be good, the infallibility of the Church must be greater, than that of the Apostles, because the Foundation must be stronger, than the Edifice; and so, your owne argument, directly overthrowes, that which you would proue by it.

36. By what I haue now sayd, your other reason in the same place is answered; That a dependent infallibility, (especially if the dependance be voluntary) cannot be so certaine, as that on which it depends: But the infallibility of the Church, depends vpon the infallibility of Apostles, as the streightnesse of the thing regulated, vpon the streightnesse of the Rule: and besides, this dependance is voluntary, for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule; being nothing els but an agregation of men, of which every one has freewill, and is subject to passions and errour. Therfore the Churches infallibility, is not so certaine as that of the Apostles.

37. Answer. How many flawes appeare in these not many words? And to omit, that of Dependance, this Reason is not distinct from the former taken from the metaphor of a Foundation, to which must be applied the Reason for which we assent to a thing, and which therfore is the foundation on which our assent depends, I say; First. Your conclusion is not contrary to the Assertion of your adversary. A foule fault in Logicke, which teaches that alwayes the conclusion of the disputant, ought to be directly contradictory, to that which the Defendant affirmes, and not consistent with it. Otherwise the Opponent, would be discovered, to fight with no-body. You conclude; Therfore the Churches infallibility, is not so certaine, as that of the Apostles. Which is nothing against Charity Maintayned, who proved only, that the Church is so certaine, and infallible in Her Definitions, that they cannot be false, forbearing to dispute, whether one certainty, may be greater, then another: and therfore, secondly, you mistake, or wittingly alter the question, passng from intension, or degrees of certainty in order to the same Points, to extension of infallibility to different kinds of objects: as if, though it were granted, that the Apostles were more infallible than the Church intensiuè, or in respect of the same Points, in which both she and the Apostles are infallible (because she depends on the Apostles) it must follow, that the Church cannot be extensiuè as infallible, as they were, that is, cannot be infallible in Points both Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall; which is a very inconsequent consequence; it being [Page 734]sufficient, that the A postles be more infallible than the Church quoad modum; seing she depends on them, and they not on her, as the Apostles were not so infallible intensiuè as our Saviour; and yet you will not inferr, that their infallibility also must be so limited extensivè, as not to reach to vnfundamentall Points; and as the Church, for Fundamentall Points, is builded, and depends vpon the Apostles, and so, quoad modum, not so infallible, as they were; yet Protestants grant, that she is absolutly infallible in fuch Points, though for them, she depend on the Apostles; and your reason is against this infallibility, as well as against her infallibility in Points not Fundamentall, and therfore proves in neither. Thirdly: according to this your discourse, no naturall truth, can be inferred, with certainty, from the most common, and knowne Principles of naturall reason; as, Nothing can be, and not be, at the same tyme. Every whole is greater than any one part included therin, and the like; because, whatsoever is inferred from such knowne Axiomes must depend on them, and therfore not be certaine, nor infallible. If then your meaning be, that the Church is not absolutely infallible, because she depends on the infallibility of the Apostles; your Reason is manifestly false: If you meane, that she may be absolutly infallible, though not so infallible as the Apostles, quoad modum, you speake not to the purpose, but grant as much as we desire.

38. You say: It is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule (that is, from the Doctrine, and infallibility of the Apostles) being nothing els out an aggregation of men, of which every one has freewill, and is subject to passions, and errour. And were not the Apostles an aggregation of men, of which every one had freewill, and was subject to passions and errour, if they had beene left to themselves? And therfore by your Divinity, it was in their power to deviate from the infallibility, which the Holy Ghost did offer to them. I wonder you durst publish such Groundes of Atheisme. But is the Church indeed, nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to pa [...]sions and errour? Hath she not a promise of divine assistance, even according to Protestants, against all Fundamentall errours? which surely is more than to be, nothing else, than an aggregation of men, subject to passions, and errours even Fundamentall? And as for freewill: I aske, whether that be taken away, by the Churches infallibility in Fundamentall Points, or no. If not, then freewill, may well consist with infallibility. If it be taken away; then what absurdity is it to say, that it is takē away by infallibility in Points not Fudamētall? [Page 735]In aword: whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles, for all Points; and in the Church for Fundamentall articles; the same will serue to confute your owne Objection, and shew, that you contradict your owne doctrine, and the Doctrine of Protestants, yea of all Christians, who belieue the Apostles to be infallible. But of this I haue spoken hertofore, more than once, and will now passe to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintayned; that by Potters manner of interpreting, those texts of Scripture, which speake of the stability, and infallibility of the Church, and limiting it to Points Fundamentall, he may affirme, that the Apostles, and other Writers of Canonicall Scripture, were endued with infallibility, only in setting downe Points Fundamentall. For, if it be vrged, that all Scripture is divinely inspired; Potter hath affoarded you a ready answer, that Scripture is inspired, only in those parts or parcells, wherin it delivereth Fundamentall Points. Of these words of Charity Maintayned you take no notice, but only say, that the Scripture saith, All Scripture is divinely inspired. Shew but as much for the Church: shew where it is written, that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired; and the Controversy will be at an end. But all this is not to the purpose, to shew by what Law, Rule, Priviledge, or evident Text of Scripture, you take vpon you, to restraine generall Promises (made for the Church) to Points Fundamentall, and not limite those words, All Scripture is divinely inspired, to the same Fundamentall Points. For, this you neither doe, nor are able to answer; but dissemble that Charity Maintayned did expressly prevent your alledging this very Text, All Scripture is divinely inspired. Nay, beside this, you do not shew, by what authority, you do not only restraine the Praedicatum, (divinitus inspirata) but also the subjectum togeather with the signe, all, (All Scripture) which not only may, but in your doctrine, must be limited, in a strange manner; seing you teach, that some Part of Scripture, is infallible neither in Fundamentall, nor vnfundamentall Points. For here, (N. 32.) you endeavour to proue that S. Paul hath delivered some things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence, and not as Divine Revelation: And so it will not be vniversally true, for any kind of Points, that All Scripture, is divinely inspired. How then will you proue by these words, that Scripture is infallible in all Points, if yourselfe limite the Subjectum of that Proposition, which is Scripture, to certaine Parts of Scripture, and that indeed the Praedicatum, (divinely inspired) may be limited to Fundamentall Points, vpon as good ground, as you limite the generall [Page 736]promises ef God, and words of Scripture, which concerne the infallibility of the Church?

39. But, (N. 33.) you will proue that Dr. Potter limits not the Apostles infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation, because he ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance, and consequently, infallibility in a more high and absolute manner, than to any since them: and to proue this sequele, you offer vs a needlesse Syllogisme. But I haue shewd, that the Apostles, may haue infallibility in a more high, absolute, and independent manner, than the Church, although the Churches infallibility, reach to Points not Fundamentall; as Protestants will not deny, that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamentall Points, in a more high manner, than the Church hath; though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamentall articles. Yea, if you will haue the Doctour speake properly; to say, the Apostles had the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner than the Church, must suppose, that the Church hath that guidance, and consequently (as you inferr) infallibility; though not in so high a manner as the Apostles. I intreate the Reader to peruse Charity Maintayned (N. 13.) and judge whether he speakes not with all reason, and proves what he saith in this behalfe; and if Potter declare himselfe otherwise, and teach (notwithstanding his owne confession, that what was promised to the Apostles, is verifyed also in the vniversall Church) that the Church, may erre in Points not Fundamentall, I can only favour him, and you, so far, as to tell you, he contradicts himselfe.

40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary, Charity Maintayned (N. 13.) spoke truth, in affirming, that Potter, Speakes very dangerously towards this purpose (of limitting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentall Points.) For though the Doctor name the Church, when he saieth (Pag: 152.) (that there are many millions of truths in Nature, and History, whereof the Church is ignorant; and that many truths lie vnrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome, where with the Church is not acquainted) yet his reasons, either proue nothing, or els must comprise the Apostles, no less than the Church, as Charity Maintayned expressly observes (Pag: 93.) though I grant that some of the Doctors words, agree only to the Church, which is nothing against Charity Maintayned, that other of Potters words and reasons agree also to the Apostles, and therefore I assure you he had no designe in the (&c) at which you carp. But let the Doctour say, and meane, what he best pleases; sure [Page 737]I am, that neither he nor you, will ever be able to proue, by any evident Text of Scripture, that the foresayd, or other generall promises of infallibility, extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles, and to Fundamentall Articles only, for the Church. And this is the maine businesse in hand. Though in the meane tyme, I must not omit to say, that your Syllogisme is very captious, and deceitfull, which is: He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls, and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit, in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them, limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls: But Dr: Potter grants to the Church, such a limited infallibility, and ascribes to the Apostles, the Spirits infallible guidance in a more high, and absolute manner: Therfore he limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls. I say, the Major, of this Syllogisme, on which all depends, is deceitfull. For though he that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentalls, and ascribes to the Apostles the infallible guidance of the Spirit, in a more high, and absolute manner than to any since them, limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentalls, by only, and precisely, granting the Church infallible in Fundamentalls, and ascribing to the Apostles, the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner, yet he may doe it by some other way, and in particular, by the meanes of which now we speake, that is, by restraining the selfe same words of Scripture, which without distinction speak of the Apostles, and the Church, to Fundamentall Points in respect of the Church, and not in order to the Apostles, and this voluntarily, without proofe from any other evident Text of Scripture, which yet in the Grounds of Protestants, were necessary in this case: As also, by proving the fallibility of the Church by Arguments, which must involue the Apostles no lesse than the Church, as even now I haue proved. Howsoever; that you are not a faithfull interpreter of Dr: Potter, appeares by your saying, He out of curtesy grants you, that those words, the Spirit shall lead you into all Truth, and shall abide with you for ever, though in their high and most absolute sense, they agree only to the Apostles, yet in a conditionall, limited, moderate, secondary sense, they may be vnderstood of the Church. For, where doth Dr: Potter say, that these words agree to the Church in a conditionall sense? Which conditionall sense you interpret (N. 34.) to singify, if the Church adhere to the direction of the Apostles, and so far as she doth adhere to it; which overthrowes the doctrine of Potter, and other Protestants, that the Church is absolutely infallible, and [Page 738]cannot erre in Fundamentall Points; in which yet she might erre, if the promise of our Saviour, were only conditionall, and it would giue no more to the Church, than to any private person, who is sure not to erre, not only in Fundamentall, but even in vnfundamentall Points, as far as he adheres to the direction of the Apostles. And by this reflection, the difficulty against Dr: Potter, and you, growes to be greater; how the same words of Scripture, are vnderstood both of the Apostles, and of the Church, absolutely for Points Fundamentall; and only conditionally, for the Church, in Points not Fundamentall: And how will you be able to proue, this various acception of the same words, in order to the same Church (and not only in respect of the Apostles, and the Church) by any other evident Text of Scripture? You say to Cha: Ma: Do you not blush for shame at this Sophistry? The Doctour sayes (which yet, I know, he never intended,) no more was promised in this place; therfore he sayes, no more was promised. Are there not other places besides this? And may not that be promised in other places, which is not promised in this?

41. Answer. If the Doctour spoke beyond, or contrary to what he intended, I cannot wonder; since, whosoever defends a bad cause, is subject to write contradictions, which yet men intend no to doe. You say, there may be other places besides this. I answer: It is neither in your, nor in any mans power, to alledg any place, which may not be interpreted, and restrayned, as you limit this of which we speake. Certainly, the Doctour being to proue the absolute infallibility of the Apostles, was much to blame, for alledging ineffectuall Texts, if He could haue found better. Indeed I find in his (Pag: 152.) these words: That other promise of Christs being with his (Matth: 28.20.) vnto the end of the world, is properly meant (as some Ancients truly giue the sense) of his comfortable ayde and assistance, supporting the weaknesse of his Apostles and their Successours in their Ministery, or preaching of Christ. But it may well be also applyed, as it is by others, ^(a) to the Church vniversall: Which is ever in such manner assisted by the good Spirit, that it never totally falls from Christ. But as in the other Texts, so in this, the Question returnes to be asked, by what evident place, of Scripture, can you, or He proue, that this Text speakes of an vniversall Assistance for the Apostles, and only a limited direction for the Church, seeing Potter grants, that it may well be also applyed, as it is by others, to the Church vniversall? You could say (N. 30.) Shew where it is written, that all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired, and the Controversy will be at [Page 739]an end. And much more may we say to you; Shew some evidenr Text of Scripture, that the Apostles are infallible in all Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall, the Church only in Fundamentalls, or that any Text of Scripture makes any such distinction. I say much more may we say, Shew &c. Because the truth, Authority, and infallibility of the Church, is proved independently of Scripture, as the infallibility of the Apostles, was proved before any Scripture of the New Testament was written. But you, who hold, that we can belieue nothing, as a matter of Faith, vnlesse it be evidently set downe in Scripture, are obliged, either to proue the difference of infallibility in the Apostles and the Church, by some evident Text of Scripture, or els you cannot be assured of it, as a thing revealed by God. You see how hard you were pressed, and therfore were forced to giue this noble answer; That Dr. Potter out of courtesy grants vs, that those words, The spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with you for ever, in a conditionall, limited, moderate, secondary sense, may be vnderstood of the Church. But I haue shewed, that you misalledge the Doctour, who sayes expressly, that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles, and is verifyed in the Church vniversall. Now I aske, whether, or no, it be true; that this promise is verifyed in the Church? If it be true, that is, if God hath revealed it to be so, one would thinke it were no point of ceremony, or courtesy, but a matter of necessity, to acknowledge so much. It seemes, you thinke the Doctour was of your disposition, who (Pag 69. N. 47.) say to Charity Maintayned; You might haue met with an answerer, that would not haue suffered you to haue sayd so much Truth togeather, but to me it is sufficient, that it is nothing to the purpose. But I goe on, and say, if it be not true, nor revealed, that those words are verifyed of the Church, how durst Potter affirme, that they were verifyed of Her? Is it lawfull to add to the old, and coyne new Revelations? Doth not Potter say (Pag: 222.) to add to it (he speakes of the Creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract from it?

42. You say, The Apostles must be ledd into all such truths, as was requisite to make them the Churches Founda [...]ions. Now, such they could not be without freedome from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly, is certaine revealed truths. And to proue, that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church, you alledge (N. 30) S. Paul, saying, Built vpon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. (Fphes: 2.20.)

43. I reply; First, The Church must be led into such an all, as is [Page 740]necessary to judge of controversyes, which yourself (Pag: 35. N. 7.) confess to require an vniversall infallibility. Secondly seing Scripture containes not all points, necessary to be believed, the Church must be indued with infallibility for such points: Otherwise we could haue no certainty concerning them. And if once you grant her infallible, for Points not evidēt in Scripture, you cannot deny her an Infallibility, derived, not from evidence of Scripture, but from the assistance of the Holy Ghost. And as you say, the Apostles were vniversally infallible, because the Church was builded on them; so every Christian is builded vpon the Church, and for that cause she must be vniversally infallible. Thirdly; We are not saied to be builded vpon the writings of the Apostles, or Scripture, but vpon the Apostles, who were the Foundation of the Church, before they wrote any thing, by their preaching, and verbum traditum, Tradition. So that indeed, this Text (Ephes: 2.20.) makes for vs, and proves, that we are builded on the vnwritten word, and might haue beene so, though no Scripture, had bene written. Fourthly; you still mistake the Question, and seeke diversions but never goe about to proue by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles, may not be limited to Fundamentall Points, as your restraine to such Points the generall Promises of infallibility, made to the Church in holy Scripture, and limit the word Foundation, to the writings of the Apostles, which I haue shewed to be a manifestly vntrue limitation. S. Paul (1. Tim: 3.) avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth, and yet you deny Her to be vniversally infallible. How then can you proue by the word Foundation, (which cansignify no more, than the pillar and Ground of Truth) that the Apostles cannot erre in any Point, but the Church may? Yea even to make this place, (Ephes: 2.20.) cleare, and convincing in favour of the Apostles, the authority of the Church is necessary, and the letter alone will not suffice, if you will regard the doctrine, or authority, of some learned prime Protestant. And therfore: Fiftly, you haue cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide (vpon this place) saieth: That Beza (and not he alone) interprets, (vpon the Foundation of the Apostles) to signify Christ, who is the Foundation of the Apostles, Prophets and the whole Church; and he (Beza) saieth, that it is Antichristian, to put an other foundation: For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put, Iesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted, the saied Text (Ephes: 2.20.) will not proue that the Apostles, but only that our Saviour (the Foundation of the Apostles, and of the Church) was infallible, [Page 741]nor will the stability of a Foundation, expressed in this place of Scripture, belong to the Apostles. And albeit indeed this interpretation be not true, yet to you it ought not to seeme evidently false, being the Opinion of so great a Rabby; as also because it is very agreable, to the manner which Potestants hold, in impugning Catholik Doctrine, when for example, they argue: The Scripture saieth, We haue an Advocate Jesus Christ. Therfore Saynts, cannot be our Advocates, though in an infinitly lower degree, than our Saviour is: Especially if we reflect, that it is saied of our Saviour with a Negatiue, or exclusiue, particle, No man can put an other Foundation, wheras in those words we haue an Advocate, there is only an affirmation, that Christ is our Advocate, but no negation, that any other is. Other examples might be given in this kind, if this were a place for it. We do therfore grant that the Apostles were Foundations of the Church, and that they received Revelations immediately from our Saviour, and the Church from them; so that, as I saied, she depends on them, not they on Her; and you wrong vs, while (N. 30.) in your first Sillogisme, you speak in such manner, as the Reader will conceiue that we make the infallibility of the Church equall, in all respects, to that of the Apostles, the contrary wherof all Catholikes belieue, and proue. I omit to obserue, that you take occasion to descant vpon these words (as well) which are not found in Charity Maintayned, though for the thing itselfe he might haue vsed them. Your (N. 31. and 32.) haue beene already confuted at large, and the words of Dr. Stapleton considered, and defended with small credit to Dr. Potter, and you.

44 You say: (N. 34.) he teaches the promises of Infallibility made to the Apostles to be verifyed in the Church, but not in so absolute a manner. Now what is opposed to absolute but limited or restrained?

45. Answer. first our Question, is not, what Dr. Potter saied, but what he did, or could proue; and in particular I say, it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture, that the words which he confesses to be verifyed in the Church, are limited to fundamentall points, in respect of her, and not as they are referred to the Apostles. Secondly; wheras you say; what is opposed to absolute, but limited or restrained? I reply; absolute may be taken in diverse senses, according to the matter, argument, or subject, to which it is applied; and therfore though some tyme it may be opposed to limited, yet not alwayes. Do not you (N. 33.) oppose to absolute, a conditionall, moderate, secondary sense, which being epithetons much different one from an other giue vs to [Page 742]vnderstand, that you are too resolute in asking, what is opposed to (but limited) seing more things than one may be opposed to it. What Logician will not tell you, that in Logick, not Limited, but Relatiue, is opposed to absolute? And we may also say, that the infallibility of the Apostles was absolute, that is, independent, and the infallibility of the Church, dependent, as the Effect depends on the Cause, and so is not absolute, in that sense, but hath a Relation of dependance to the infallibility of the Apostles, as to its Cause, which particular Relation the Apostles haue not to the Church.

46. You say also (N. 34.) that though it were supposed, that God had obliged himself by promise, to giue his Apostles infallibility, only in things necessary to salvation, nevertheless it is vtterly inconsequent, that he gaue them no more; or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance, that he gaue them: Especially when he himself, both by his word, and by his works hath assured vs, that he did assist them farther.

47. Answer; I know not to what purpose, or vpon what occasion you vtter these words. Only I am sure, that they containe, both a manifest falshood, and contradiction to yourself, who say heere (N. 33.) If we once suppose they (the Apostles) may haue erred in some things of this nature (in things which they delivered constantly, as certaine revealed Truths) it will be vtterly vndiscernable what they haue erred in, and what they haue not. Now if God hath promised to giue his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation, (which heere you expressly suppose,) it is cleare we cannot be certaine of the truth of their writings in any one thing: Which supposed; (that we cannot be certaine that their writings are true) how can you say, that God both by his word, and by his works hath assured vs, that he aid assist them farther? Seing (vpon that supposition) the Scripture may be false, and recount works never wrought, and so, it is consequent, that we can haue no assurance (by his written word) of any farther assistance that God gaue them, (if it be supposed that he gaue them infallibility, only in things necessary to salvation;) which is the contradictory to your assertion, and yet it is evidently deduced from your owne express words, and doctrine. Nay you could not be sure, that the Apostles had infallibility, even for Fundamentall Points, if once it be supposed, that they, and consequently, their writings, were subject to errour in any thing. So farr from truth is your saying (we could haue assurance of farther assistance!) Your (N. 35.36.) containe no difficulty, [Page 743]which hath not bene answered heretofore.

48. I wish you had in your (N. 37.) set downe at large the words of Charity Maintayned, whereby he proves (N. 15.) that according to the grounds of Protestants, it is sufficient for salvation, that Scripture be infallible in Fundamentall Points only, as they limit to such Points, the infallibility of the Church, and accordingly, interpret Scriptures, speaking thereof. The summe of his Discourse is this: Put together these Doctrines: That Scripture cannot erre in Points Fundamentall; that they cleerely containe all such Points; that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamentall; it is manifest, that it is sufficient for salvation, that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamentall. For seing, all are obliged to belieue explicitely all Fundamentall Articles, it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamentall; which Protestants cannot know, except by Scripture, which alone in their grounds, containes all that is necessary for vs to knowe; and therefore knowing by Scripture, what Points in particular be Fundamentall, (as N. 40. you say expressly, men may learne from the Scripture, that such Points are Fundamentall, others are not so) and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentalls, they are sure that it is infallible in such particular necessary Articles, though it were supposed to be fallible in other Points; by this Argument: All Fundamentall Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility; this is a Fundamentall Point; therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility. And the Syllogisme at which you say men would laugh, is only your owne; The Scripture is true in something; the Scripture sayes that these Points only are Fundamentall, therefore this is true, that these are so. For, say you, every fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded. But you should correct your Syllogisme, thus: All that is necessary, the Scripture delivers with infallibility; but to know what Points in particular be Fundamentall, is necessary; therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility. Besides, you say; If without dependance on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamentall, and what not, they might possibly belieue the Scripture true in Fundamentalls, and erroneous in other things. Now both you and Potter affirme, that there is an vniversall Tradition, that the Creed containes all Fundamentall Points, and consequently, that in vertue of such a Tradition, men may belieue all Fundamentall Points, without dependance, or knowledg of Scripture, as also for vniversall Tradition [Page 744]you belieue Scripture itself. Heare your owne words (Pag: 198. N. 15.) The certainty I haue of the Creed, that it was from the Apostles, and containes the Principles of Faith, I ground it not vpon scripture; Therefore according to your owne grounds, Protestants may belieue the Scripture to be true in Fundamentalls, and erroneous in other things. And you did not well, to conceale this Argument, taken from the Creed, which was expressly vrged by Ch: Ma: in that very (N. 15.) which you answer. By what I haue saied, it appeares, that, (in the grounds of Protestants) the knowledg of Fundamentalls neede not haue for Foundation, the vniversall truth of Scripture, as you say, but only the truth thereof for all Fundamentall Points, and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamentall, as I haue declared. So we must conclude, that the Argument of Ch: Ma: stands good; that if you limit the infallibility of the Church, you may vpon the same ground, limit the infallibility of the Apostles, and their writings, namely, the Holy Scripture.

49. Your (N. 39.) goes vpon a meere equivocation, or a voluntary mistake, you being not ignorant that Charity Maintayned saied (N. 16.) that no Protestant, can with assurance believe the vniversall Church in Points not fundamētall, because they belieue that in such points she may erre; which sequele is very true, and cleare. For how can I belieue with assurance, an Authority believed to be fallible. If she alledg some evident Reason, Scripture, &c: I belieue her, no more than I would belieue any child, Turk, or Jewe, and so I attribute nothing to her authority, nor can be saied to belieue her. Thus you say (N. 36.) We cannot belieue the present Church in propounding Canonicall Bookes, vpon her owne Authority though we may for other reasons belieue these Bookes to be Canonicall which she proposes. Your instances are against yourself. For if the divell proue that there is a God, or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion, I neither belieue the divell, who I knowe, was a Lier from the beginning, nor the Geometritian, whom I knowe to be fallible, but I assent for the Reason which they giue, by whomesoever it had bene given: and therfore you speak a contradictory, in saying (N. 38.) Though the Church being not infallible I cannot belieue Her in every thing she sayes, yet I can and must belieue her in every thing she proves, either by Scripturs, or vniversall Tradition. This I say, implies a contradiction, to belieue, one because he proves; seing the formall object, or Motiue of Beliefe, is the Authority of the speaker, and not the Reason which he [Page 745]gives, which may produce assents of diverse kinds, according to the diversity of Reasons, as Demonstration, Scripture &c: which may cause an infallible assent, not possible to be produced by the authority of the Church, if it were fallible.

50. In your (N. 39.) First you cite the words of Charity Maintayned thus: The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls, vnless I know them before I goe to learne of her, I may be rather deluded than instructed by her; and then you say: The Reason and connexion of this consequence, I feare neither I nor you doe well vnderstand. But you feare, where there is no cause of feare. For, is it not a cleare consequence, that if the Church be infallible only in Fundamentall points, and I haue recourse to her about any matter, not knowing it to be Fundamentall, I cannot be sure, but that she may erre therin? We haue hard yourselfe saying; of meere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded, and (to vse your owne words) who would not laugh at him, who should argue thus? the Church is infallible in some things; the Church saith this is true, Therfore it is true. Or thus: the Church is infallible only in fundamentall Points, The Church saieth, this particular is true, which I know not whether, or not it be Fundamentall, therfore the Church is infallible in this. The conclusion should be: Therfore I cannot know that the Church is infallible in this. You say, (N. 37.) that the Scripture must be vniversally true, and not only in fundamentalls, because otherwise it could not be a sufficient warrant to belieue this thing, that these only points are Fundamentall, which shewes, your opinion to be, that it would litle availe vs, to know that Scripture is infallible in fundamentalls only, vnless we could know, what Points in particular are fundamentall, and therfore you impugne yourself, while you find fault with Ch: Ma: for saying, that if the Church be infallible only in fundamentalls, we cannot belieue her with certainty vnless we know, that such and such things are Fundamentall. The residue of this Number (39.) you spend in distinguishing between being infallible in fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in fundamentalls; of which I haue alreadie spoken at larg.

51. In your (N. 40.) you cite these words as out of Char. Maintayn. They that knowe what Points are Fundamentall, otherwise then by the Churches Authority, learne not of the Church. Char. Maint. speakes more distinctly, and sayeth: If before they address themselves to the Church, they must know what points are Fundamentall, they learne not of her [Page 746]but wilbe as fit to teach, as to be taught by her. How then are all Christians so often, so seriously, vpon so dreadfull menaces, by Fathers, Scriptures, and our blessed Saviour himself, counselled, and commanded to seeke, to heare, to obey the Church? Which he proves there at large out of S. Austine, and S. Chryiostome. And is not all this very cleare? For, how can I be saied to learne of the Church, that which I must know before she can teach me, that is, what Points be Fundamentall? Yes, say you, they may learne of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God, and from the Scripture, that such Points are Fundamentall, others are not so, and consequently learne, even of the Church, even of your Church, that all is not Fundamentall, nay all is not true, which she teaches vs to be.

52. Answer: First; can we indeed learne from the Scripture, that such Points are Fundamentall, others are not so? How then do you say, it is impossible to giue a Catalogue of Fundamentall Points, seing there is meanes to know that such Points are Fundamentall, others are not so? Secondly; You grant what Charity Maintayned saied; That I cannot learne of the Church, that which I must know before she teaches me; while you tell vs, that men learne of the Church one thing, that Scripture is the Word of God, and an other from Scripture, namely, what Points be Fundamentall, and so we are so far from learning of the Church that fuch points are Fundamentall, that we are as fit to teach her, as she to teach vs, which Points in particular be Fundamentall, which we learne from Scripture, not from her; just as you teach, that not from the Church, but from Scripture, we learne all particular Points of Faith with certainty, though we receiue the Scripture from the Church. Thirdly; If it be a Fundamentall truth, that Scripture is the Word of God, I must know it to be such, before I can be assured, that the Church cannot erre therin, and so I cannot learne it of the Church; and much less can I learne it of the Church, with certainty, if it be not a Fundamentall Point, in which you hold the Church may erre: and (Pag: 116. N. 159.) you say, it is not a Fundamentall point. Fourthly; Whereas you say, That one may learne from the Church, that Scripture is the Word of God, and from the Scripture, that all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so; I answer: if we belieue Scripture to be the word of God, vpon the sole Authority of the Church, it is impossible, that I can proue out of Scripture, that all is not true, which the Church teacheth to be so. For, by this meanes Scripture would be destructiue of it self, if we belieue it [Page 747]for an Authority, which it self saieth may affirme a falshood, and so we cannot belieue it even in this particular, that Scripture is the word of God. Yourself say heere (N. 36.) An Authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing, and if it were in any thing, then this Authority being one and the same in all proposalls, I should haue the same reason to belicue all, that I haue to belieue one: and therfore must either do vnreasonably, in believing any one thing, vpon the sole warrant of this Authority, or vnreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it. Therfore you either do vnreasonably in believing the Scripture vpon the sole warrant of the Church, or vnreasonably in not believing her in all her proposalls; and Luther was, and all Protestants, are, vnreasonable, in saying, that all is not true, which the Church teacheth to be so. You say (N. 40.) Neither do I see what hinders, but a man may learne of a Church how to confute the errours of that Church which taught him: As well as of my Master in Physick, or Mathematicks, I may learne those rules ād Principles, by which I may confute my Masters erroneous Conclusions. But if the ground which I haue laied, and corfirmed out of your owne words, be considered, this your instance will proue against yourself. For if I belieue those Rules or Principles, because I belieue my Master cannot erre, and not for the evidence of them in themselves, I do vnreasonably, in not believing whatsoever he proposes; Otherwise I may feare he erred even in those Rules, if once I sinde him to erre in any other thing. Now, we receiue with certainty, Scripture for the sole Authority of the Church, and therfore we do vnreasonably, if we belieue her not, in all her proposalls.

53. Your (N. 41.42.) haue bene answered hertofore. In your (N. 43.) you speake to Ch: Ma. in this manner: In the next place you tell vs, out of S. Austine, That that which has bene alwayes kept, is most rightly, esteemed to come from the Apostles. Very right, and what then? Therefore the Church cannot erre indefining Controversyes. Sir I beseech you when you write againe, doe vs the favour, to write nothing but Syllogismes, for I find it still an extreme trouble to find out the concealed propositions, which are to connect the parts of your enthymems. As now for example I profess vnto you, I am at my wits end, and haue done my best endeavour, to find some glue, or sodder, or cement, or chaine, or thred, or any thing to tye this antecedent and this consequent together, and at length am forced to giue it over, and cannot doe it.

54. Answer; If you were in a condition to reply, I would advise [Page 748]you to write, not Syllogismes, or enthymems, but with truth, Christian modesty, and humility. If there be any obscurity in Charity Maintayned, you did not find, but make it, by breaking the thred of his discourse, and disjoyning into severall Numbers of Sections or Yours, that which is delivered in that one continued (N. 16.) which you impugne. For having proved that according to the grounds of Protestāts, they before they address themselves to the Church, must know what Points are Fundamentall, they learne not of her, but will be as fit to teach, as to be taught by her. And then to confute this Doctrine, of Protestants, he saieth; S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants: If saieth he, (Epist: 118.) the Church through the whole world practice any of these things, to dispute whether that ought to be done, is a most insolent madness. And in an other place he saieth (Lib: 4. de Bapt: Chap: 24.) That which the whole Church holds, and is not ordained by Councells, but hath alwaies been kept, is most rigthly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority. Now Sr. I beseech you, doe vs the favour to declare whether these words of S. Austine doe not proue, that we are to learne of the Church, and her Traditions; and not presume to teach her? Which was the very thing which Cha: Ma: affirmed, and proved, not by any Syllogisme, or enthymem, but by a continued discourse, as men are wont to doe, which yet might be easily drawne into a Syllogisme, or some other Lawfull Forme of Logicall Argument, if need were, as any true Discourse may be so reduced.

55. All that you haue (N, 44.45.46.) containes no difficulty which may not be answered, out of the grounds, which I haue Laied heretofore. Tertullian is rightly alledged for Traditions in generall; but to the Church belongs the office, of judging in particular, what be Lawfull, and Apostolicall, or divine Traditions, and not humane invētions. Neither can it be prejudiciall to Traditions in generall, that some haue bene lost, as I hope you will not deny some Bookes of Scripture to be Divine, though some haue bene lost, and some conterfaited. In your (N. 46.) you thought it best to dissemble what Ch. Ma. alledges out of Withaker (De Sacra Script: Pag: 678. concerning an Authority of S. Chrysostom for Traditions) I answer, that this is an inconsiderate speach, and vnworthy so great a Father.

56. In your (N. 47.) you spend many words about a sentence of S. Austine, which, that you may overcome with more ease, you with a [Page 749]pettie policy, divide from the other places, which Ch: Ma: in the same (N. 16.) cites out of the same Saynt, one place strengthening an other. Whosoever reades with due consideration, your long discourse will finde, that your ayme was, covertly to vent your Socinianisme, against the Church, and openly contradict S. Austine, while you pretend to answer the sentences, which Cha. ma. cited out of him, which are these (Epist: 119.) the Church being placed betwixt much chaffe, and cockle, doth tollerate many things; but yet she doth not approue, nor dissemble, nor do these things which are against Faith, or good life. you say; That because S. Austine sayes, the Church doth not approue, nor dissemble; nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life, Ch. Ma. concludes, that it never hath done so, nor ever can doe so. And then you add: But though the Argument hold in Logick a non posse and non esse, yet I never heard, that it is would hold back againe a non esse ad non posse. The Church cannot doe this, therefore it does it not, followes with good consequence: but the Church does not this, therefore it shall neuer doe it, this I belieue will hardly follow: In the Epistle next before to the same I anuarius, writing of the same matter, he hath these words: It remaines that the thing you enquire of, must he of that third kind of things, which are different in diverse places. Let euery one therfore doe, that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes: for none of them is against Faith or good manners. And why do you not infer from hence, that no particular Church can bring vp any custome that is against Faith or good manners? Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former.

57. Answer; S. Austines meaning to be, that the Church neither doth, nor can, approue any thing against Faith, or good life, appeares by the very (Epist: 1 18.) next before to the same Iannarius, as you speak; where he saieth: If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that ought to be so done, is a most insolent madnes. Where you see the Saynt speakes not only de facto, but de jure, what ought to be done; and therfore, as I saied, no wonder if you divided the Sentences of S. Austine which you found set downe by Charity Maintayned in the same (N. 16.) Besides, you should know, that in matters belonging to doctrine of Faith, an indefinite Proposition ordinarily is equivalent to an vniversall, as for example, God approves not sinne, the Church eres not in fundamentall Points of Faith; Works of Christian Piety require the assistance of Gods Grace; He that believes not, shall be damned &c:? And indeed how [Page 750]could S. Austine say vniversally, of all tymes, and places, without limitation, the Church doth not this, but by supposing, that it is certaine, she will never doe it, which must implie some particular Priviledg of Divine assistance, securing her from doing it. For if he spoke only of a casuall, and contingent thing, for a determinate tyme, he could not be sure of what he affirmed, seing it might be done in some place, without his knowledg: and whosoever vnpartially considers these words, The Church does not this, will confess that they signify, she never does it, and that something is attributed to Her, which agrees not to private persons, casually not doing a thing. Which also appeares by the Antithesis he puts betweene the Church, and chaffe and cockle, that is imperfections, or superstitions, of which he speaks. Your Argument taken from a particular Church, is of no force. For you confess S. Austine speaks of things indifferent, and rhen I grant, that no particular Church can bring vp any custome against Faith or good manners, as long as she practises only things indifferent, that is, neither commanded, nor prohibited. But as for the thing it self, S. Austine never speaks of particular Churches, as we haue heard him speak of the vniversall, both in this place, of which we treate, and in other sentences alledged by Ch. Ma. in the saied (N. 16.) and the Promises of our Saviour, were made to the vniversall Church. Yea, you confess that S. Austine speaking even in this place, of those things which he dislikes, saies that they were neither contained in Scripture, decreed by Councells, nor corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church; which words declare, that the Scripture, Generall Councells, the Custome of the vniversall Church, and consequently the Church of God, can never be saied to approue any such presumptions, as S. Austine calls them; which he never saieth of particular Churches. And therfore when you say, that superstitions may in tyme take such deepe roote, as to pass for vniversall customes of the Church, you contradict S. Austine; and that the world may see you doe it plainely, and as I may say in actu signato, and not only exercito, but to his face, you take his owne words, Consuetudine vniversae Ecclesiae roboratum, corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church, and say, that some such superstition had not already, even in S. Austines tyme (which circumstance of tyme is to be noted to shew how directly you contradict him) prevailed so farre, as to be corroborated by the custome of the vniversall Church, who can doubt, that considers, that the practise of Communicating Infants, had even then got the credit, and Authority, not oily of an [Page 751]vniuersall custome, but also of an Apostolique Tradition? And which is more, in other places of your Booke, you ascribe this very thing which you call superstition, not only to S. Austines tyme, but even to himself, though both imputations be most false; and it is strang that through your whole Book, you do not so much as once offer any one proofe thereof. And yet to shew how causelesly, and intemperately you declaime against the Church of S. Austines tyme, (that you might discredit every Church of every Age, and so of all Ages, though Protestants commonly hold that the Church was pure in S. Austines tyme) you confess he saieth, they were not against Faith, and only vnprofitable burdens. But of things that are apertissimè contra Fidem, sanamque doctrinam, he expresly declares that the truth is to be professed: Yea even when there is question, not whether a vaine thing be to be permitted, but whether a good thing ought to be omitted, he saieth, Si aliquorum infirmitas ita impediat, vt majora studiosorū lucra sperand a sint, quam calumniatorum detrimenta metuenda, sine dubitatione faciend um est. Now if you be so indiscretely zealous, as to say, that no inconvenient things, are in any case to be tolerated, not for feare to offend, or for humane respects, but for avoiding greater evill, you impugne our Saviour (and not his Church only) who (Matth. 13.29.30.) forbids the servants to gather vp the cockle, least perhaps gathering vp the cockle, you may root vp the wheat also togeather with it. Suffer both to grow vntill the harvest. And you do very wickedly, in comparing the observing this advise of our Blessed Saviour, to that which He reprehended in the Scribes, and Pharises, for teaching (and not only tolerating perforce) vaine things, as the washing of pots &c: Did not the Apostles tolerate, for some tyme, even after they had received the holy Ghost, some Observances of the Mosaicall Law, till they became to be deadly, as if without them the law of Christ had not beene sufficient to salvation for Gentills converted to Christian Religion? And for that cause S. Paule saieth, stand, and be not holden in againe with the joake of servitude (Galat. 5. V. 1.) and therefore, you do absurdly apply, against the Church of Christ, those words of the Apostle; especially seing you confess, that those foolish observances, which S. Austine dislikes, were not against Faith, (as he saieth expressly, that it cannot be found, quomodo contra Fidem sint) and (which is the maine point) that they were never decreed by any generall Councell, or practised, or approved by the vniversall Church, which is only our Question. [Page 752]Yourself say (Pag: 301. N. 101.) that S. Austine supposed, that the publique service of God, wherein men are to communicate is vnpolluted, and no vnlawfull thing practised in their Communion, which was so true of their Communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it. And towards the end of the same number you say, The Donatists separated from the whole world of Christians, vnited in one Communion, professing the same Faith, serving God after the same manner, which was a very great Argument, that they could not haue just cause to leaue them: according to that of Ter [...]ullian, variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum, quod autem apud multos vnum est, non est erratum sed traditum. Therefore, you must either free the Church of that tyme, from errour, or the Donatists from Schisme. I haue beene longer in answering this Objection, in regard it containes hiddenly more Socinian venome, against the Church, than appeares at the first sight:

58. And now it will be easy to answer your (N. 48.) wherin you speak thus to Charity Maintayned. But (you will say) not with standing all this, S. Austin here warrants vs, that the Church can never either approue or dissemble, or practise any thing against Faith or good life, and so long you may rest securely vpon it. What? Do you now grant that S. Austine here warrants vs, that the Church can never either approue, &c.? Which is the very thing, which even now you objected against Cha: Ma: as if S. Austine had neither saied so, not that it could be deduced from what he saied. You goe forward and say; Yea, but S. Austine tells vs in the same place, that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vaine superstitions, and those vrged more severely than the commandements of God: and whether superstition be a sinne or no, I appeale to our Saviours words before cited and to the concent of your Schoolmen. Besides if we consider it right, we shall finde, that the Church is not truly saied only to tolerate these things, but rather, that a part, and a farre greater publiquely avowed and practised them, and vrged them vpon others with great violence, and that continued still a part of the Church. Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church, and yet doe so, as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it, and yet do so, I desire you to informe me.

59. Answer; you seeke to deceyue the ignorant, by leading them into a misvnderstanding of the word tolerate, as if it did signify a voluntary permission, of a thing, when it is in our power to hinder it; where as the Church doth only tolerate abuses, in that sense, as our Saviour teaches, that cockle is to be suffered, or, as I may say, tolerated [Page 753]to growe with the wheate, least vntymely weeding the cockle, spoile the good corne; that is, of two vnavoidable evills, it is not only lawfull, but laudable, yea necessary, to chuse the lesser, which, taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sorte, good, as in some proportion I declared heretofore, speaking of the case of invincible, and inculpable Perplexity, as heere the Church is necessitated, without any fault of hers, either to suffer a less, or doe a greater evill, by vntymely, and fruiteless rigor. Did not the Apostles; and must not all Prelats permit many sinnes of diverse kinds, which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth, vnless they were Omnipotent, to rule the wills of men, and effectually drawe them, only to good? But you speak very vnworthily of the vniversall Church of Christ, when you would make the world belieue, that the farre greater part of Christians in S. Austines tyme, was guilty of vaine superstitions, and avowed and practised them, yea or even dissembled them in silence, when prudent Charity, and zeale, could dictate the contrary. As for your parity, betwen the whole Church, and particular members thereof, it hath bene confuted heretofore, infallibility being promised to the Church, not to private persons; and you might make the same Argument, to proue that the Apostles, might erre in matters, which they delivered as Points of Faith, and yet remaine parts of the Church, as well as particular men might erre, and remaine members of the Church, if their errours were inculpable. If you say the Apostles were to teach others, and so could not erre, even inculpably; you know we say the same of the Church, which is Judge of Controversyes, and was before Scripture, and from which we receyue true Tradition, Scripture, and the interpretation thereof. But if we suppose, that those superstitious persons chanced to erre, in any Point against Faith, and remained obstinate therein, after sufficient Declaration of the Churches Doctrine to the contrary, then they became formall Heretiques, excluded from being members of the Church, and so cannot be saied, to be either the greater, or lesser, or any, part thereof.

60. In your (N. 49.) You say: But now after all this adoe, what if S. Austanē sayes not this which is pretended of the Church, viz, that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor practises any thing against Faith or good life, but only of good men of the Church? Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it, yet you should not haue dissembled, that others [Page 754]read the place otherwise. viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat, & tamen qûae sun [...] contra Fidem & bonam vitam, nec bonus approbat &c: The Church tolerater many things; and yet what is against Faith or good life, a good man will neither approue, nor dissemble, nor practise.

61. Answer: But who, beside yourself, hath made all this adoe? Which certainly you would never haue made, vnless you had believed, that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintayned cites it, and for that cause you found it necessary, to take so much paines, spend so many words, and make so much adoe, to answer it. If an English Protestant, should cite the English Translation approved in England, as the Text hath it, were he obliged to take notice of every different Lection, quoted in the Margin? And were not such English Protestants, obliged to answer, according to the Reading, which, all things considered, the Translators though fittest, and securest to be placed in the Text itself? If the Text condemne, can the margent acquit him? I haue procured to know what divers Editions haue, and amongst the rest one of Basilea Anno 1556, and not one of them all, hath in the Text, nec bonus; only the Edition of Lovaine hath it in the margin. But you are much mistaken, if you conceyue, that our Argument looses its force, though we should read, nec bonus approbat. For (to omit your owne manner of arguing, els where, and even in this place, that good men are part of the Church, and therefore it is impossible, that the whole Church, can be saied to approue, or dissemble, or practise those things) we ground our proofe, on such considerations, as I touched aboue, that the Church is saied only, to tolerate, and is contradistinguished, from those, who approue, or practise the saied abuses; as also she is opposed, to cock [...]e and chasse; yea, yourfelf confess, that S. Austine affirmes, that they were neither contained in Scripture, de [...]reed by Councells, nor corroborated by the Custome of the vniversall Church; Which shewes how innocent she was, from being obnoxious to that imputation, of approving those presumptions: Which also appeares by the whole drift of S. Austines discourse; where still he makes a difference betwene the Church, and those erring persons. Besides, when you would haue him say, A good man will neither approue, nor &c: by a good man, you must not vnderstand, every pious, or devout, or even holy person, who may be subject to such abuses, as S. Austine speaks of; seing you cite him saying; Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum, vel turbulentarum [Page 755]personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo. Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, I dare not freely disollow: But by good men, you must of necessity vnderstand, such as haue zeale, with knowledg, such as are of a right and settled true judgment, in matters belonging to Faith, and Religion, and certainly such they cannot be, in the opinyon of S. Augustine, who could think, that the Church can approue, any errour, or superstition; seing we haue heard him say (Ep: 118.) If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that ought to be done, is a most insolent madness. Will you haue an vnderstanding, good man, to be guilty of most insolent madness? If a good man cannot approue such things, much less, in truth, and in the opinion of S. Austine, the Church could doe it. So that reade S. Austine as you please, the sentence, which Charity Maintayned alledged, proves the infallibility of Gods Church; neither can you finde any meanes to avoide this inference, except by vnmasking yourself, and saying as you doe here (N. 44.) To deal ingeniously with you and the world, I am not such an idolater of S. Austine, as to think a thing proved sufficiently, because he saies it, or that all his sentences ore oracles. And so I may returne your owne words, and say: But now after all this adoe, what if S. Austine saies what Charity Maintayned affirmes him to say, seing you do not much regard what S. Austine saies?

62. For answer to your (N. 53.) I say that Charity Maintayned had reason to affirme, that seing no private persōs ought to presume, that they are endued with greater infallibility, than the Church, which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamentall Points, they cannot be sure, that they attaine the true sense of Scripture, vnless they first know, what points in particular be Fundamentall; because in other they may erte, as they say the Church may. Besides it hath bene shewed, that, in the Principles of Protestants, it cannot be convinced, that Scripture is infallible, except only in fundamentall Points, and so men cannot rely on Scripture, vnless first they be sure, what points be Fundamentall. Neither is there the same reason, for vnderstanding (not the bare words, but) the sense of Scripture, intended by the Holy Ghost, as there is for vnderstanding som plain place in Aristotle, or conceyving some evident naturall truths, which are connaturall to humane reason, and are not capable of different senses, as the words of Scripture are. Which may be proved, even by the Examples which you bring [Page 756]as evident, as I haue shewed hertofore, that they are not so: Neither can any Protestants learne them from Scripture alone with such certainty, as is necessary to an Act of Faith, which according to all good Christians must be infallible, and therfore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you alledg as evident; but your enough, is not enough, for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith. And therfore Charity Maintayned did you no wrong at all, and much less a palpable injury, as you speak, in saying, you cannot, with certainty, learne of Scripture, fundamentall Points of Faith; which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truths Fundamentall, because they are necessary parts of the Gospell, and yet it is evident, that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning, as I haue demonstrated about these sentences; God is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him: that there is no salvation but by Faith in Christ: That by Repentance and Faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained: That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body. Which are the Instances which here you giue, as Truths both Fundamentall, and evident.

63. Your (N. 51.) hath bene answered in severall occasions. And all that you say (N. 52.) is directly nothing to the purpose, but passes from objects considered in themselves (wherof Protestants confess some to be Fundamentall, others not) to accidentall circumstances; as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamentall points, or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them, but only in accidentall circumstances, of ignorance, repentance, and the like. But of this I haue spoken hertofore: as also I haue confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients &c: which therfore I think needless to repeete.

64. Your (N. 53.) I haue answered in diverse places. Your (N. 54.) is nothing but a long digression, to which the particular Answer would require a whole Booke, or volume, directly against the scope of this Work (which is only to treate in generall of the Church, and Scripture) and you know very well, that Catholik Writers haue fully answered all your Demands; as also you know, how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants abovt Scripture, which to them is the only rule of Faith, if I had a mynd to digrees. Your (N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65.) haue bene answered at large.

95. I desire the Reader to peruse the (N. 21.) of Charity Maintayned, and he will finde that you make an argument, as his, which is nothing [Page 757]like his discourse. He saieth not as you (N. 66.) cited him in these words: We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things; Therfore we may not depart fram it in any thing, which you call an Argument, à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. The Argument of Ch. Ma. is Dr. Potter teacheth (Pag: 75.) That there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ, no more than from Christ himself: But if the Church could erre in any points of Faith, they may and must forsake her in those, and if such errours should fall out to be concerning the Churches Lyturgie, Sacraments &c. they must leaue her externall Communion, which being essentiall to the Church, they must divide themselves from her, in that which isessentiall to make one a member of the same Church, which I hope is more than to argue ad dictum secundum quid. For what greater separation, can there be from the Church, than in that which is essentiall to make one be vnited to her? Your saying, that a man may leaue the vice of his friend, or brother, and yet not leaue his friend, or brother, is impertinent, seing vices are not essentiall to men, as externall Communion is, to make one a member of the Church.

66. You object; what Dr. Potter saieth of the Catholique Church (P. 75.) he extends presently after, to euery true, though never so corrupted part of it. And why do you not conclude from hence, that no particular Church (according to his judgement) can fall into any ertour and call this a demonstration too.

67. Answer: If the Doctour will not contradict himself; according to his judgment, the Catholique Church cannot fall into errour against any Truth necessary to salvation, as a particular Church may, and therefore this, may, but that, can never be forsaken: or if he will affirme, that no particular Church can be forsaken; he must say, that no such Church can erre in any point necessary to salvation. For if she did so erre, her Communion must be forsaken, and I haue shewed externall Communion, to be essentiall to the members of the Church. Whereby is answered your (N. 67.) where you grant that we may not cease to be of the Church, nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himselfe. Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church, who disagree from Her in profession of Faith, and divide themselves from her externall Communion, you must grant, that they can no more doe so, than they can divide themselves from Christ. I know not, to what purpose, or vpon what occasion, you say to Ch: Ma: In other places, you confes [Page 758]his doctrine to be, that even the Catholique Church may erre in Points not fundamentall, which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself.

68. Your manner of alledging the words of Charity Maintayned in your (N. 68.) gives me still, occasion to wish you had alledged them, as you found them. You make Charity Maintayned speak thus: Dr. Potter either contradicts himself, or els must grant the Church infallible; because he saies, if we did not differ from the Roman, we could not agree with the Catholique, which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre. And then you say with your vsuall modesty: This Argument to giue it the right name, is an obscure and intriate nothing. I confess that reading the words, which you impute to Charity Maintayned, I found difficulty to penetrate the force of his Argument. But the words of Charity Main: are these. If, saith Dr. Potter, we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholi (que). These words cannot be true, vnless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholique, cānot erre in Points not fundamētall. For if she may erre in such points, the Roman Church which he affirmes to erre only in points not fundamētall, may agree with the Church truly Catholi (que), if she likewise may erre in points not fundamētall. This is the Argumēt of Ch: Ma: and is it not cleare, that if the Church Catholique can erre, for example, in the Doctrines of Purgatory, Invocations of Saynts, reall presence, and the like, as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did erre, and that they were reformers of such errours, seing the Roman Church may, and doth hold the same Doctrines, the Church vniversall and the Roman Church shall agree in the same (pretended) errours, and so Potter saied not truly, that if we agree with the Roman Church, (for example about Purgatory, Praiers, to saynts &c:) we cannot agree with the Church Catholique? Will you deny the Axiom; Quae sunt eadem vni tertio sunt eadem inter se? If then the vniversall, and the Roman Church agree in the belief, of errours (as you falsly terme them) do they not agree one with an other? And so, contrary to Potters affirmation it must be saied; If we did dissent from these opinions of the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church Catholique, if once it be supposed, that the Church holds those, or the like vnfundamentall errours, as you grant she may; And further it would follow, that seing Protestants dissent from the Roman Church, they cannot agree with the Catholique Church. But let vs heare how you make good your censure.

69. You say; let vs suppose, either that the Catholique Church may erre [Page 759]but doth not, but that the Roman actually doth; or that the Catholique Church may erre, in some few things, but that the Roman errs in many more, And is it not apparent in both these cases (which yet both suppose the Churches infallibility) a man may truly saie, vnless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church, I cannot agree with the Catholique? Either therfore you must retract your imputation laied vpon Dr. Potter, or doe that which you condemne in him, and be driven to say, that the same man may held some errours with the Church of Rome, and at the same tyme with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them. For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same tyme, to agree with the Roman and the Catholique.

70. Answer, Your conscience cannot but witness, that the Doctor when he saied: If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique, did not speak of accidentall cases, or voluntary suppositions, such as you put; but meant and spoke absolutely, that if we did not dissent from the Present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique. For if he meant only of contingent cases, without regard to any particular advantage, or prerogatiue of the Church vniversall, he might haue made suppositions, directly contrary to yours; that the Roman Church may erre, but doth not, but the vniversall actually doth; or that the Roman Church doth erre in some few things, but the Catholique errs in many more. For if once it be granted the Catholique Church to erre; to say she may erre in many, or few, is a voluntary, vngrounded, conjecture, or divination, and nothing to any purpose. Nay seing, if once the Catholik Church be supposed to erre, she may multiply errours without end, and so, to day agree with, to morrow disagree, from the Roman Church, and it must follow, that according to your explication, the Doctours words may be in a perpetuall alteration, to day fals, to morrow true; which either was farre from his meaning, or his meaning was not only impertinent, but against his owne scope and Intention, which was to make the vniversall Church as it were the Modell or Rule to judge of the necessity, which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church, by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholiques which had bene no good reason, if the vniversall Church may erre, and erre as much and more, than the Roman, or any other partioular Church. Which appeares also by these words of the Doctor in the same (Pag: 97.) The Catholique Church is carefull to ground all her declarations [Page 760]vpon the divine Authority of Gods written word. And therfore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded, is justly esteemed an Heretique. And (P: 132.) he saieth: For vs: the mistaker (nor his he Masters) will never prove, that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholique Church, or any Fundamentall or other truth of Scripture, and therefore he doth vnjustly charge vs with Schisme or Herisie. Do not these sayings, attribute more to the vniversall, than to particular Churches; and more than a meerely casualty, that either she doth not actually erre, or els erres in fewer things, than the present Roman Church? And vpon the whole matter, is not that true, which Charity Maintayned (N. 22.) saied, That D. Potter must either grant, that the Catholique Church cannot erre in Points not Fundamentall, or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the saied words: If we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique? Would not Protestants take it in ill parte, if one should say: If we did not dissent in some opinions from Protestants, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique? And yet according to your explication, and suppositions, it could not be ill taken, because either the Church might be supposed not to erre actually or in some few things, but that the Protestants erre in many more, it being manifest that some of them erre. By the way, when Potter saieth: (For vs: the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholique Church, or any truth of Scripture) I would know, whom he vnderstand by, vs? Seing it is evident, that of Protestants, holding so many contrary Doctrines, some must of necessity, oppose some Declaration of the Church, or truth of Scripture: and since they haue no certaine Rule to know, which of them be in the wrong, and oppose some Declaration of the Church, or Scripture, we must conclude, that no man desirous of his salvation, can commit his soule to any of them all. Your Conclusion (Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid vpon Dr Potter, or doe that &c.) is obscure; but I am sure it is answered, seing it goes vpon your fals explication of the Doctors words.

71. Your proceding (N. 69.) puts me vpon a necessity, of intreating the Reader, to peruse the (N. 23.) of Charity Maintayned which evidently demonstrates, that it was wholy impertinent, for you to answer the places, which He saieth, are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of Gods Church; and your labour, and paines taken therin, are lost in order to any other effect, except (contrary to your desires) [Page 761]to stregthen the saying of Charity Maintayned, which was; That our very difference about the meaning of these Texts, shewes the impossibility of agreement in matters of Faith by Scripture alone. To which purpose He setts downe, what sense Catholiques giue them, and the different interpretation of Protestants, from Catholikes, and from one and other. While therfore, you profess to confute the interpretation of Catholikes (but indeed impugne also that of most Protestants, and of Dr. Potter in particular) what doe you els, but make good the saied Affirmation, and intention, and proofe of Cha: Ma: that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret it self? And you could not but see, that Charity Maintayned did not alledg any Text, to proue the Churches infallibility, but only to shew the difficulty of Scripture taken alone, by those examples, which he alledges, and Protestants interpret in a different sense from Catholiques, and in which you differ from both. So that, even by your disagreeing from Catholiques, in the meaning of those places, you in fact, and Deeds, proue the truth of that which your adversary affirmed: and the more you object against Charity Maintayned, the more you prejudice yourself, and make good these his words: If words cannot perswade you, that in all controuersies you must rely vpon the infallibility of the Church; at least yeald your assent to Deeds. Which thing considered, I haue no obligation at all, to examine your Objections, against the interpretation of those Texts in favour of the Churches infallibility, for which purpose they were not produced by Charity Maintayned, but only to proue, by an Argument drawen from Experience, and Deeds, or matter of fact, that there must be some Living Guide, to interpret Scripture; and you were wise enough, not to take notice of this Argument, which was evident by experience, but dissemble the matter, and divert the Reader, with discourses no less repugnant to Protestants, than Catholiks; and therefore your interpretations proue nothing, because they proue too much, even in the common grounds, and tenets of Protestants. Nevertheless, by way of supererogation, I will, examine all that you can object.

72. (N. 69.) you bring certaine objections, in a different letter, as if they were made eypressly by Ch: Ma: and yet I finde them not in him, whatsoever they be in themselves. Then, (N. 70.) you say; The Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not privaile against her.

73. Answer; you know we deny this, and in diverse occasions haue given good reasōsfor our denyall. And what cā be more incōsistēt, with [Page 762]being of a true Church, than errour against Faith, which Faith is the most essentiall constitutiue, of the Church, or congregation of Faithfull people. Yourself teach, that every errour repugnant to Divine Revelation, is damnable of itself; and what can set the gates of Hell more open, than damnable sinnes? Neither can you flie to ignorance, whereof you cā haue no certainty, especially for the whole vniversall Church, and yet we are certaine by our Saviours Promise, that the gates of Hell, cannot prevaile against her; whereof we could not be certaine, if the Church may erre damnably, and be excused only by ignorance, which, as I saied, is an vncertaine hidden thing. Beside, The Church being appointed, by our Saviour Christ, to be the teacher of all Christians, it is essentially necessary, that she cannot erre, even by ignorance, but must be believed to be infallible, in all matters, belonging to Faith; seing otherwise we cannot belieue her with certainty in any point, fundamentall, or not fundamentall, as you confess, in this Chapt. (N. 36.) that vnless the Church be infallible in all things we cannot rationally belieue her for her owne sake, and vpon her owne word and Authority in any thing. For an authority subject to errour can be no firme or stable foundation of my belief in any thing. Now that the office of the Church is to teach all Christians, you teach, (Pag. 119. N. 164.) in these words: Though the visible Church shall alwaies, without faile propose so much of Gods Revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to heaven; for otherwise it will not be the visible Church, yet it may sometimes ad to this Revelation things superfluous, nay gurtfull, nay in themselves damnable. And in this Chapter (N. 78.) you say: That the true Church alwaies shall be the maintainer and Teacher of all necessary truths, you know we grant, and must grant; for it is the Essence of the Church to be so, and any company of men were no more a Church without it, then any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. But as a man may be still a man, though he want a hand or an eye, which yet are profitable parts, so the Church may be still a Church, though it be defectiue in some profitable truth. And as a man may be a man, that has some biles, and botches on his body; so the Church may be the Church, though it haue many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice. Out of these sayings of yours, this argument offers it self: The Church is essentially a Teacher of all necessary truths (And consequently we are to belieue her in such points;) But the Church cannot be believed in necessary points, vnless we belieue her to be infallible, in all that she proposes as matter of Faith: This also is our Doctrine; Therefore we must belieue her to be infallible in [Page 763]all points: So that in denying the vniversall infallibility of the Church, you contradict both truth, and your owne Assertions.

74. And heere I must put you in minde, of your saying, that there is difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls, and an infalllible Guide in Fundamentalls, and yet we haue heard you say, that the Church is an infallible Teacher of so much as is necessary for salvation, and what is to be an infallible Teacher, or Proposer, but to be an infallible Guide? And then further, seing you say (P. 105. N. 139.) To make any Church an: infallible Guide in Fundamentalls, would be to make it infallible in all things, which she proposes and requires to be believed; we must necessarily infer, that de facto, the Church which is an infallible Teacher, and Guide, is infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed.

75. This is not all that I am to deduce, from your saied Assertions. You say in this same Page and Number: No Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide, but only a Church of some certaine Denomination: To which Proposition, I subsume; But we haue heard you say that it is of the essence of the Church to be a Teacher of all necessary Truths, and that she shall alwayes without faile propose so much as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven; Therfore you must grant, that there is some infallible Church of one denomination; which is the direct contradictory of your Title to this Chapter. Moreover; how do these things agree with your saying heere (N. 78.) If we grant that the Apostle calls the Catholique Church the pillar and ground of Truth, and that not only because it should, but because it alwayes shall and will be so, yet after all this you haue done nothing, vnless you, can shew that by Truth heere is certainly ment, not only all necessary to salvation, but all that is profitable, absolutely and simply All. How, I say, doth this agree with your saying now cited out of your (Pag: 105. N. 139.) To make any Church an infallible guide in Fundamentalls, would be to make it Infallible in all things, which she proposes and requires to be believed; seing you say also, that although it were granted that S. Paule affirmed, that the Church shall, and will, be the Pillar of all necessary truth, yet it doth not follow, that she is so in all Truth? And now, how many clustars, as I may say, of Contradictions, may be gathered from your owne words, related by me, in this small compass?

76. First; The Church is an infallible Teacher in Fundamentalls, and yet is not an infallible guide; or if you grant her to be an infallible [Page 764]Guide; then Secondly; you say; to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls, would be to make it infallible in all things, which she proposes, and requires to be believed; and yet you say the Church is an infallible Teacher or guide in all Fundamentalls, and deny her to be infallible in all things, which she proposes, and requires to be believed. Thirdly; How can you make a distinction, between the Churches being infallible in Fundamentalls, and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls, seing you teach that she is both infallible in Fundamentalls, and a Teacher of them? Fourthly. How doe you say? That to be a Teacher of all necessary truth is the Essence of the Church and that any company of men were no more a Church without it, then any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. And yet in this Chapter (N. 39.) to proue, that there is a wide difference betweene being infallible in Fundamentalls, and an infallible Guide in Fundamentalls, you say; A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet in himself be infallible, but he could not be a Guide to others. A man or a Church that were invisible, so that none could know how to repaire to it for direction, could not be an infallible Guide, and yet he might be in himself infallible? For, these examples, if they be to any purpose, declare, that to be a Guide, or Teacher, is accidentall, and not the Essence of the Church (and for that purpose you bring them) and yet I never imagined, that the Essence of any thing is separable from it, as you say it is impossible a thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. Fiftly; If it be essentiall to the Church to be an infallible Teacher, or Guide in Funmentalls, which you say she cannot be, without an vniversall infallibility in all Points, seing every errour destroyes that vniversall infallibility, which is essentiall to such a Teacher as the Church, how can you say, that every errour doth not destroy the Church, but that she may erre, and yet the gates of hell not prevaile against her? To what purpose then, do you talk of eyes, and hands, which are not essentiall or necessary parts of a man; or of biles and botches, which are accidentall to his body, and not necessaryly destructiue thereof, as you must suppose; wheras infallibility is essentiall to the Church of Christ, and is destroyed by errour, which cannot possibly consist with infallibility, that is, with certainty never to erre. Into how may inextricable difficulties, and contradictions do you cast yourself, vpon a resolution, not to acknowledg the infallibility of Gods Church, the only meanes to cleare all these perplexityes? And how inconsequently, and perniciously, [Page 765]and you compare botches and biles, to errour against Faith, which you confess to be damnable sinnes, and without repentance absolutely inconsistent with salvation?

77. But to returne to the maine point. If the Church were not vniversally infallible, Christian Faith could not be infallible, as I proved hertofore, and so the gates of Hell, should prevaile against Christianity, which by that meanes, should come to want, a thing absolutely necessary to salvation, necessitate medij, to witt, divine infallible Faith. Your Parity betweene a particular man, or congregation, and the vniversall Church, hath bene answered hertofore; and is confuted, by what we haue saied heere; that infallibility is essentiall to the vniversall Church; and nothing can exist without that which is essentiall to it, but no such Priviledge of infallibility, is necessary, or is promised to particular men, or Churches. Finally, seing that according to Potter, and other Protestants, the Promise of our Saviour, that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against the Church, must be vnderstood of the whole Church, as well Primitiue, as of consequent Ages; by what evident Text of Scripture, can you proue, that the same words, must haue different significations, in order to the Primitiue Church (which was infallible in all Points of Faith) and the vniversall Church of following Ages? As in a like occasion I saied hertofore. Yourself (N. 72.) speak to Charity Maintayned thus: vnless you will say, which is most ridiculous, that when our Saviour saied, He will teach you &c: and he will shew you &c: He meant one you in the former clause, and an other you in the latter▪ If it be most ridiculous, that one word should be referred to different Persons, I may say ad hominem, why ought it not to seeme most ridiculous, that in the same sentence, the same words, the gates of Hell shall not privaile, must signify two differēt kinds, of not prevailing (one against fundamētall, ād an other against vnfundamentall errours) in order to one, and the same word, Church?

78. In your (N. 71.) you pretend to answer the Text which Ch: Ma: saieth may be alledged for the infallibility of the Church, out S. Jo: (14. V. 16.17.) I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the spirit of truth. And Jo: (16.13.) but when he, the Spirit of truth commeth, he shall teach you all truth. You answer, first; that one may fall into error, if this all truth be not simply all, but all of some kind. Secondly, that one may fall into some error, even contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently, and not irresistibly, so that be may learne [Page 766]it if he will not, so that he must and shall, whether be will or no. Now who can assertaine me, that the Spirits teaching is not of this nature? Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your Doctrine of free will in believing? Thirdly you say (N. 72.) that these promises were made to the Apostles only.

79. Answer; These places were alledged by Dr. Potter, to proue that the Church cannot erre, against any Fundamentall Truth. Which limitation I haue confuted already, and joyntly your first Answer. Your Second, and Third are directly against the Doctor, who (Pag: 151.) teaches that the Promises which our Lord hath made vnto his Church for his assistance, are intended to the Church Catholique, and they are to be extended only to Points Fundamentall. And then he alledges the saied text (Joan: 16.13. And Chap: 41.61.) adding, that, Though that Promise was direstly and primarily made to the Apostles, yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church, and is verifyed in the Church vniversall. Now if the Church cannot erre fundamentally, she is taught by the holy Ghost, not only sufficiently, but effectually. And if those Promises were made to the Apostles, not only primarily as Potter affirmes, but to them only, as you say, how could the Doctor proue by them the Infallibility of the Church for all Fundamentalls? Can a Text of Scripture proue that to which it nothing belongs? As well, by this Text, interpreted as you doe, he might haue proved you, or himself, or any other infallible in Fundamentall Points! So that now I must defend the Doctor against Mr. Chill., who among all English Protestants, was picked out as a fit champion, to maintayne the cause of Protestants, and defend Potters Booke. You are greatly mistaken, and offend against the knowen Rule which Logicians give for Division, while you say, one may be taught only sufficiently, and not irresistibly, as if these, were adequately the membra dividentia, of being taught; whereas one may be taught effectually, and neither sufficiently only, nor yet irresistibly, as hath bene declared more than once. Do not yourself tell vs heere, that the saied Promises were made to the Apostles only? Who I hope you will say, were taught effectually, and not sufficiently only: Otherwise we cannot be sure but that de facto, they deviated from the direction of the Holy Ghost, and so we can haue no certainty, that their writings are infallible. Or if the doctrine of freewill, which you Socinians also defend, can consist with the infallibility of the Apostles, how can it be inconsistent with freewill in the Church? You say: The word in the [Page 767]Originall is hodegesei which signifyes to be a guide, and director only, not to compell or necessitate. But what is this to any purpose against vs, who teach nothing against Freewill by our Doctrine of the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost? And yet I must say, that you vse fraude, by writing so, as if the word did signify a guide or director only, with exclusion of being necessitated, whereas the Greeke word is verified, whether one be a guide or director, resistibly, or irresistibly. For in both cases, he is a guide: and so Cornelius à Lapide interprets it, ducet rectâ viâ ad virtutem, quasi dux viae, which one may doe, either by leading, and leaving one to his liberty to follow, or by forcing him to followe his guidance: and so the places which you alledg out of Scripture, of men that had eyes to see and would not see, are to no purpose, except to ingage you, to answer them in case of the Apostles, whom, I suppose, you will not deny, to haue bene secured from errour, both sufficiently, and effectually. Yea you take much (vnprofitable) paines to proue, that the saied Texts were by our Saviour meant only of the Apostles, by reason of circumstances, which appropriate them to his Disciples.

80. But Dr. Potter hath told you, that Though that promise directly and primarily was made to the Apostles, yet it was made to them in behoof of the Church, and is verified in the Church vniversall. For we may consider in the Apostles, a double capacity: either as they are private, and particular Persons; or as they respect, and represent, or beare the place of the Church, and for her good receiue some Power or priviledg, and not meerely with relation to their owne persons. And therefore, although some words in the places which you alledge, be referred to the Apostles only, yet it does not follow, that all must be restrained to them: Otherwise you will destroy the whole Church of Christ, and all Christianity. Nothing is more necessary in Christian Religion, than Preaching to all Nations, and Baptizing, which our Saviour injoyned (Matth. 28. Mark 16. Luke 24.) yet, by your manner of arguing, it may be proved that they concerned the Apostles only. For it is saied, (Mark 16.14.) Last he appeared to those Eleven as they sate at the table, and he exprobrated their incrudelity, and hardness of hart, because they did not belieue them that had seene him risen againe: And (N. 15.16.) he saied to them, Going into the world preach the Ghospell to all Creatures, He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved. Heere you see, that although some circumstances be proper to the Apostles, as sitting at table, and incrudelity, yet it does not follow, [Page 768]that all must concerne them only; as, that preaching, and baptizing, belongs to the whole Church, I imagine you will not deny. In the same manner, (Matth. 28. N. 16.17.18.19.20.) divers things are specified, which belong to the Apostles only, (as going into Galilee, adoring, doubting, and our Saviours speaking to them) and yet his command, (Going, teach ye all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost) belongs to the whole Church. The like Argument may be taken out of S. Luke (Cap. 24. N. 44.45.46.47.48.49.) where some thing is personall to the Apostles, and we must not say, that pennance to be preached in his name, and remission of sinnes vnto all Nations (as is sayd N. 47.) belonged to the Apostles only, though it be expresly saied, beginning from Hierusalem, which seemes proper to the Persons of the Apostles, and yet Preaching Pennance (a thing common to the whole Church) is set downe in the same verse with (beginning from Hierusalem,) which was personall to the Apostles. Thus, (Joan. 20.) Some particulars are spoken, and done to the Apostles only; as (N. 21.) He saied to them againe: Peace be to you; and (N. 22.) He breathed vpon them; and yet (N. 23.) he gives them Power to forgiue sinnes; which Power did not cease with the Death of the Apostles. These instances shew, that you must answer your owne Objections, and will force you to confess, that it is no good way of arguing, that all things in the Texts, which Ch. Ma:, and Dr. Potter, alledg out of S. John, for the infallibility of the Church, must be appropriated to the Apostles, for the substance, because some circumstances concerne them alone; and that we must prudently distinguish, betwene those two kinds of things; as certainly not to be led into any errour against Faith, is most necessary for the Church, which God hath appointed for Teacher of all Christians, and Judge of controversies. And that the Apostles may be, and are, sometyme considered as publike persons, and with relation to the Church, appeares, out of S. Matth. (Cap. 28.) where some things belong to the Apostles only, (as going into Galilee &c.) and other to the Church in them, or to them in the Church, as (beside Teaching and Baptizing N. 19.) Behold I am with you all dayes, even to the consummation of the world, which signifyes, that he would be with them in their Successours, who were to continue for all Ages after the death of the Apostles, with whom he could not be present in themselves, to the consummation of the world, who were not to liue to the worlds end; as you say heere; Did he, or could [Page 769]he haue saied to your Church, which then was not extant, I haue many things to say vnto you, but you cannot beare them now? So we may apply the like words; Did he, or could he say to his Apostles, I will be with you to the worlds end, when they were not to be extant? But the truth is, when our Saviour spoke to his Apostles, our Church was then extant, in the Apostles; and the Apostles were to liue to the worlds end, in their successours, and so our Saviours promise is fulfilled, of being alwaies with the Apostles in their Successours.

81. You object to Charity Maintayned, that In the very text by him alledged, there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to. For there it is saied, the Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth, but also will shew you things to come. But this is answered by what hath bene saied already. Though it were granted, that some thing was promised to the Apostles alone, it doth not follow, that the whole promise was so restrained as I haue shewed aboue. Besides, Christian Faith teaches vs many things to come; as the comming of Antichrist; the generall judgement, and signes precedent to it; The Resurrection of the dead; The eternall punishment of the wicked, and reward of the just &c: For this cause S. Anselm (apud Cornelium a Lapide in 4. Ephes: N. 11.) teaches, that by Prophets in that Text are vnderstood interpreters of Scriptures, because per eas futura justorum gaudia, malorumque supplicia hominibus praenunciant. If by shewing things to come, you vnderstand the Gift of Prophecy; Do you hold it as certaine that every one of the Apostles had that Gift, as that they were infallible in matters of Faith? Are you certaine, that every Apostle, could haue written the Apocalyps of S. John? So that indeed if you will needs haue a full parity, between being led into all Truth, and knowing of things to come, you will be found, not to be certaine that the Apostles were infallible in matters of Faith. Morover, it is to be observed, that to be infallible was essentiall to the office of Apostolate, or teaching the Church, as the Gift of Prophecy is accidentall, and was communicated to others, as we read in the Acts; as also it was accidentall to speak all toungs, to haue bene called immediatly by our Saviour (as S. Matthias was not, and yet was an Apostle) to haue inflicted Censure of Excommunication, with some visible punishment, and the like extraordinary ornaments, or Priviledgs: And therfore no wonder, if infallibility in matters of Faith be communicated to the Church, though the knowledg of things to come, were not: though [Page 770]indeed de facto, God hath, and ever will, communicate the Gift of Prophecy, to his Church, as is certaine by the vndoubted Authority of the best writers of all Ages. You see now, that neither Charity Maintayned, nor other Catholique writers, cite the saied text by halfes, as you affirme (N. 72.) seing the latter clause (of shewing things to come) makes nothing against them, nor alters the sense of the text, as I haue shewed. But now good Sr. I beseech you reflect, whom you impugne, while you would perswade men, that Charity Maintayned, and generally our writers of controversies, when they entreate of this Argument, cite this text perpetually by hafes: seing Dr. Potter (Pag: 151.) cites this very same place and (leaves out those words will shew you things to come) for which you accuse vs of citing that sentence by halfes: especially if you call to mynd, that he brings that text to proue, that the Church cannot faile in Fundamentall points, which as I saied were no proofe, if it were meant of the Apostles only, as you would proue it was, by the words, omitted by the Doctor no less than by C: Ma: (he will shew you things to come.) To all which I add; that seing you say, that text concerned the Apostles only, it must signify an infallibility both in Fundamentall, and vnfundamentall Points, and therfore seing the Doctor confesses it to be verifyed in the vniversall Church, she must be infallible in all Points. But it is no wonder that you contradict your Client Potter since you so perpetually contradict yourself.

82. In your (N. 71.) you seeke to divert me to the controversyes about publique service in an vnknowne tongue, and communion vnder both kinds. But you know, Catholique Writers haue answered, all that can be objected against vs, in these two questoins; and whatsoever you can alledg, if it were of any moment, as it cannot be, it could only shew, that Scripture, even in that which to you seemes so plain, is indeed obscure, seing so many learned, holy, and laborious men, see no such evidence, as you pretend; yea they are certaine, that your pretended cleare interpretation, is an Heresie, Yet because you alledge against vs without any cause a greeke word edoke, I must not omitt to tell you with truth, that Protestants in this Point of the Sacrament, shamefully falsify the Greeke Text, (1. Cor. 11. V. 27.) saying in their Translation; Whosoever shall eate this bread, and drinke this cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord: wheras the Greeke word signifyes vel, or: and so you should say; Whosoever shall eate this bread, Or drinke the cup &c. which fraud [Page 771]you vse, to proue the necessity of Communion in both kindes.

83. Your (N. 73.74.) containe no difficulty, which hath not bene answered. Only I may note, that you put some Objection in a different letter, which in Cha. Ma. I find not. The Promise, that the Holy Ghost was to remaine, with the Apostles for ever, was not restrained to, yet is verifyed in them, because they remaine for ever in their successours, as you will say, they remaine in their Writings. Your friged interpretation of ever, that is, for the time of their lives, is confuted by what hath bene cited, out of S. Matthew (Chap. 28.20.) I am with you all daies, even to the consummation of the world; And surely, the end of the world, signifyes a larger extent, than the end of their lives, Nay, you are not content with limiting all Promises made to them, to the tearme of their life, but it seemes you make it not absolute, but only conditionall, even for that short tyme. For you say, The spirit would abide with them, if they kept their station, vnto the very end of their lives. Behold an (if) a condition, If they kept their station, which, if it be in their free will not to doe (as your, if, supposes it to be) then according to your Divinity, they might faile, and all Promise, made to them proue ineffectuall: neither can we be certaine, that de facto, they haue not failed, and fallen into errour, in their preaching, and writing Scripture. Nay, do you not teach, and labour to proue, that the Apostles (even after the receiving of the Holy Spirit which you confess was promised to abide with them for ever, that is, say you, for their whole life, and that they should never want the spirits assistance, vnto the very end of their lives,) did erre in a command clearely revealed to them, about preaching the Gospell to Gentills? How then was that Promise performed, if it were absolute? And if only conditionall; you grant no more to them than to any other; neither can we be certaine, that they haue not erred in other things, as you say, they erred in that. Your alledging some Texts, to proue, that the word (ever) may be taken for the whole time of a mans life, is not to any purpose, vnless you had also proved, that it is so vnderstood, in the place of which we speak. (Joan 14.16.) And seing even by this example, the same words are capable of different senses, and that Protestants cannot possibly giue any Rule, which Text is to be interpreted by what others, we must conclude, that Scripture alone, cannot be a perfect Rule of Faith.

84. But now, in your (N. 75.) we find threates, that you will work wonders, and that we may not be so much overseene, as to pass them [Page 772]without due reflection, you say to Charity Maintayned; This will seeme strang newes to you at first hearing, and not farre from a prodigy. But it is not strang, that heere you doe that, which you doe in divers other occasions, that is, impeach the infallibility of the Apostles, and consequently, depriue their preaching, and writing, and all Christian Religion, of all certainty; though I grant it to be very strang and a prodigy, that, notwithstanding this, you will pretend to be a Christian, and that your Book is approved by, and published, among, Christians. For, besides what I noted even now, about your conditionall promise made to the Apostles, If they kept theyr station; heere you declare clearely, and at large; that the Promise of which S. John speakes, was appropriated to the Apostles (as you speak) and that, it is not absolute, but as you expressly say, most clearly and expressly conditionall; being both in the words before restrained to those only, that loue God and keepe his commandements: And in the words after flatly denyed to all whom the scriptures stile by the name of the world, that is, as the very Antithesis giues vs plainly to vnderstand, to all wicked and wordly men. Behold the place entire as it is set downe in your owne Bible. If you loue me keepe my commandements, and I will ask my Father, and he shall giue you an other Paracle [...]e, that he may abide with your for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receiue. And then, speaking of the Pope, you say; We can haue no certainty that the Spirit of Truth is promised to him but vpon supposall, that he performes the condition, where vnto the promise of the Spirit of Truth is expressly limited, viz. That he loue God and keep his commandements; and of this, not knowing the Popes heart, we can haue no certainty at all. Doth not this interpretation, and discourse, clearly declare, that we can haue no certainty of the Apostles infallibility, because not knowing their hearts we can haue no certainty at all, that when they preached, and wrote, they did loue God, and keepe his commandements? Besides; in the doctrine of Protestants, we cannot be certaine by certainty of Faith, that the Apostles kept the commandemēts, except first we belieue Scripture and yet we cānot belieue Scripture itself, except first we belieue the Apostles to be infallible, and to haue kept that condition of keeping the commandements; Therfore we must belieue Scripture, before we belieue, the Apostles to keepe the commandements, and be infallible; and we must belieue the Apostles to be infallible and to keepe the commandements, before we belieue Scripture; which is an inextricable Circle; and a contradiction implying finally, that we belieue Scripture for it self (which you confess no [Page 773]wise man will affirme) and that the belief of Scripture, should be, cause of the belief of Scripture, and the same thing be necessary to the first production of it self. Wherefore you must either renounce this Interpretation, of a conditionall Promise, made, yea (as you expresly affirme) Appropriated to the Apostles, or els bid Scripture, and all Christianity, fare well. And so you cannot haue certainty of this particular, that God requires the saied condition of loue, and Obedience.

85. But to answer directly; I say you miscite the words of S. John, while you distinguish only by a comma (If you loue me keepe my commandements) from the following words (And I will ask my Father, and he shall giue you an other Paraclete) whereas both in our, and in the Protestants English Bible, they are distinct Sections, or Verses, thus; (N. 15) If you loue me keep my commandements; And then (N. 16.) And I will a [...]k the Father, and he will giue you an other Paraelete. Where it appeares that the condition is not; If you loue me, I will ask the Father, and he will giue you &c. as you set it downe, and there vpon affirme that, the Promise is restrayned to those only that loue God and keep his commandements; but the condition, or rather Assirmation, or Consequence, is this: If you loue me, keep my commandements: And so the sense is very plain, and perfect, and the condition is terminated in the same (N. 15.) And that these words, If you loue me, keep my commandements, render a perfect sense, is manifest of it self, and by the like Texts of Scripture, as in the same Evangelist (Cap. 15. N. 14.) You are my friends, if you doe the things that I command you; and (V. 10.) If you keep my precepts, you shall abide in my Loue. As contrarily, the holy Ghost is promised absolutely, in this (C: 14. V. 26.) The Paraclete the Holy Ghost, shall teach you all things. And in the argument, prefixed before this Chapter, in the Protestants English Bible, printed (Ann: 1622.) it is sayed; (Christ N. 15. requireth loue and Obedience. 16. Promiseth the Holy Ghost the comforter) without expressing any dependance of the saied Promise (V. 15.) vpon loue and obedience. V. 16. As also Joan: 16.13. (which Text is alledged both by Charity Maintayned and Dr. Potter) it is saied without any condition when he, the Spirit of Truth commeth, he shall teach you all Truth. And (Matth: 16.18.) these words The gates of Hell shall not prevaile against her which both Charity Maintayned, and the Doctor cite, are absolute. And (Matth: 28. V. 20.) behold (which particle holy Scripture is wont to vse, when it speaks of some great, or strang thing) I am with you all daies, even to the consummation of the world. Which wordsare both absolutely, [Page 774]without any condition, and cannot be restrayned to the lives of the Apostles: and therfore, dato, non concesso, that the Promise had bene made to the Apostles, vpon condition of Loving God; it does not follow, that the same condition, must be required in every one of their successours; but for the merit of the Apostles, it may be communicated to others, in whom the Apostles liue, and so what is granted to them, is a reward bestowed vpon the Apostles; as heroicall acts, of particular men, are rewarded both in themselves, and in their posterity for their sake, though their successors be destitute of that worth, and desert, without which condition, theyr first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity, or Prerogatiue, which afterward is derived to their posterity absolutely, and without any such condition, as was required in the beginning. Morover; though it were granted, that keeping the commandements, were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility; yet you will never be able to proue, by any evident Text of Scripture, that it is necessary, in respect of every particular person; it being sufficient, that it be veryfied of the Church Catholique, of which even Dr. Potter (Pag: 10.) saieth; that it is not improbable only, but meerely impossible, the Catholique Church should be without Charity. Our blessed Saviour, before he encharged the care of his Church, vpon S. Peter, exacted of him a triple profession of loue; and will you therfore haue none to be lawfull Pastors, except such as loue God aboue all things, and are in state of Grace, and free from deadly sinne? Haue you a mynd to fetch from Hell, the condemned, and seditious heresy of Wicliffe; That, If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne, he doth not indeed, either giue Orders, consecrate, or Baptize? As authority and Jurisdiction, are not of that nature of things which require Charity, and the State of Grace, so neither is infallibility, no more than working of Miracles, Gift of tongues, and the like, which by Divines are called Gratiae gratis datae, and therfore you cannot imagine, with any reason that the Holy Ghost cannot be given for some Effects, to any who is not in state of Grace: and I hope you will, at least pretend, to be more certaine, that Scripture is of infallible Authority, than that every Canonicall Writer did loue God, and keep the commandements, when they wrote Scripture, yea of some Bookes of Scripture some call in Question, who were the writers of them. I will not heere stay, to put you in minde, that it is common among Protestants, to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandements; must they therfore deny the infallibility of the Apostles? They are so farre from doing so, that they [Page 775]hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentalls, notwithstanding the impossibility, in their opinion, of keeping the commandements!

85. Now I hope it appeares, that your two Syllogismes goe vpon a false ground, that the promise made to the Apostles is conditionall, and so proue nothing. As also, that you breath too much gall, and vanity, in saying, that Charity Maintayned and generally all our Writers of Controversy, by whom this Text is vrged, with a bold Sacriledge, and horrible impiety, somewhat like Procrustes his cruelty, perpetually cut of the head and foot, the beginning and end of it. For I suppose, you will not hold Dr. Potter for a Writer of Controversy against Protestants, and yet he cites this Text, and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts, cutting of not only the head ād foot, but also the breast and middle thereof, therby shewing his judgment, that the other words, which you cite out of the precedent (15. and the following 17. verse) make nothing to that purpose, for which that Text is produced, that is, the infallibility of the Apostles, and Church; and that you by citing those different verses without distinction, not only joyne head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together, which is no less monstrous than to cutt them of, but doe indeed vtterly destroy, and depriue it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles, from whom this very Text must receiue, all the certainty it can haue. Do not I maintayne the most perfect kind of Charity, in defending my adversary the Doctor, in this occasion, of being forsaken, and even impugned, by whom alone he hoped to be relieved? And indeed Dr. Potter only, and not Charity Maintayned stands in need of defence, seing he alledged those texts which the Doctor cites only to shew, in deeds, that Scripture alone, is not sufficient to interpret itself, whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to proue the infallibility of the Church, in all Fundamentall Points, which is the common tenet of Protestants, and yet you overthrow it by making our Saviours Promise not absolute, but depēding vpon a volūtary, vncertaine condition.

86. In your (N. 76.) you endeavour, divers wayes, to elude the Argument, which is wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church, taken out of S. Paul (1. Tim: 3.15.) where the Church is saied to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth.

87. First, you say; Charity Maintayned, is somewhat too bold with S. Paul. For it is neither impossible nor improbable, these words, the Pillar and ground of truth, may haue reference not to the Church, but to Timothy. [Page 776]But this exposition, is not only against Calvin, and other Protestants, who expresly refer those words to the Church, but also it cannot well agree with the Greek: And even the Protestant English Translation reades it as we doe, for as much as belongs to our present purpose. Howesoever, it appeares, by this very example, how hard, and impossible it is, to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone, which every one, will find meanes to interpret, for his best advantage, though it be not donne without violence to the Text. Neither is it heterogeneous, as you argue, that S. Paul having called the Church a House, should call it presently a Pillar. For you should consider, that he calls it a House, and Pillar, in different respects: A House of God; the Pillar (not of God, but) of Truth. You will not deny that the Primitiue Apostolicall Church, was vniversally infallible, and so, was both the House of God, and Pillar of Truth; and therefore it is nothing absonous, or heterogeneous, that the metaphor of a House, and of a Pillar, be applyed to the same thing. Cornelius à Lapide, heere, saieth: Alludit Apostolus ad Bethel, de qua viso ibi Domino, dixit Jacob Genes: 28. verè non est hic aliud nisi Domus Dei, & porta Caeli. If therefore in that place of Genesis to which the Apostle alludes, the same is saied, to be a House, and a Gate, in diverse respects, a House of God, a Gate of Heaven; why may he not say of the Church, that it is a House of God, a Pillar of Truth? What greater repugnance is there betwene a House, and a Pillar, than betwene a House and a Gate? If men may take the liberty to interpret holy Scripture by such light subtilityes, what certainty can ever be gathered from any Text? What difficulty is there to conceiue, that the Church should be the House, wherein Gods resides, and raignes, by infallibly assisting it, and yet be a Pillar of Truth, to teach others? Especially seing God assists the Church, to the end she may teach others? Passiuè taught; Actiuè, teaches; as yourself avouch heere (N. 78.) that it is the essence of the Church, to be alwayes the maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth. But yourself profess not to relie vpon this interpretation, and therefore,

88. Secondly; you put vs in mynd, that the Church which S. Paul heere speaks of, was that in which Timothy conversed, and that was a particular Church, and not the Roman, and such we will not haue to be vniversally infallible.

89. Answer; Although S. Paul spoke to Timothy, who conversed [Page 777]in the particular Church of Ephesus, whereof he was Bishop; yet he puts him in mynd, of his duty, by a Motiue and Reason, more vniversall, and certaine (as Proofes are wont to be) than could be taken, from that particular Church alone, that is, he gaue a Reason, which did concerne it, as a member of the vniversall Church, which being the Pillar, and Ground of Truth, could not but exact of Him, and every Bishop, a zeale to imitate, with care and vprightness, their mother the Church, in conserving, for their parte, that Truth, which the Church teaches, and from which she cannot swarue. To which very purpose, Cornelius à Lapide vpon these words (Quae est columna & firmamentum veritatis) saieth: Addit hoc Apostolus, vt innuat Timotheo, magno cum studio ad haereses & errores devitandos & refellendos, purae veritati intelligendae, & praedicandae in Ecclesia, sibi incumbendum esse, adeoue se non judaizantium, aliorumue Novantium, sed Ecclesiae fidem sequi & praedicare debere, vtpote quae sit basis veritatis. And so I may retort your Argument, and say: S. paul speakes of a Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth; but Protestants teach, that no particular Church is such a Pillar, (even for things necessary to salvation, as they saie the vniversall Church is) Therefore S. Paul speaks not of a particular, but the vniversall Church. And by this, I confute what you answer,

90. Thirdly, (N. 77.) That many Attributes in Scripture, are not notes of performance, but of duty, and teach vs not what the thing or Person is of necessity, but what it should be. Ye are the salt of the Earth, said our Saviour to his Disciples: Not that this quality was inseparable from their Persons, but because it was their office to be so. For if they must haue bene so of necessity, and could not haue bene otherwise, in vaine had he put them in seare of that which followes, if the salt hath lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? So the Church may be by duty, the Pillar and Ground, that is, the Teacher of Truth, of all truth, not only necessary but profitable to salvation; and yet she may neglect and violate this duty, and be in fact the teacher of some Errour.

91. Answer; Even now it hath bene saied, that Potter, and other Protestants commonly teach, that the vniversall Church, cannot erre in Fundamantall Articles, as a particular Church may; and yet every particular Church, by duty, is a teacher of all Necessary Points; Therefore the vniversall Church must be more; a teacher by duty, and performance. Your Proofe, that to be the salt of the earth, (which was [Page 778]spoken to the Apostles) signifyes only, that it was infallibly certaine, they should be so, tends plainly to Atheisme, if the denyall of Scripture, and all Christianity, must bring to Atheisme, as certainly it must. For take away infallibility from the Apostles, what certainty can you haue, that in fact they haue not neglected and violated their duty, as you say the Church may. You still fall into the same mistake, that God cānot effectually moue vs, to the performance of a thing, without necessitating our will. Neither doth it follow, that in vaine our Saviour put them in feare of that which followes, if the salt hath lost his savour &c: For when God doth promise a thing, he doth not exclude meanes, or our endeavour, to the application of which he can also moue vs effectually, without prejudice to the freedom of our will. The Apostles in the Councell which they held at Hierusalem, were certaine not to determine any Errour; and yet they vsed great diligence, examination, and dispute; (Act: 15.7.) I suppose you will not deny that S. John was infallibly assisted in writting his Gospell, and yet S. Hierom (in praef: in Evangel. Matth:) saieth, that he could not be intreated to set on that holy Work, but vpon condition, that, indicto jejunio, in commune omnes Deum deprecarentur, the Christians should haue a fett fast, and all should joyne in prayer to God. Do you not belieue, that God did so assist the Writers of Canonicall Scripture, that they were infallible in their writings, and yet that they might exercise an act of obedience, and freely (though infallibly) follow the Direction of the Holy Ghost? It is cleare, that you must either deny freedom of will to the Writers, or infallibility to their writings, or grant, that free will, and infallibility, are not incompatible. I might add to all this, that men may loose themselves, not only by error in Faith, but also by an ill life, whereby Preachers destroy by deeds, what they pretended to build in words: Which Answer would evacuate the force of your Argument; but I haue saied enough of this matter.

92. Fourthly; (N. 78.) you answer; that, we must proue, that by Truth in the saied Text, is meant all Truth, both Fundamentall, and profitable; and that you grant it to be the Essence of the Church, to be a maintayner and teacher of all necessary truth. But this evasion, hath bene confuted already, out of your owne assertion, that we cannot belieue the Church in Fundamentall Articles, vnless she be infallible in all; and this vrges most clearely in your opinyon, who profess it impossible, to know, what Points in particular be Fundamentall. [Page 779]And I beseech you cōsider, that S. Paul speaks of the primitiue Church of those tymes, which you will not deny to haue bene infallible; ād therefore if he speak of the vniversall Church (as in this Fourth Answer you suppose he doth) you must grant, that Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall, and vnfundamentall Points: And so this Text cannot be restrayned to Fundamentall Truths.

93. Your (N. 79.80.) Pretends to answer the Argument, taken out of S. Paul (Ephes: 4.) He gaue some Apostles, and some prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, vnto the work of the Ministery, vnto the edifying of the Body of Christ: Vntill we meete all into the vnity of Faith, and knowledg of the Sonne of God, into a perfect mā, into the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ: That now we be not children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wickednes of men, in craftines, to the circumvention of Errour. Out of which words it appeares, that God hath left to his Church, Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of Saynts, which comprises the whole space of this world, vntill all be brought to the vnity of Faith, (which is necessary not only for the tymes of the Apostles, but also afterward) and in such manner, as that we be not wavering, but haue some firme infallible Ground, on which to relie, in matters of Faith.

94. To this place you answer; that (He gaue) is not to be vnderstood (He promised that he would giue vnto the worlds end) but that, not the infallibility, of any Church, but Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists &c: which Christ gaue vpon his Ascention, were designed by him, for the compassing all these excellent purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by their writings for ever.

95. But this interpretation, and restriction of yours, is not only repugnant to the Text itself, but against all Protestants, and I may saie, against all Christians, of whom not any deny, that our Saviour promised to giue Pastors, Doctors, Preachers, Ministers &c: to the worlds end; if not for contributing infallibility to the Church, at least for other good, and necessary purposes, and effects, as teaching, preaching, governing, enacting Lawes, inflicting Censures, punishing, administring Sacraments &c: Calvin (Instit: Lib. 4. Cap 1. N. 5.) proves this at large, out of this same Text of S. Paul. Your Socinian Brother Volkelius (de vera Relig: Lib: 6. Cap: 5.) cites even this place, and sayeth: Remansit Doctorum, Pastorumue officium, nec non alia [Page 780]quaedam. The same is the doctrine of other learned Protestants, as I haue set downe heretofore in particular, out of Brereley (Tract: 2. Cap: 2. Sect: 1.) In so much as Doctor Saravia (in defens: Tract: de diversis Ministrorum gradibus Pag: 10.) Professes to wonder with amazement, that any Question should be made thereof. And who are you, to oppose yourself against all other, and limit (He gaue) tothe tyme of the Apostles? Is any thing more common amongst Protestants, than that Preaching of the word, and Administration of Sacraments (and consequently Preachers, and Ministers of Sacraments) are essentiall to the true Church?

96. You object, that by, (he gaue) to vnderstand, he promised that he would giue to the worlds end is an interpretation, of which you say to Charity Maintayned, What reason haue you for this conceypt? Can you shew that the word, edoke hath this signification in other places, and that it must haue it in this place? Or will not this interpretation driue you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that God hath not performed his promise? Vnless you will say, which for shame I think you will not, that you haue now, and in all ages since Christ haue had Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists: For as for Pastors and Doctors alone, they will not serue the turne. For if God promised to giue all these, then you must say he hath given all, or els that he hath broken his promise. Neither may you pretend, that the Pastors and the Doctors were the same with the Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, and therefore having Pastors and Doctors you haue all. For it is apparent, that by these names, are denoted seuerall Orders of men, clearely distinguished and diversifyed by the Originall Text; but much more plainly by your owne Translations; for so you read it, some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors: And yet more plainly in the paralell place 1. Cor: 12. to which we are referred by your vulgar Translation, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you.

97. Answer; this which you are pleased to stile a conceypt, is the conceypt of all Protestants, as I haue shewed. That the word dedit hath the signification of a Promise, in other places will appeare, to any that can but read the Concordance of the Bible, as Joan: (Epist: 1. Cap: 5. N. 11.) Dedit nobis vitam aeternam, which word dedit, saieth, Cornelius à Lapide vpon this place, significat firmitatem & certtudinem Promissionis divinae: Quod scilicet ita certi simus de vita [Page 781]aeterna, si in Fide & obedientia Christi perseveremus, perinde ac si actu ea nobis data esset, eamque reipsa possideremus: And S. Austine in (Psalmo. 60. N. 6.) vpon these words; Dedisti haereditatem timentibus nomen tuum; saieth: Perseveremus in timore nominis Dei; aeternus Pater non nos fallit; where it is cleare the word, dedisti signifyes a Promise of things; as Bellarmine also explicates the same dedisti, by, firmiter promisisti. S. John (C. 10. V. 28.) saieth, Ego vitam aeternam do eis, where Cornelius a Lapide saieth: Do ijs, quia nimirum promitto eis vitam aeternam. And so we see that (Dedit Apostolos &c:) expresses the certainty of Gods Promise, more thā if he had expressly saied, I will giue. But to what purpose, should I say more? seing there can be no more plaine signification, of dedit, than appointed, or constituted for his Church, Apostles &c: as appeares by the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter from the beginning, which was to exhort Christians to Charity, and keeping the vnity of Spirit in the bond of peace, as one body ād one Spirit; which exhortatiō as it is was directed to the Church of all ages, so the meanes to performe it, must extend to the worlds end; and this meanes S. Paul declares to be the Authority and offices of Apostles, Pastors &c: to the consummation of Saints, and meeting in vnity of Faith. And the same intention of the Apostle appeares, in that which you call the pararell place (1. Cor: 12.) where that (as he saied V. 24.) there might be no Schisme in the Body, he shewes that every one ought to be content, with his owne degree, seing God will haue it so, that in his Church, there should be different Degrees, functions, and Offices; and then (Vers: 27.) specifies Apostles, Prophets &c: All which declares, that he spoke of the Church for ever, to the worlds end, as Vnity is ever necessary, against Division, and Schisme.

98. And now, who is found guilty of blasphemous absurdity? We haue heard your Volkelius say: Remansit Pastorum, Doctorumque officium, nec non alia quaedam; and the same is the Doctrine of other Protestants. How then hath God performed his Promise, if for the performance therof; it be necessary, that in all ages there be Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, and that de facto there be not such, as you say, there are not? wheras Catholiques are certaine the Church shall never be destitute of such degrees; and therfore Protestants alone must be driven to that blasphemous absurdity, that God hath not performed his promise. And I may turne against yourself your owne argument, thus: [Page 782]Our Saviour Promised to his Church Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, as he Promised, Pastors, and Doctors; But he promised Pastors and Doctors for ever, (as Protestants teach:) Therfore he promised Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists for ever. And then further: seing our Saviour promised infallibility, to those of whom S. Paul speakes, as you suppose, we must firmely belieue, that they who shall remaine to the worlds end, are indued with infallibility.

99. But heere it is to be considered, that some things are essentiall to the Being of Apostolate, or Office of an Apostle; other are accidentall, without which it may consist. Of the essence of Apostolate, is, power of Order and Jurisdiction, in vtroque foro, as Divines speak; and infallibility for matters belonging to Faith, without which, men could not be obliged, to belieue them, with an Act of divine Faith, which requires absolute certainty. Of the other kind I haue spoken, and given examples, aboue; and I hope you will not deny power of excommunicating because it is not, as I may saie, seconded, with a visible delivering to Satan the person so censured; nor that Christians receiue not the holy Ghost, because they see no firy toungs, nor speak all languages. If then, power of Jurisdiction, ād Governing, be essētially required to the office of an Apostle (which power I hope you will not deny to remayne in the Church) and that accordingly, even the chief Protestant Saravia, (as is related by Adamus Contzen (in Cap: 16. Matth: V. 29. Quest: 1. N. 6.) teaches that the essence of Apostolate requires, Officium praedicandi, administrandi Sacramenta, & potestatem gubernandi, it cannot be denyed, but that, Apostolate, or Apostolicall office, for the substance, is, and shall remaine in the Church, to the worlds end. And therfore you spoke vnadvisedly (to say no more) in saying to Charity Maintayned; For shame you will not say, that you haue now, and in all Ages since Christ haue had Apostles &c: and yet, as a Divine ought to haue done, you goe not about to informe vs, in what the Essence of Apostleship consists. For if you will haue it consist in this, That they were chosen by our Saviour immediatly, you must exclude S. Matthias from the Apostolicall Colledg; and if you respect only the name of Apostle, you must increase the number of twelue, by adding Epaphroditus (Philip: 2.25.) and Andronicus, and Junia (Rom: 16.7.) who are saied to be noble among the Apostles.

100. But doubtless we cannot pretend to haue Prophets. Yes, we can; and with good reason. Your Uolkelius (Lib: 6. Cap: 5.) saieth: [Page 783] Prophetarum nomine in istis locis (1. Cor: 12.28. and Ephes: 4.11.) non veteres illos Prophetas, sed Apostolorum Socios intelligimus, qui eodem tempore in Ecclesia floruerunt, quorum officium erat futura praedicere, vel ocultiora quaedam Religionis Christianae misteria apud populum proponere. So hee: though it be strang, that he should say immediatly after, that this office hath ceased; seing none pretend more, than our new Reformers to declare so deepe and hidden mysteryes of Religion, that they were vnknowne to the whole Church before Luther. And that by Prophets in this place, are vnderstood interpreters of Scripture is the Judgment of S. Hierom, S. Ambrose (or whosoever is the Author of that work) S. Anselm, Haymo, S. Thomas, and others; in so much, as Suarez (disp: 8. de Fide sect: 3. N. 4.5.) not only affirmes, that the interpretation of Scripture is called Prophecy, but that perhaps in the New Testament, this acception is more frequent, than that other of revealing hidden things. And (beside what we haue cited out of Volkelius) this is also the interpretation of the Protestant Marloratus (1. Cor: 12. V. 28. and in this place Ephes: 4.11.) I need not repeete what I saied, that there are never wanting in Gods Church holy men, indued with the Gift of Prophecy. Neither are they only Evangelists, who wrote the Gospells, but as Uolkelius saieth loco citato; Evangelistae illi fuisse videntur, qui Apostolis salutiferum sempiternae faelicitatis nuntium terrarum Orbi afferentibus adhaerebant, eosque ea in rejuvabant. Seing then we haue proved, that we haue Apostles, there cannot want Evangelists in this sense: and we see that Act. (21. V. 8.) Philip is called an Evangelist; and S. Paul: (2. Timoth: 4. V. 5.) saieth to Timothy, Opus fac Evangelistae; so that not only they were Evangelists, who wrote, but those also who declared, and published the Gospell, to others: And Cornelius à Lapide cites the judgment of S. Ambros, Theoph: and S. Anselme, that Evangelists are deacons, as Philip was; Nam quamvis non sint Sacerdotes evangelizare tamen possunt ex cathedra, quemadmodum & Stephanus, & Pilippus: And S. Anselm, observes that even in these tymes Deacons sing the Gospell; and in their Ordination, they receyue power to preach the Gospell. But besides all this, I desire to know (when for explication of dedit, he gaue, you say it signifyes, that Christ gaue at his Ascension, Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists) what you meane by at his Ascension? Seing at our Saviours Ascension, there were no Evangelists, who wrote any Gospell of S. Matthew, that was the first, being written about eight [Page 784]yeares after our Saviour Ascension, ād the Gospell of S. John was written about the yeare our Lord ninetynine of; how then can you explicate (He gaue) to signify only what he actually left to his Church, and not with a reference to the future, what he was to leaue? The like Demand may be made, concerning the Apostles; considering, that S. Matthias was presently chosen, and S. Paul some two yeares after our Saviours Ascension, was extraordinarily called, to be an Apostle? Lastly; the same Promise, may respect different objects, according to their diversity of nature; and may be vnderstood, perpetuall in respect of those, which are alwayes necessary to the Church, and in order to others, limited to a tyme, according to their exigence; and so God should not faile of his promise, but performe it, according to the first intention therof; as Protestants are wont to say, that God promised the Gift of miracles for a tyme only, and yet it cānot be denyed, but that at the same tyme he gaue a command to preach, and baptize, and a promise, that he who believeth, and is baptized shall be saved; (Mark 16.) both which, were to last till the worlds end. You say; can you shew that the word edoke, hath this signification in other places, and that it must haue it in this place? Whereby you signify, that though it had this signification, in an hundred other places, yet that were not enough, to shew that it must haue it in this; which is very true. For, to be affirmed in Scripture but once, is as much as to be affirmed, a mill yon of tymes; and seing you can giue no certaine Rule, whether I must vnderstand, that one place by those many, or contrarily the greater number, by that one, it appeares, even by this, how hard a thing it is, to know the true sense of Scripture, without a Living Guide; which was the end for which Charity Maintayned alledged that Text (Ephes. 4.) and the other places of which we haue spoken; all which, though indeed they be cleare enough for the infallibility of the Church, yet we see, what evasions you seek to the contrary, yea and pretend, that your interpretation is evidently true, and the interpretation both of Protestants, and Catholiques manifestly false.

101. The rest of (N. 80.) about the sufficiency of Scripture alone, hath bene confuted in divers occasions. Your instance, (that if Galen, Euclid. &c. had writ compleat bodies of the sciences they professed, perspicuously, and by Divine inspiration, we would then hau: granted, that their works had beene sufficient to keep vs from errour, and from dissention in these matters) is but a begging of the Question, that Scripture is the only Rule of [Page 785]Faith; and because, exceptio firmat contrariam regulam, and that Scripture is not the totall Rule of Faith, we must retort your argument against yourself, and say, that by Scripture, which alone is not a compleat comprehension of all necessary points, we cannot be kept from errour and dissention in matters of Faith. Besides those Authors might preserue vs from errour and dissention, in vertue of Demonstrations, evident to naturall Reason, wherein all men agree. But the Objects of Faith are obscure, and Scripture not able to interpret itself, though it were supposed to containe all matters of Faith (as it doth not) and therefore a Living interpreter, is necessary, besides the written word.

102 Your (N. 81.) containes nothing but Passion, with the quintessence of Socinianisme, seing you expresly profess, that you are willing to leaue all men to their liberty; and therfore needs no answer, except what hath bene given hertofore. You do but cavill, at this saying of Charity Maintayned (all which words, or Texts, wont to be alledged for the infallibility of the Church, seeme clearly enough to proue that the Church is vniversally infallible,) as if it had indeed seemed to him, that those Texts did only seeme to proue; whereas it is evident, and so He expresly declared himself, he saied so, because he did not bring them for proofes, but only to shew, how hard, and impossible, it is to determine matters by Scripture alone, seing that which seemes to one, to be the plaine meaning of Gods Word, seemes not so to an other: though indeed the saied Texts do effectually proue the necessity of an infallible living Guide. But as you began, vpon a direct mistake, to examine the Texts which Charity Maintayned alledged, so it was very congruous, you should conclude with the like errour.

103. I might omitt the following Numbers, as contayning no reall difficulty, which hath not bene cleared hertofore. Yet I will note some passages, to prevent all suspicion of guiltiness, tergiversation, or artificiall dissimulation of what I could not answer. Only I intreate the Reader to reade the words of Charity Maintayned in himself, if he chance to find any difficulty. In your (N. 84.) you falsify the words of Charity Maintayned which are (N. 23.) Scripture is to be vnderstood literally (where you leaue of, but Charity Maintayned adds.) as it sounds; and you cannot deny, but according to the sound of the letter, or words, our interpretation of our Saviours Promises without any limitation, is more agreable to the sound of the words, which express or sound no restraint, than that of Potter, which restraines them to fundamentall points. [Page 786]And therefore your telling vs, that to literall is not opposed Restrayned, bu [...] Figuratiue, is impertinent; seing Charity Maintayned expresly spoke only of what did most sute with the sound of the letter; which whosoever restraines without evident necessity, doth as ill, or worse, than if he reduced it to a figuratiue sense: yea a reality and a Figure may stand together, as limited, and vnlimited cannot.

104. I say to your (N. 87.) that you and Dr Potter do not agree about those Texts concerning the infallibility of the Church, (as I haue shewed) and in divers other matters; which is a signe, you haue no certaine, cleare Rule, or meanes, for interpreting Scripture; as also appeares by the innumerable other disagreements of Protestants, which experience noe man will deny to be a good proofe. But, say you, If there be no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts, whilst we are left to ourselves, then it is impossible, that Protestants should agree in your fense of them, that the Chureh is vniversally infallible. Answer; You cannot, as long as you are left to yourselves, be assured with an infallible Act of Faith, what the meaning of those Texts is, by help only of those Meanes, which Protestants prescribe, for that purpose; seing they cannot exceed probability, as Protestants confess: whereas we rely vpon other infallible meanes, as Tradition, and Authority of the Church, which we proue to be infallible, independently of Scripture (which you also profess to receiue from the Church) and then we may find in Scripture, Texts, which being interpreted by the true Church, may beare witness to particulars concerning her; (for there can be no better reason to belieue one, than a belief that he is infallible) as you will not deny, but that if once we belieue Scripture to be the word of God, we may proue by it felf, truths concerning itself, as that it is divinely inspired, that it is profitable to teach, to correct &c. as also you must grant, that the Apostolicall primitiue Church, which you hold to be infallible, could beare witness to it self,

105. You vrge Charity Maintayned with this Demand: Why then saied you of the selfe same Texts, but in the Pags next before, these words seeme cleerely enough to proue that the Church is vniversally infallible. A sirange forge [...]fulness, that the same man, almost in the same breath should say of the same words. They seeme cleerely enough to proue such a conclusion true, and yet that three indifferent men, should haue no possible meanes, while they follow their owne reason to agree inche truth of this conclusion.

106. Answer; is it not a strang thing, that you should not distinguish [Page 787]betwixt videri, and videre: seeming, and seeing? seeming, doth not signify certainty or evidence, as seeing, doth; and he who sees the sunne shine at midday, will not say, that it seemes cleare enough, that the Sunne shines, but his very Act of seeing, makes it certaine and evident to him, that he sees. And if this be not true, that Charity Maintayned did not absolutely affirme, but only saied, it seemes cleare enough &c. Why do you (N. 81.) say to Him of the same words; Seeing you modestly conclude from hence, not that your Church is, but only seemes to be vniversally infallible, meaning to yourself; Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion. But of the intention and meaning of Charity Maintayned in alledging the saied Texts of Scripture, for the infallibility of the Church, we haue saied enough already.

107. I wonder, you are so vnjust, as to say, we proue the Church to be infallible, because she is infallible, seing our Doctrine is this; That we first proue the Church to be infallible, and then infer, that whatsoever she teaches being true, and that among other points she teaches, one is her owne infallibility, we may beleeue it even for her Authority, as I shewed you must say the same of Scripture, if once you belieue it to be the word of God.

[Page 788]

CHAP: XIII. THAT THE CREED CONTAINES NOT ALL POINTS NECESSARILY TO BE BELIEVED: IN ANSWER TO HIS FOVRTH CHAPTER.

1. REpetition of the same thing, will not I hope, seeme either needless, or fruiteless when it is necessary for some good purpose, and effect. I doe therfore intreate the Reader now, as I haue done heretofore, not to looke on the words, and arguments of Cha: Ma: as they are cited, and abbreviated, and obscured, and in a word, disadvantaged (to say no worse) by Mr. Chillingworth, but as they are delivered, by the Author himself.

2. Your first ten Numbers, or Sections, I omitt, as contayning nothing, which hath not bene answered already. Only I wish, you had declared, what your vnderstand in your (N. 2.) by these words: Every one of the fundamentall Rules of good life and action is to be believed to come from God, and therfore virtually includes an article of Faith. For if those Rules be revealed, they do not only virtually include an article of Faith, but they are properly, and formally, objects, and articles of Divine Faith. If they be not revealed by God, they are no more articles, or objects of Faith, than a thing not visible, can be the object of our eyes, or a thing without sound, or not audible, the object of our eares, &c. You say, they come from God, and therefore include virtually an Article of Faith. If you meane, they come from God, as he is the efficient Cause of all things; that is common to all Creatures, and therefore not sufficient to include an article of Faith: If they come from God, as revealing, and testifying them to be true; they are formall Objects of Faith, as I saied, and do not only virtually include an Article of Faith. But it may be feared, that in these words there lurkes some hidden poyson; as if the rules of good life [Page 789]and action, as they are knowen, by the light of naturall Reason (and not as they are revealed, and so become formall Objects of Faith) were sufficient, to direct our life, for bringing vs to salvation, and that no supernaturall knowledg were necessary. No less obscure are your other words, that, Fundamentall Doctrines of Faith, are such, as though they haue influence vpon our lives, as every essentiall Doctrine of Christianity hath, yet we are commanded to belieue them, and not to doe them. For by these words, how do you distinguish Credenda, from agenda, if both haue influence vpon our lives, and in neither of them, the act of our vnderstanding or assent, is that which we doe, but only it is the act which directs vs to doe other things, and so hath influence vpon our lives? But these things I omitt, and come to

3. Your (N. 11.) wherin you say to C: Ma: Your distinction between points necessary to be believed, and necessary not to be disbelieved, is more subtile than sound, a distinction without a difference. There being no point necessary to be believed, which is not necessary not to be disbelieved. Answer: this last is very true. For in that case, there concurrs both the Affirmatiue precept, of exercicing an explicite act of Faith, and the Negatiue, of not disbelieving any truth revealed by God. But that which you ad, 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 tyme in the same circumstances necessary to be believed is manifestly vntrue. For, when it is proposed to ones vnderstanding, that God hath revealed some Truth, he may truly judge, that there is no affirmatiue Precept, which obliges him, at that tyme to exercise any act of Faith, about that partioular object; and therfore may resolue to abstaine or forbeare, to produce any such assent of Faith, but think of something els (and may haue reason to doe so, v.g. if some act of an other vertue be more pressing at that tyme) and yet he should sinne damnably, if he did positively dissent: And so, at the same tyme it may be necessary not to disbelieue some Truth, and yet not be necessary, actually to belieue it. It is disputed in the schooles, whether the will can stay the vnderstanding, from yealding assent, to a conclusion deduced evidently, from evident Premisses. But no man can doubt, whether the will may draw our vnderstanding, from a positiue actuall assent, to the Objects of Faith, which are so obscure, that they require a pious affection in the will, which therfore may dissent, ād are so difficult, that for every act of faith, we need the particular supernaturall assistance of the Holy Ghost: and [Page 790]then what wonder is it, that we may abstaine from doing that, which is not in our sole power to performe? and to which we are forced, neither metaphysically, as I haue shewed, nor morally, because we suppose, there is no affirmatiue precept, to exercise such an act of Faith, in those circumstances. It seemes you haue a mynd against all Divines to make no difference between the affirmatiue, and Negatiue Precept of Faith, wherof Cha. Ma. speakes (Part 1. Chap: 3. N. 2.) and what he saieth, may be applied to our present purpose, and who will say, That every one, is alwayes obliged to be exercising a positiue act of Faith, vpon all those objects, which he can never disbelieue? May not a man, reading or hearing some part of Scripture, only conceiue it per primam apprehensionem, without affirming or denying, as when one learnes without Booke, or only considers the phrase, or writes as at a copie, and the like.

4. You continue your discourse, and say to Charity Maintayned, Yet that which (I belieue) you would haue saied, I acknowledg true, that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely, are yet necessary to be believed vpon a supposition, that they are knowen to be revealed by God: that is, become then necessary to be believed, when they are knowen to be Divine Revelations. But Ch. Ma: hath no reason to accept as a favour this explication of yours, which containes false doctrine, as if all truths became necessary to be believed, by an explicite, actuall belief, when they are known to be divine Revelations; which is not vniversally, or necessarily true, it being in rigor sufficient, that they be not disbelieved. This was the scope of Charity Maintayned; to shew, that to alledg the Creed, as containing all Fundamentall Points, was nothing to the purPose, for relief of Protestants, who differ in such manner, as what one believes to be revealed by God, an other rejects, and disbelieves; and therfore though it were granted that Protestants did agree in all the articles of the Creed, (which thing I haue demonstrated not to be true) nevertheless, they could not all pretēd to be saved because some of them must be convinced to reject Divine Revelations. But now for the Point in hand; you know all Christians belieue, Every Text of Scripture to be revealed by God; are they therfore obliged, to be still exercising an explicite act of Faith, concerning them? Rather of the two, and speaking in generall, and perse loquendo, or ex natura rei, if they be not Fundamentall articles, it may so fall out, that you are never obliged to affoard them any such positiue Assent; and so you [Page 791]remaine obliged never to dis belieue them, and yet never obliged, explicitely to belieue them; which is a true proposition, against your vniversall contradictory Doctrine, that No point to any man; at any time, can be necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same tyme, necessary to be believed.

5. The rest of this Number, as also your (N. 12.13.13. for this Number is put twice 14.15.16. (there is no N. 17.) haue bene answered already. C. Mist. with all Divines, supposes, that no man can be obliged to belieue any point not sufficiently propounded, as Dr. Potter also teaches, and is evident to the very light of naturall Reason. I beseech the Reader, for confuting your (N. 15.) to peruse Ch. Ma. (N. 3.) And how do you tell vs in this (N. 15.) that the certainty you haue of the Cteed is from constant Tradition; seing you profess, that we haue no vniversall Tradition, except that which delivers to vs the Scripture? If you belief the Creed, that it was from the Apostles, and containes the principles of Faith (as you say) for vniversall Tradition, and not for Scripture, (as you expresly confess) you free men from obligation, of reading, or knowing the Scripture, for all necessary points of belief, which by this meanes, they may find independently of Scripture, and with as much certainty, as you belieue Scripture, which you profess to receiue from vniversall Tradition, for which you also belieue the Creed. And so you overthrow the most vniversall Doctrine of Protestants, that Scripture is necessary, and that (not from Tradition) but from it alone, we must learne all things belonging to salvation. And how did we heare you say (Pag. 178. N. 80.) that the Apostles did by their preaching, while they lived, and by their writings or Scripture after their death, doe keepe men in vnity, seing now you acknowledg, a Tradition distinct from, and independent of Scripture, whereby we may be kept in vnity? Now, if we receiue the Creed from the Church, we must belieue her to be infallible, and that to oppose any proposall of hers, is damnable, though one belieue the whole Creed; and therfore it is impertinent to alledg the Creed, to assert vnity of Faith among Protestants, while they differ in other points of Faith, not contayned in the Creed; and so Ch. Ma. saied truly, that it was both fals, and impertinent, to say, The Creed containes all necessary points of Faith. But heere I must intreate you to consider, how you can say (as you doe in this place) The certainty I haue of the Creed, That it was from the Apostles, and containes the principles of Faith, I ground it not vpon Scripture? Seing (Pag. 149. N. 37.) [Page 792]you say expresly: Protestants ground their beliefe, that such and such things only are fundamentalls, only vpon Scripture, and goe about to proue their assertion true, only by Scripture. Can Protestants ground their belief, that such and such things only are fundamentalls, only vpon Scripture, and yet not ground vpon Scripture the certainty, which they haue that the Creed containes all fundamentalls, and so know all fundamentalls independently of Scripture?

6. You say (N. 18.) That the last objection of Ch. Ma. stands vpon a false and dangerous supposition: That new heresies may arise. But with what conscience, do you object this to Ch. Ma. who only repeats what Dr. Porter affirmed (Pag. 126.) about the arising of new Heresies, which is so manifest, that you expresly take notice of it, and reject the Doctrine of the Doctor in that behalf. I beseech the Reader to see Ch. Ma. where he demonstrates, that seing the Doctor confesses, that new Heresies may arise, and that therefore the Creed was necessarily explained by other Creeds of Nyce &c. so it will need particular explanation, against other emergent Heresies, and so is not, nor ever will be, of itself alone, a sufficient Catalogue of all Points of Faith: which deduction of Ch. Ma. is so cleare, that you giue only this answer: This explication of (Dr. Potter) and restriction of this doctrine (that the Creed containes a Catalogue of all necessary Points of Faith) whereof you make your advantage was to my vnderstanding vnnecessary. And so you leaue your client, and acknowledg the Argument of Ch. Ma. to be convincing. As for the thing itself; All that you object against D. Potter (whom I now defend against you) can receiue strength only from equivocation, the thing itself being cleare; That we admit no new Revelation, but only new application, or declaration, of that which was revealed: which application is certainly necessary, before one can be obliged to belieue, vnless you will haue men belieue they know not what. Now whether you will call this application, or declaration, only a necessary condition sine qua not, or parte of the formall object of Faith, makes nothing to our present purpose, but is learnedly handled by Catholique Divines. Certaine we are, that it is not the totall, or principall, but only a partiall, and secondary object, if it belong at all to the formall object of our Belief: neither can any man imagine, that the application to vs, of Divine Revelations, is the essentiall forme, and last complement of an Article of Faith, if by last complement and essentiall forme, you meane that which is the chiefest, and most principall, which is only the Divine Testimony [Page 793]or Revelation, and therefore you shew, either ignorance, or some worse thing, in supposing, that we make Divine Revelation, to be the matter, and sufficient declaration to be the forme of an Article of Faith. No doubt but the Apostles declared, what our Saviour had revealed to them, but when, inimicus homo superseminavit zizania, and some began to doubt, or broach errours against those revealed Truths, a declaration was necessary, to be made, by that Meanes, which God hath left to decide Controversyes in Religion, as we saied hertofore, about Canonicall Books of Holy Scripture.

7. I need say no more to your (N. 19.) than only, that seing you and Dr. Potter pretend, that the Creed containes only Credenda, and not Agenda, you further men no more towards salvation, than one who would bring you half way to your journeyes end, and then for your greater comfort tell you, that neither hee, or any other could conduct you, further; as in this place you doe; first, referring him to Scripture for full satisfaction; and then telling him, that to giue a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall, is impossible. Of the difference betwene the Catalogue, which Ch. Ma. gives, and that which you assigne, I haue spoken hertofore.

8. Your (N. 20.) is but a passage to your following (N. 21.22.23.24.) Wherein you heape words vpon words, and Syllogisme vpon Syllogisme, rather to amuse or amaze, than instruct the Reader. But all will vanish into nothing, by these considerations. 1. That the belief of some points may be necessary for the Church, though not for every particular person, which therefore if the Creed doth not containe, it cānot be saied to comprehend all necessary points. 2. When question is, whether the Creed containe all Fundamentall Articles, it must be vnderstood in such manner as by it alone, we may be sure to know all Fundamentall points, and consequently, 3. that by it alone we may know the true sense of all such points. 4. That yet (as Ch. Ma shewes N. 4.5.) it is impossible to know by the Creed alone, the meaning of all necessary Articles, as is manifest by the disagreement of Protestants from Catholiques, and amongst themselves. 5. That therefore the Creed, without Tradition, and interpretation of the Church, is so farre from enabling vs, to belieue all Fundamentall points, that men left to themselves, would be sure to take occasion thereby, of many Errours, and Heresies, as experience hath taught the world. But if you take the Creed, with the Living voyce, Tradition, and declaration of the Church, it cannot [Page 794]availe you who reject the Authority of the Church. 6. Whatsoever the ancient Fathers, or moderne Writers, deliver concerning the sufficiency of the Creed, for matters of Faith, they alwayes take it, with the Tradition of the Church; and so not the Creed alone, but the Creede with Tradition, is that of which they speake, and therefore are so farre from speaking home to your purpose, that in every one of their sentences, they oppose your Assertion, concerning the Creed; which is so clearely true, that you procede to the abandoning, and euen opposing Dr. Potter, for mentioning the explanation of the Creed, by Councells, or the Church. Neither can you with any shadow of reason, proue, that it was, necessary, the Creed should contayne all necessary points of Faith, vnless first you begg an other Question, that the Church is not infallible. For if she be infallible (as most certainly she is) we shall be sure, that in all occasions, she will supply, what is not expressed in the Creed, as we saied of Scripture: neither is it our parte to examine, why the Apostles set not downe all particulars, as it is cleare, they haue delivered some points of less moment, than are diverse mysteryes of our Saviours life, omitted by them; and will you ask them, why did you so? 7. We may infer out of what hath bene saied; That although the Articles contayned in the Creed, may seeme to be comprized in a small compass, if we respect the words; yet if we consider the sense, and such maine Articles as haue connexion with them, they cannot be declared in few words; but must be declared by Catechists, Pastors, Doctors, and, in a word, by the Church: in proofe whereof I referr the Reader to Ch [...]ma. (N. 4.5.6.) where he shall see how many necessary points are implyed in one of the Articles of the Creed.

9. These Observations being premised; together with what Charity Maintayned, notes N. 9. (That all points of Faith may be saied to be contained in the Creed in some sense; as, for example implicitely, generally, or in some such involved manner. For when we belieue the Catholique Church, we do implicitely belieue whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to Faith. Or els by way of reduction &c.) All your objections are answered. For when Charity Maintoyned (N. 8.) affirmes; That the Creed containes such generall heads as were most fitting and requisite for preaching the Faith of Christ to Iewes, and Gentiles &c.; He means not of the bare words, but of the sense, as he expresly declares (N. 4. and 5.) which meaning we are to receyue from the Church, declaring in all occasions, what occurs necessary to salvation: and so, as I saied, [Page 795]there was no necessity, that all necessary points should be contayned in the Creed, otherwise than in some generall manner, v.g. in the Article of the Church, as herefore we saied out of S. Austine, concerning Scripture; and as Repentance, the Sacrament of Baptisme, and Pennance (which are to be reckoned inter Agenda) are implied in the Article of Remission of sinnes; as Potter (Pag. 237.) saieth, that the Eucharist is evidently included in the Communion of Saynts, and yet (Pag. 235.) he teaches, that the Sacraments are rather to be reckoned among the Agenda of the Church, than the credenda: And, vitam aeternam, may signify, not only, that we beleue, but also that we Hope for that Life: yea Ch. ma. (N. 5.) shewes, that in the Article of our Saviours being Redeemer, are contayned many other chiefe points belonging to practise; or Agenda: As likewise the Article of the Church containes, Governement, Discipline, Power to excommunicate, &c. so that there is no necessity to vnderstand the Creed only of speculatiue Objects: and then what reason can you giue, why some Agenda are implied, and not other? And so your discourse (N. 22.) which goes vpon this ground, that the Creed containes meerely Credenda, vanisheth into nothing, and Ch. Ma. neither needs, nor can accept your explication of his words, when you make him say (which was to comprehend all such generall heads of Faith, which being points of simple belief were most fit and requisite &c.) whereas He (N. 8.) which heer you cite, hath no such limitation to points of simple belief, as may be seene not only in Ch. ma.; but also in the beginning of your (N. 21.) where you profess to serdowne his words: Only in the end of his saied (N. 8.) he cites the Dostrine of Potter, that the Creed contaynes only credenda. Neither will you be able to find, in all Ch. ma. that he ever reaches, that the Creed containes only such Articles, as are meerely speculatiue, but only mentions it as taught by Potter: nor haue you any reason to exact of him (Ch. Ma.) that he should haue added the particles, all, or some, seing his Propositions, though seeming indefinite, yet were sufficiently declared by the matter and circumstances. And therefore I must put you in mynd, that you take too much vpon you, when you giue this Title to this Chapter. That the Creed containes a [...] necessary Points of meere belief. Now whosoever ponders those Premisses with attention, will see that your multitude and Aggregation of Syllogismes, haue only this, that they are more difficult to be vnderstood, than answered.

10. Your (N. 24.) is answered by only reading the whole (N. 9.) [Page 796]of Ch: Ma: you cite it (N. 10.) For it will be found, that you are grounded only vpon your falsification of his words when you object, No proposition is implied in any other, which is not deducible from it. But where doth Ch: Ma: say the contrary? He expressly speaks (N. 9.) of points which by evident and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Articles both clearly, and particularly contained in the Creed: and I hope you will not say, that every proposition implied in an other, is deducible from it by evident and necessary consequence.

11. You vrge: The Article of the Catholique Church, wherin you will haue all implied, implies nothing to any purpose of yours, vnless out of meere favour we will grant the sense of it to be, that the Church is infallible, and that yours is the Church. Answer; Independently of the Creed, we proue the infallibility of the Church; and we must not gather it at the first from the meaning of this Article, but we learne the sense of this Article from the Church pre-believed to be infallible. And seing you profess to receiue the Creed (and even Scripture) from the Tradition of the Church, you cannot be certaine, that the contents therof are true, vnless first you belieue the Church to be infallible. Besides, by the Church, all Christiās vnderstād a Congregation of Faithfull people, capable of salvation; and yourself teach, that every errour in Faith, vnrepented, brings damnation. How then can it be saied, that the whole vniversall Church can erre in Faith? But you doe very inopportunely talk, whether Ours be the Church: seing we speak only of the Church in generall, abstracting, for the present, from that other Question; though it be euident, that if there were any true Church, which delivered to Christians the Scripture, and Creed, when Luther appeared, it must be the Roman, and such as agreed with her.

12. You goe forward and say to Charity Maintayned. The Apostles intention was by your owne confession particularly to deliuer in the Creed such Articles of belief as were fittest for those tymes. Now to deliver particularly, and to deliver only implicitely, to be delivered particularly in the Creed and only to be redu [...]ble to it, I suppose are repugnances hardly reconciliable. Answer; I know not well, what, nor whom, you can pretend to impugne. For, Ch: Ma: never saied that there are no Truths, particularly expresed in the Creed; yea (N. 5. and 8.) he named divers in particular expreseb in it, but he only affirmed, that all are not so expressed in partilular, but some implicitely, others reductiuè, as he declares in those two Numbers. Now, that some things should be delivered [Page 797]particularly, and other some only implicitely, and other only reductively, can be no irreconciliable repugnance, seing in all good Logick repugnance must be in order to the same thing; as it is no repugnance, that one writer, should procede honestly, and speak to the purpose, and an other doe quite the contrary.

13. For answer to your (N. 25.26.27.28.29.) I haue attentively considered, and compared with my observations, all the Authorityes, or sentences, which you alledg out of Catholique Writers, and find them to containe no difficulty, not precluded and answered, by those observations. And who knowes not, that all Catholiques belieue, that all declarations of Generall Councells, concerning the Creed (and all other points of Faith) are necessarily to be belieued? to say nothing of the other observations. But I must be still intreating the Reader to reade in Charity Maintayned his (N. 10.11.12.13.14.15.) which you confusedly huddle vp togeather.

14. In your (N. 30.) you grant as much, as can be desired by vs, to proue, that to alledg the Creeds containing all necessary, and Fundamentall points, is impertinent, to make either both Catholiques, and Protestants, or all Protestants, capable of salvation, though they belieue the Creed, yet differ in other revealed Truths. Thus you write in order to the (N. 10.) of Char: Ma: Neither is there any discord betweene this Assertion of your doctors, and their holding themselves obliged to believe all the Points which the Councell of Trent defines. For Protestants and Papists may both hold, that all points of belief necessary to be knowen, and believed are summed vp in the Creed: And yet both the one and the other think themselves bound to belieue whatsoever other points they either know or belieue to be revealed by God. For the Articles which are necessary to be knowen, that they are revealed by God, may be very few; and yet those which are necessary to be believed, when they are revealed and knowen to be so, may be very many. These words shew, that Prorestants do but delude poore soules, when they tell them, that all Protestants haue the substance of Faith, because they belieue the Creed; when in the meane tyme, they disagree in other points revealed by God; and yourself say els where, that, as things now stand, there is the like necessity, to belieue all points contained in Scripture, as well not Fundamentall, as Fundamentall. And therfore it can litle availe Protestants, to agree in the Creed, which yet they do not, if we regard the sense, and not the meere sound of the words while, they disagree, in so many other [Page 798]points belonging to Faith. The Truth is; This grant, and declaration of yours, might well haue freed me, from answering all the rest which you haue in this Chapter; and whatsoever els you proue, or disproue, cannot be against the substance, of that, which Charity Maintayned affirmed in his fourth Chapter, which treates this Question about the Creed.

15. You pretend in your (N. 31.) to answer the (N. 11.) of Charity Maintayned, but you omitt his discourse about the Decalogue of the commandements, to shew a simili, or paritate, that it is not necessary, that the Creed cōtaine all necessary points, seing what is not expressed in it, may be knowen by other meanes. It will not be amiss, to set downe the words of Ch: Ma: which are: Who is ignorant that Summaries, Epitomees, and the like briefe Abstracts, are not intended to specify all particulars of that science, or subject to which they belong? For as the Creed is sayd to containe all points of Faith, so the decalogue comprehends all Articles, as I may terme them, which concerne Charity, and good life: and yet this cannot be so vnderstood, as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty, or the eschewing of any vice, vnlesse it be expressed in the ten Commandements. For (to omitt the precepts of receaving Sacraments, which belong to practise, or manners, and yet are not contained in the Decalogue) there are many sinnes, even against the Law of nature, and light of reason, which are not contained in the ten Commandements, except only by similitude, analogy, reduction, or some such way. For example; we find not expressed in the Decalogue, either divers sinnes, as Gluttony, Drunkennesse, Pride, Sloth, Covetousnes in desiring either things superfluous, or with too much greedines; or divers of our chiefe obligations, as obedience to princes, and all superiours, not only Ecclesiasticall, but also Civill. And the many Treatises of Civilians, Canonists, and Casuists are witnesses, that divers sinnes against the light of Reason, and Law of nature, are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandements; although, when by other diligences they are found to be vnlawfull, they may be reduced to some of the commandements, and yet not so evidently, and particularly, but that divers doe it in divers manners. Thus farr Charity Maintayned. Of all this you thought sit to take no notice, but only cavill at his words: (That Summaries, Epitomees, and the like briefe Abstractes, are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science, or subject, to which they belong) against which you reply: Yes, [Page 799]if they be intended for perfect Summaries, they must not omitt any necessary Doctrine of that Science wherof they are Summaries. Answer; the Creed is a perfect summarie, of those Truths, which the Apostles intended to deliver therin. Now for you to suppose, that their purpose, was to expresse all necessary points of Faith, is to begg the Question, in stead of answering the Argument of Charity Maintayned, about the Decalogue of commandements; though still I grant, that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith, in that sense, which I explicated in my Observations.

16. All that you haue (N. 32.33.34.35.36.37.38.) makes nothing against the Doctrine of Charity Maintayned, but confirmes it, because you confesse, that defacto, there are many points necessary to be believed, which belong not immediatly to practice: from whence it followes evidently, that Protestants doe but cosen poore people, in alledging the Creed to that purpose, for which they make vse or it, as I sayd. And besides, seeing the particular points, which Charity Maintaymed specifies (N. 14.) are either necessary to be believed by every particular person, or at least by the whole Church, which cannot erre in such points, we must say, the Creed doth not containe all necessary Articles of beliefe. Morover you cannot be sure, but that of those many important points, which Charity Maintayned shewes not to be contained in the Creed, some are fundamentall; seing you confesse, that you cannot tell, which points in particular be fundamentall; and so, for ought you know, they are fundamentall. I obserue, that you make mention of other particular points, touched by Charity Mairtayned, but omit that of Originall sinne, because you doe not belieue it; and yet Charity Maintayned (N. 9.) told you, that S. Austine (de Pec. Orig. Cont. Pelag. L. 2 Chap. 22.) teacheth, that it belongs to the foundation of Faith. Lastly and Chiefly; since the Creed alone without the Tradition and declaration of the Church, cannot giue vs the true sense of itselfe, and that in every one of its Articles, are implied divers points not expressed, which were afterwards declared by Generall Councels, and which all are obliged to belieue; it followes, that even for those articles, which you call credenda, the Creed is not sufficient of itselfe: To say nothing that for the maine point Dr. Potter, and you, yield vs as much as we desire, to wit, that the Creed containes not all Fundamentall points of Faith, as Faith directs our manners, and practice; and so whatsoever you say of points meerely speculatiue, imports little, for the maine [Page 800]Substance, of clearing Protestants from falshood, and impertinency, in alledging the Creed, as they are wont to doe; as if all were done, which is required to Christians for matter of their vnderstanding, and beliefe, if they giue assent to the Creed, though they differ in other articles of Faith which direct our lives.

17. In your (N, 35. and 36.) you make a florish about the Doctrine of Merit, which is not a subject to be handled in this place, wherof every one may find excellent Treatises, in many Catholik Writers. Only I say, 1. That it is certaine Protestants haue alwayes supposed, that they differ from vs in this point, and therfor that our disagreement is in that Fundamentall point, that God is a Remunerator, as S. Paul saith, and to this end only, Charity Maintayned mentioned this point of Merit, not to impugne the doctrine of Protestants, in this place, and therfor your discourse of this matter, is plainly impertinent. 2. That you doe not, or at least, will not vnderstand rightly, our Catholik Doctrine about Merit, which requires, both habituall grace, and particular motion of the Holy Ghost, who therfor rewards his owne Gifts; and you wrong vs in saying, we make God a rewarder only, and not a giver. For this cause we acknowledge our workes, of themselves, or of their owne nature, to haue no proportion, with Grace, and Glory; and that by duty, we are obliged to serue God, as farr as he commands vs; which hinders not, but that, by his Grace, this very serving him, may be meritorious; a duty, and yet a deserving; as the servant merits a reward for the workes, which he is obliged to doe; which is much more evident, seing de facto, God hath not commanded, all that he might haue exacted of vs in rigour. 3. As else where, so here you take vpon you, to declare the doctrine of Protestants, about merit, without any commission from them, who are so divived among themselves, that it is impossible for you, to speake as you thinke in behalfe of them all, without putting yourselfe, to maintaine contradictions. For, how can they pretend to any Merit, or Obedience, who teach, that it is impossible to keepe the Commandements; that all our workes are deadly sinnes; that we haue no free will, and the like? 4. That you bring the very same arguments against the merit of Just men, which your friend Uolkelius (de Uer. Relig. Lib. 5. Chap: 20.) vrges against the Merit of our Blessed Saviour; and therfore English Protestants, who, against you Socinians, belieue that Christ merited, and satisfied for mankind, must answer your objections against vs.

[Page 801]

18. To your (N. 39.) I say: whosoever considers the words of Potter, (Pag: 255.) will confesse, that he both approves, and applauds, the words of Dr. Vsher cited by you: to which words I neede only answer, that it is impossible, that they, who agree in points receyvea in the whole Christian world, and yet disagree in any point of Faith, be it never so small, can with such a beliefe joyne holy obedience; seing it is a deadly sinne, and disobedience; and, as you confesse, damnable in it selfe, to hold any errour, against whatsoever revealed Truth: And so your discourse, in the beginning of your next (N. 40.) falls to the ground; it being impossible, that agreement in Fundamentall points only, can joyne men in one communion of Faith, while they so differ in other matters, as one side must be in a damnable errour, and the same Heaven cannot containe them both: wherby your Question (why should any errour exclude any from the Churches Communion which will not depriue him of eternall salvation?) Is clearly inverted, and retorted, by saying: Why should not any errour, exclude any man from the Churches communion, which will depriue him of eternall salvation? The Arguments, which you bring in this Number, and (N. 41.42.43.) to proue, that every one of the foure Gospells, containes all points necessary to be believed, haue been confuted at large, hertofore.

19. To your (N. 44. and 45.) I answer, that Dr. Vshers words, are as vniversall as can be. wh̄ he speakes of Propositions, which without all controversie, are vniversally receaved in the whole Christian world. And if you will needs haue his other words (the sevrrall professions of Christianity, that hath any large spread in any part of the world) to be a Limitation of those other which you haue now cited, I am content, vpon condition, that you confesse it to be also a contradiction to those former words of his. As for the thing itselfe, Cha: Ma: names places of large extent, in which the Antitrinitarians are rife; and I feare, he might haue added too many in England, Holland, and other places, wher Heresy raignes; and even Dr. Porter cites Hooker, and Morton, teaching, that the deniall of our Saviours Divinity, is not a Fundamentall heresy, destructiue of a true Church; neither doth the Doctor disproue them. Paulus Ueridicus, I grant, names the B. Trinity, among coinopista, not as if Dr. Vsher had affirmed it to be such, but as in Truth it is, necessary for all; or rather indeed he affirmes nothing, but only, as they say, exempligratia, by way of supposition, which abstracts from the Truth of the thing itselfe. For thus you cite his words: To consider your coinopista [Page 804] [...] [Page 805] [...] [Page 802]or communiter credenda, Articles, as you call them, vniversally believed by these severall professions of Christianity, which haue any large spread in the world: These Articles, for example, may be the vnity of the Godhead, the Trinity of Persons, the Immortality of the soule &c: Where you see, he speakes only exempli gratia, or by a may be, according to the Doctrine of Catholiks, without regarding, whether, or no, in the opinion of Dr. Vsher, the denyall of the Trinity, exclude salvation. But it is both ridiculous, and vnjust in you, to call this the greatest objection of Charity Maintayned, which he touched only by the way, and in order to Dr. V [...] shers words. For concerning the thing itselfe, Protestants, who deny the infallibility of Gods Church will not, I feare, hold the denyall of the Trinity to be a fūdamētall errour; seing so many old heretiques, haue denied the Truth of that Article, and you, with your Socinian brethren, doe the same at this day, and pretend many texts [...]f Scripture for your Heresy. If [...] had at hand Paulus Ueridi [...]us, perhaps I could discover somewh [...]t more against you. For I remember, he shewes, how according to Dr. Vshers discourse, and grounds, divers Articles of Christian Faith may be cassiered and cast out of the Church; and he finds so much matter against the Doctor, as it is no wonder, if he in his short examination, tooke no notice, of the contradiction, which Charity Maintayned, touches, as he (Charity Maintayned) takes not notice, of all the advantages, or other contradictions, which perhaps he might haue found, and which Paulus Ueridicus observes; but that was not the ayme of Ch: Ma: in his answer to Potter.

20. In your (N. 46.) you say, There is no contradiction, that the same man, at the same time, should belieue contradictions. Which (N. 47.) you declare, or temper, in this manner: Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions, and that it is vnreasonable to doe soe I willingly grant. But to say it is impossible to be done, is against every mans experience, and almost as vnreasonable, as to doe the thing, which is saied to be impossible. For though perhaps it may be very difficult, for a man in his right wits, to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes, especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction, yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition, to perswade themselves vpon slight and triviall grounds, that these, or these, though they seeme contradictions, yet indeed are not so, and so to belieue them: or if the plaine repugnance of them be veiled and disguised a little, with some empty vnintelligible nonsense distinction; or if it be not exprest, but implyed, not direct, but by consequence, so that the parties, to whose Faith the propositions are offered, are either innocently, or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them [Page 803]for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions, he that denies it possible, must be a meer stranger in the world. Thus you; after your fashion, involuing things in obscurity, that one cannot penetrate what you would say, but that you may haue an evasion against whatsoever may be obsected. As for the thing it selfe; There is no doubt, but that men may belieue things, which in themselves are contradictions; wherof we need no other proofe, then to shew, that it happeneth so to yourselfe, if you belieue what you affirme, even in this matter, wherin I shall demonstrate to be implied plaine contradiction. But when men say with one voyce, that we cannot assent to contradictions, it is to be vnderstood, if they be apprehended as such; and therfore it might seeme needlesse, to spend many words in confutation of this heresie, as I may call it, against the first principle of Reason. Yet because, your reasons may perhaps seeme to some, to proue more; since even in your explication or modification, you saie only (perhaps) and (may be) of that which all the world holds for certaine, and for the ground of all certainty in humane Reason; and because, if they be well considered, they strike at the sublime mysteries of Christian Religion; and, in regard, this is an age of Academiks, and Sceptiks, who willingly put all things to dispute, wherby, vnder pretence of freedome in Reason, they take liberty against Religion; as also to shew, how little reason you had, to take this vaine occasion of a fond flourish, to shew a Socinian wit; and lastly, because by this occasion I may examine some other points, I will both confute your reasons, and shew that you contradict yourselfe.

21. Only I cannot for beare to reflect, how he, who resolves Faith into Reason, so much extold by him, that he relyes theron, as Catholiks doe vpon the infallibility of Gods Church, or Calvinists vpon the private spirit, or on the Grace of God, which both Catholiks, and Protestants against Pelagius, belieue to be necessary, for every Act of Divine Faith, how, I say, this man, doth now, so extenvate Reason, that if it indeed were so miserable and foolish, as he makes it, we might better belieue our dreames, than our reason: wherby he destroies all that himselfe builds vpon Reason, and consequently Faith it selfe, which in his principles, must be resolved into Reason: just as I sayd hertofore, that although he seeme in words, to extoll Scripture, as a Perfect Rule; the only ground of our Faith, containing evidently all necessary points, and the like; yet indeed, by his wicked Tenets concerning it, he deprives it of all authority, and makes it vnable, to deliver vs any thing, with [Page 804]absolute certainty. A just judgment of God, to bring provd men to confusion, and intrap them in their owne snares, and proue their wisdome to be but foolishness, even by crossing, and contradicting themselves, and overthrowing the maine foundations of their pretended friends, or clients, as this man destroyes the maine ground, of Socinians, Reason; and the only Rule of Protestants, Scripture! If contradictions may be true, you, or any other may write Books with much security, and without feare of being confuted. For when you are brought to the hard exigent of acknowledging contradictions, your answer will be, that one may assent to contradictions, and so one, by all his paines taken to confute you, shall only proue, what you grant and seeke to proue. And in particular, it will be impossible to confute the Reasons, whereby you endeavour to proue this your assertion; because whatsoever is alledged, can inferr no greater absurdity, than that which you grant, that contradictoryes may be true. And on the other side, it will not be in your power to confute any man; seing the most you can doe, will be to driue him vnto contradictions, which he (being taught by you) will say, is no absurdity: and so all will be at a stand, and become silent disputants: And it may be true, that euen this your assertion (contradictions may be true) may be saied both to be true, and fals, or not true. And by what Logick can you, or any who holds this Doctrine be confuted? Not ostensiuè, as Logicians speak; because this is primum principium of all other; nor deducendo ad absurdum, or impossible, seing the greatest absurdity, that one can be brought to, is that which you grant. And there fore Christianity maintayned, (Pag: 62.) saied truly, that your Reasons, if you hold them for good, must proue the contrary of that which you intended, that is, your proofes that we may assent to contradictions, must suppose, that we cannot assent to them: which if you do not suppose, you will never be able to convince any man, in any thing. Besides, if your Reasons proue any thing, they proue, that one may assent to formall contradictions, which yet you pretend to deny, and therefore even in this respect, you in fact hold contradictions. But let vs heare your Reasons.

22. Your first, is this: Whatsoever a man believes true, that he may and must belieue; But there haue bene some who haue believen and taught, that contradictions might be true, against whom Aristoile disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks; Therefore it is not impossible that a man may belieue contradictions.

[Page 805]

23. Answer: 1. We haue heard you saying (N. 47.) Perhaps it may be very difficult, for a man in his right wits, to belieue a contradiction expressed in termes, especially if he belieue it to be a contradiction. Now I ask, whether those men whom Aristotle impugnes were in their right wits, or no? If they were; Then your Argument, if it proue any thing, proves that it is possible for men in their right wits, to belieue contradictions expressed in termes (for Aristotle speaks of such cōtradictions.) And then how do you say; It is difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue a contradiction? Seing in our case, it is all one to be difficult, and impossible, since that which the light of reason, tells vs, is, that it is impossible, and not only difficult, and if you deny it to be impossible you will not be able to proue it difficult; neither did they whom Aristotle impugnes, make any distinction, between being difficult, and impossible. So that this parte of the Answer to my Dilemma, which supposes those men to be in their wits, doth indeed put them our of their wits; because according to your owne doctrine, they could not assent to contradictions, if they were in their wits. But if those men were out of their wits; surely you ought not to take mad men for Maisters in Metaphysicks; which is no better than to suborne sleeping witnesses, as the Jewes did, against our Saviours resurrection, and as you doe, to proue your chimericall Assertion. 2. If you belieue, that one may belieue contradictions, how will you proue this consequence; some haue believed, and taught, that contradictions might be true; Therfore he may and must belieue contradictions. If you say; It implies contradictions, that one should belieue a thing to be true, and yet that it is impossible for him to assent to it: it will be answered; what then? Do you not suppose, and teach, even this which in this answer you take to be absurd, that one may assent to contradictions; will you haue it possible that one may assent to contradictions, when you affirme it, and not possible, when an other sayes the same? 3. If any saied, and believed, that contradictions might be true, they erred against the first and most knowne Principle of nature, and so, as you inferr; Contradictoryes were believed to be true, therfore they might be believed to be true; I take the contrary truth; It is knowne by the light of nature, that contradictories cannot be true, and infer; Therefore it is impossible to belieue them, being conceived to be Contradictoryes, if men be in theyr wits. If you conceyue Aristotle, did sufficiently confute those men, why do you alledg theyr confessed fals doctrine, to proue that which [Page 806]you pretend to be true? Certainly this is neither an honest kind of proceeding, nor a good way of proving. If your opinion be, that he did not refell them effectually; without doubt, it had bene a Work, beseeming your wit, to haue confuted Aristotle, and defended those men, whose doctrine vnless you maintaye, your Argument taken from theyr conceypts, can be of no force at all. Neither had it bene needfull for you, to haue studied, what Title had bene fittest for such a Work. For, you might haue remembred, that Simon Magus is saied to haue written Books, which he called Contradictorios. (Uid. Baron. Ann. Christi 35. N. 23.) A Title most agreable to your genius, both because in this place you expressly defend Contradictions, and in regard, that through your whole Booke, you do indeed fall into them, more frequently, than I could haue imagined. Yet as for those men whom Aristotle impugnes, it is one thing, that they saied, they believed Contradictions might be true, and an other that indeed they could belieue them, if they were in their right wits, and vnderstood what were true contradictories. In which respect Aristotle Metaphys: (Lib: 4. Cap: 3.) saieth: Nonenim necesse est, quaecumque quis dicat, ea etiam putare. But this is not the first tyme, that you confound the first, and second operation of the vnderstanding, or primam apprehensionem, and judicium. Never the less if you be setled in a resolution to defend that men being out of their right wits may belieue Contradictories, I say, it imports nothing for our present purpose, seing I hope you will not say, that the fact of such men can concerne Dr. Vsher, to whom Cha: Ma: objected, that some words of his did implie a contradiction. Lastly, be pleased to reflect, that Aristotle speakes of express and knowen Contradictions, and yourself confess, that it is difficult, and men ought not to belieue such, and therfore this first Reason of yours proves either too much, or nothing at all, and so proves nothing at all, because it proves too much. And I wonder how you say in your (N. 46. Pag: 215.) Though there can be no damnable Heresie, vnless it contradict some necessary Truth, yet there is no Contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth; because there is no Contradiction that the same man at the same tyme, should belieue Contradictions. Let vs suppose this to be, as it is, a damnable Heresie; Christ is not the Saviour of the world; the contradictory is: Christ is the Saviour of the world, which is a formall contradiction, and expressed in termes, to which it seeemes by these words you may assent, and consequently to express contradictions, which [Page 807]yet (N. 47.) you are forced to moderate. But when you say; There is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth, and add this reason, or proofe because there is no contradiction, that the same man at the same time should belieue contradictions, you must giue me leaue to speak ād say, that you vtter plaine non-sense, (yourself talk of some nonsense distinction) in proving that one may belieue contradictions, because there is no contradiction, that one belieue contradictions, which causall supposes, that we could not belieue them, if it were a contradiction to belieue them; and consequently, that we cannot belieue contradictions; and yet in this very sentence, you say; There is no contradiction but the same man, at the same time should belieue contradictions.

24. Your second reason is delivered in these words: They which belieue there is no certainty in reason, must belieue that contradictions may be true: For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason; This contradicts Truth, therefore it is fals. But there be now divers in the world who belieue there is no certainty in reason: Therefore there be divers in the world who belieue contradictions may be true.

25. Answer; 1. Certainly if there be any certainty in Reason, it is in this; that contradictions cannot be true; and seing you hold this not only not certainly true, but to be false, it is cleare, that you are one of those, who belieue there is no certainty in Reason; and consequently, you cannot be certaine, even of your owne Assertion, that contradictions may be true. And so while you draw an Argument, from those who belieue there is no certainty in Reason, you depriue your owne Assertion of all certainty. 2. If once you swallow that absurdity, of the truth of contradictoryes, when you say: This Contradicts truth, therefor it is fals, the answer might be; that it might contradict truth, and yet not be fals, but true; because contradictions may be true. And I beseech you tell vs; whether you belieue, that whatsoever contradicts truth, is fals: If you say it is not fals, you speak absurdly. For what is falshood but an errour against truth? If you say, it must be fals, you overthrow your owne Doctrine, that contradictions may be true; because in contradictions one parte must be opposite to a truth, and consequently fals. 3. That conceypt, that there is no certainty in Reason, being fals and injurious to mankind, you cannot ground on it any truth, except this; that it is a very fitt Principle for your absurd Conclusion, that contradictoryes may be true, and that, if you belieue it to be true, you are in apernicious errour: If you hold it to be fals; why do you vrge it against [Page 808]vs this Sceptick doctrine? 4. Your Argument proves, that one may assent not only to contradictories, not perceived to be such, but to them expressed in plaine termes; because otherwise there would be certainty in this Reason; These be express contradictoryes; Therefore they cannot both be true. Thus still your Reasons, either proue nothing at all, or against your self.

26. Your third Reason. is: They which do captivate their vnderstandings to the belief of those things which to their vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions, may as well belieue reall contradictions: (For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant, but for their seeming to be so) But you do captivate your vnderstandings to the belief of those things which seeme to your vnderstandings irreconciliable contradictions, Therefore it is as possible and easy for you to belieue those that indeed are so.

27. Answer: 1. What is this but to vndermine Christian Religion, wherin we submit and captivate our vnderstandings to Mysteryes, which to humane reason seeme impossible, and for that very cause we are taught to captivate our vnderstanding to the obedience of Christ? And now you tell all Christians, that by doing so, they belieue Contradictions as well as if they believed reall contradictions, which Jewes, Turks, Pagans, and all men in their right wits know to be absurd, and impossible, and you confess to be vnreasonable, and very difficult, speaking of express contradictions; as heere you speak of such; since you expressly speak of things, which to ones vnderstanding seeme irreconciliable contradictions. I desire the Reader to looke vpon Chr: Ma: (Chap. 9.) concerning this matter. 2. Therefor, as in other Reasons, so in this, seing you speak of contradictions expressed in termes, you contradict what yourself afterward (N. 47.) teach. 3. The necessity that all Christians acknowledg of submitting our vnderstanding to Faith, arises from this, that they seeme to containe contradictions; which could be no reason requiring the captivating our Reason, if they did not suppose that contradictions cannot bettue; and therefore this very reason, which you bring to proue, that men may belieue contradictions, must suppose, they cannot belieue them. For if they could, it would cost them litle to belieue, that which to them seemed a contradiction. 4. You say, It is as possible and as easy for vs to belieue those things that indeed are reall contradictions, as to belieue those things which to our vnaerstanding seeme contradictions: which words suppose that it is both possible, and easy for vs to belieue those things which to vs seeme contradictions; and yet [Page 809](N. 47.) you say; it is very difficult for a man in his right wits to belieue express contradictions. Into how many contradictions, do you fall, while you treate of conradictions? 5. Your Argument scarcely deserves any Answer. For who is ignorant, that contradiction must involue two sides, one affirming, the other denying; and therefore when one, allthings considered, believes one parte only, he is so farre from believing things which to his vnderstanding seeme contradictions, that he is certaine, not to belieue contradictions; because he sees, that he believes one parte only of the contradiction, and rejects the other, and is also certaine, that, as I saied, contradiction must involue two parts. And heere I would demand, wherher you belieue indeed, that contradictions can be true? If you belieue they may be true, then Christian Religion may teach; Scripture may contayne; God may reveale, ād must assent to contradictions, seing he cannot but assent to all truth. And are not these blasphemyes? If you belieue, contradictions cannot be true; how will you haue it possible for any man to belieue that, which he believes not to be true? You saied in your first Reason, Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must belieue: And certainly, I may better say: Whatsoever a man believes, nor to be true; that he neither may, nor can belieue: and therfore seing all men in their right wits, belieue that contradictoryes cannot be true, it is impossible that they should belieue them. But let vs procede to your

28. Fourth Reason. Some men, say you, may be confuted in their errours, and perswaded out of them; but no mans errour can be confuted, who together with his errour doth not belieue and grant some true principle that contradicts his errour: For nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing, neither can there be (as all men know) any rationall discourse but out of grounds agreed on by both parts. Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certaine, that the same man at the same time may belieue contradictions.

29. Answer. First: If it were lawfull to vse such an expressiō, it might well, be saied, that it seemes fatall for you, to be at variance with your self. For, I pray you suppose one to belieue, that contradictions may be true: How will you perswade him out of his errour? By shewing him, that he grants some true principle that contradicts his errour? But if contradictories may be true, and one may at the same time belieue them, nothing will force him to leaue his errour, though it appeare to contradict some principle which he grants, because he may belieue both his supposed errous, and that principle to betrue; yea he neede not beleeue it to be an errour though it contradict some true principle, seing both [Page 801]parts of contradictories may be true. Chuse, which you please. May contradictories be true, or be believed, or no? If they may; then this Reason of yours proves nothing, as I haue shewed. Can they not be true, nor be believed? then, to make good this Reason, you denie that for which you alledg it; and must say that one cannot at the same tyme belieue contradictions; and that if he could do so, this Reason were of no force. A new kind of Logick, to bring a Reason, to proue a Conclusion which must be fals, if the Reason, or Proofe for it be of any force? That is, [...]o proue that contradictions may be believed, you vse an Argument, which (to haue any force) must suppose they may not be believed. How will you driue one from that which he believes, by proposing a principle which even by your doctrine, he conceyves may consist with that from which you would driue him? So, still that which I saied is true, That your Arguments, if they proue any thing, must suppose, or proue, the direct contrary of that which you intend to proue by them, and so not help, but overthrow yourself. Secondly; If your Reason be of any force, it can only proue, that by ignorance, one may hold contradictoryes, which was needless to be proved, it being a thing which no man denyes. And then, you must either acknowledg a contradiction, or els acknowledg, that you intended to proue, that one may assent to express and knowen contradictions, but that your Reason proved not so much, as you did meane to proue by it. For, if your purpose was only to proue a possibility of assenting to contradictoryes, not knowen to be such, you contradict yourself, in saying (N. 47.) Men should not assent to contradictions, and that it is vnreasonable to doe so; seing it is evident, in case of probable, or invincible ignorance, a man may, and ought to belieue them, and it were vnreasonable to doe that which all the Reasons that he can consider, tell him, that he is to doe as he does, and that it is not in his power to discover his errour by any reasons, that can represent themselves to his vnderstanding. It cannot be denyed but in that case he proceedes prudently, and safely, and therefore not vnreasonably, but as he should doe: and yourself confess, that men may innocently (as you speak) be ignorant of the contradiction. Yourself tell vs in your next Reason, that we cannot without extream madnesse, and vncharitablenesse, deny, that you belieue the Bible, and yet we belieue that some part of your doctrine contradicts the Bible. Now seing this last is certaine by evident experience of Protestants, who interpret Scripture so, as what one affirmes, an other denyes to be the meaning thereof, you must [Page 811]either grant, that men may rationally belieue that kind of contradictions, of which we speak, or els with extreame madness, and vncharitableness say, that no Protestant who contradicts an other about the sense of Scripture, does as he should doe, but is vnreasonable in so doing. Chuse then, (I returne to say,) whether you will say, your meaning was in this fourth Reason, to speak of express contradictions, and confess that it comes not home to that purpose; or els that you spoke not of such express contradictions; and confess that in this (N. 46.) you contradict your (N. 47.) wherein you say, One should not belieue contradictions, and that it is vnreasonable to doe so.

30. Your Fifth Reason we haue mentioned already, That Protestants belieue all that is in the Bible to be true, and yet we say, that they belieue divers Doctrines against the Bible, and consequently that they belieue Contradictions. But seing this Reason, if it proue any thing, proues only, that men may assent to Contradictions not knowen to be such, it is already answered, and confuted, and demonstrated, to be guilty either of insufficiency, or to subsist by a manifest Contradiction to that, for which you alledg it; as I āswered to your fourth Reasō.

31. Your Sixth Reason, is equally full of impiety, malice, and ignorance: and is answered in a word, That we absolutely are certaine, there is implied no Contradiction in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and therfore it cannot serue to proue that men may belieue Contradictions. And seing it speaks only of Contradictions, not expressed in termes, but only involved, it is liable to all the same exceptions, which I haue declared against your Fourth, and Fifth Reason. Neither can any expect, or even indure, that heere I should write a Book of Transubstantiation. You know learned Catholike Writers, haue answered, all that can be objected against vs, in that Mystery; and you should haue brought as well theyr answers, as your owne objections, if your intention had bene to declare the Truth, and not only to be blasphemous. But still you declare, more and more, that you vndermine Christian Religion; it being evident to any, who is not ignorant of Phylosophy, that whosoever denyes the possibility of Transubstantiation, will much more deny other Mysteryes of Christiā Religion as in particular the blessed Trinity, and Incarnation of the Son of God, as shewed concerning the B. Trinity, out of Dr. Taylor, and by your owne Confession. Who can deny that one Body may be in two places, or two bodyes in one; or accidents remayne, without substance, or Subject; if he belieue, that [Page 812]one individuall Essence of God is in three Persons (in the B. Trinity) and in the Incarnation two complete Natures, Divine and humane exist in one Person, and a complete substance (the Humane Nature of our Saviour Christ) not subsist by itself, but by the subsistence of the second Person, it being no more strang, or difficult, that, an accident should not exist in alio, than that a complete substance should not subsistere per se; and farre more vnintelligible, that one Nature should be in three persons, or two natures in one person, then that one Body should be in diverse places; there being a more strict connection betweene Nature, and Hypostasis, than betweene a Body, and a place. But your conclusion of the (N. 46.) is so patently injurious to Christian Religion, that it is intollerable. You say to Ch. Ma. If you can not compose the repugnance of points implied in Transubstantiation and that after an intelligible manner, then you must giue me leaue to belieue, that either you doe not belieue Transubstantiation, or els that it is no contradiction, that men should subjugate their vnderstanding to the belief of contradictions. And who I pray, can vndertake to answer all arguments, objected against the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation, and other sublime mysteryes of Christian Religion, and compose all seeming repugnance, after an intelligible manner, otherwise than by finally captivating our vnderstanding, to the obedience of saith? And if you will not be content without all be declared in an intelligible manner, is it not Hypocrisie in you to say (pag: 376. N 56.) of Scripture? Propose me any thing out of this Book, and require whether I belieue it or no, and seeme it never so incomprhenssible to Human Reason, I will subscribe it with hand and hart. For, seing you belieue Christian Religion, only with a probable assent for Humane prudentiall Motives; how can Mysteryes seeming incomprehensible, and repugnant, to human Reason, be declared not to be repugnant, after an intelligible manner ād why should not a confessedly meere probability yeald to a seeming evidence, in your grounds, who resolue Faith into Reason, only confessedly probable? And heere againe I desire you to reflect on your saying; That it is no Contradiction, that men should subjugate their vnderstandings to the belief of Contradictions; Is not this to say; that if it were a contradiction, to subjugate our vnderstanding to contradictions, we could not doe it? And yet you teach that we may belieue contradictions, and consequently you should say; though it be a contradiction, to subjugate our vnderstandings to contradictions, yet we may doe it, because we may belieue contradictions; [Page 813]and so you must either deny that men can belieue contradictions, or els confess that the saied same sentence (It is no contradiction, that men subjugate, their vnderstandings to the belief of Contradictions) destroyes itself, as I haue shewed. And besides, when you say; It is no Contradiction, that &c: you must signify, that, to be a contradiction, is to be impossible; and that if it were contradiction to belieue contradictions, it were impossible to belieue them: Seing then every one in his right wits judges it a contradiction, that the same thing should be, and not be, at the same tyme; he must judg it impossible; and if he judge it impossible, he cannot judg it de facto to be so; and consequently, cannot judg contradictoryes to be true; because it is impossible that a thing be, and not be for the same tyme, as all Contradictoryes say they are. Into how many precipices do your subtiltyes cast you, and force you to say, and vnsay the same thing, in the same words?

32. Your seventh Reason (N. 47.) is this: That Charity Maintayned cannot in Charity think that Dr. Vsher, and Dr. Potter did not belieue what they saied, and therfore if theyr words implied a contradiction, we must grant that it is not impossible, at once to believe contradictions?

33. Answer; If it be an Act of Charity to belieue, that the Doctors believed contradictions, it will be Charity in you to belieue that they did it not wittingly, which you say no man in his right wits, should doe; and then your reason procedes only in contradictions, not expressed, and is answered, confuted and retorted against yourself in the same manner, as your Fourth; Fift; and Sixt reasons were.

34. Your (N. 47.) containes a modification of your saying, That one may assent to Contradictions; but a modification, or explication, which containes a plaine contradiction, as I haue shewed in my answer to your fourth reason. And therfore I will say no more of this matter, except to mention in a word, your saying; To belieue a contradiction expressed in termes, especially if we belieue it to be a contradiction &c: what an expression, or repetition is heere? When can one belieue a contradiction to be a contradiction, if he belieue it not to be such, when it is expressed in termes, It is, it is not? you talk also of non-sense Distinctions; because you loue darkness; and in disputation nothing vexeth Protestants so much, as when Catholiques take of the obscurity of their objections, with cleare and solid Distinctions, wherby they instantly become silenced ministers. Lastly; (N. 46.) you grant that perhaps [Page 814]Dr. Vshers words (Marke that his words, and [...] only hee, but these his very words) did suppose that a man may belieue all Truths necessary to salvation, and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie: which being once granted, Charity Maintayned had reason to say, that Dr. Vsher did vtter a contradiction, and proved it, by this cleare reason; That there can be no damnable Heresy, vnless it contradict some necessary Truth, which cannot happē in one who is supposed to beleeue all necessary truths. Now, you grāt expressly (Pag: 215. N. 46) That there can be no damnable Heresy, vnless it contradict some necessary Truth: And therfore you must grant, that it is contradiction to belieue a damnable Heresie, and yet belieue all necessary Truths, in regard that if he belieue all necessary Truths, he must belieue that Truth which is contradictory to that Heresy, which also he believes, and so should belieue two contradictories at the same time. Which belief of (at least implied) contradictions being supposed, it is easy afterwards to bring one to open contradictions, which you confess is very difficult, and vnreasonable (you should say impossible) for a man in his right wits to belieue; and so you forsake your two Dr. Vsher, and Potter, in this Assertion, which you say (N. 47.) the one preached and printed, the other reprinted. Your second answer is, that the latter part of Dr. Vshers words, is but a repetition of the former. But this answer destroyes the former (which yet you do not deny to be good, and agreeable to the meaning of the Doctor.) For if the Second part be a contradiction of the former, as according to your first answer it is, how can it be only a repetition therof? And you tooke not a fitt example out of S. Athanasius his Creed, to proue a meere repetition; you I say, who wickedly hold that Creed (which indeed is a Catholique profession of the chiefest Articles of Christian Religion to (be but an aggregate of Contradictions: And yet that explication of S. Athanasius (Neither confounding the Persons &c:) was necessary, against some Heresies, that grāted a distinction of Persons, only quoad nomina, ād not in reality. For your other vulgar examples, to proue that those latter words, may be only a repetition of the former, you must remember, that in matters of Faith, all shew or shadow of contradictions, or falshood must be carefully avoided, as certainly it is a pernicious thing, to giue occasion of believing, that a damnable Heresie, may stand with the belief of all necessary Articles of Faith (and so a formall Heretique may be saved) and nevertheless you do not deny, but that Dr. Vshers words may suppose this. Yet Charity Maintayned out of this poyson gathered this wholsome doctrine in the same (N. 17.) that, if one believing all Fundamentall [Page 815]Articles in the Creed, may superinduce damnable heresies; it followes that the fundamentall truths contrary to those damnable heresies, are not contained in the Creed. And so, the Creed cannot be saied, to containe all Points, necessary to be believed, which is the maine Point in hand. You wonder that Ch. Ma. did nor espie an other contradiction in D. Vshers words, like to that which He noted; but if that other be a contradiction, you say it is of the same nature with that which was observed, and so it had bene to multiply things without necessity. But enough of this, which Ch. Ma. (N. 17.) professed to note only by the way, which yet did either trouble you very much for the difficulty of his argument, or else you are willing to take anie occasion, of making a vaine shew of your skill in Logick, and Metaphysick, but with how many contradictions, and little credit to yourselfe, I hope the Reader hath seene by the confutation of all your Reasons.

35. In your number 48.49. you are highly offended with Ch. Ma., as if he had said (N. 18.) that Dr. Potter patches vp a Religion, of men agreeing in some few, or one Article of beliefe, that Christ is our Saviour, but for the rest hold conceipts, plainly contradictory: which you say is a shamelesse calumny, not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his owne judgment, but relates the opinion of others, M. Hocker and M. Morton, but especially even these men (as they are related by Dr. Potter) to the constitution of the very essence of a Church, in the lowest degree, require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the Sonne of God, and Saviour of the world, but also submission to his Doctrine in minde and will. Now I beseech you, Syr, tell me ingenuously, whether the Doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith? Is it not manifest to all the world, that Christians of all Professions agree with one consent in the beliefe of all those Bookes of Scripture, which were not doubted of in the ancient Church, without danger of damnation? And so the truths wherin they agree amount to many millions &c.

36. Answer. First, Ch: Ma: in the said (N. 18.) doth not ground his Assertion, vpon the Doctrine of Hooker, and Morton, but vpon the principles of Potter, and Protestants; who hold, that men may be members of the same Church, if they agree in fundamentall Articles, though they should differ in never so many other points: and you cannot deny this, not only to be true, but the very ground, for which they hold themselves to be brethren, and capable of salvation, notwithstanding their differences in matters not fundamentall. From whence it followes, that although it were granted, that Protestants agree in many Points not [Page 816]fundamentall, yet this is meerely accidentall, and nothing against the Assertion of Ch: Ma: because if once you suppose them to agree in all fundamentalls, and disagree in all other Points, they must still be members of one Church. For in this mattet, more, or fewer, cannot alter their case, so they keepe with in the compass of non-fundamentalls: as contrarily, though they were supposed to agree in those many millions which you mention, and in as many millions more as you may please to imagine, of points not fundamentall; yet if they differ but in one fundamentall, they cannot be members of the same Church; and so your millions of such points, can availe nothing, either to constitute men members of the same Church, or to hinder them from being so; and therfor if you agree in never so many such points, it helps you no more, then if you agreed in none at all, according to the ground, and Doctrine of Potter, and Model of his Church: and therfor the saying of Ch: Ma: is very true, who speaks reservedly, in this manner. According to this Model of Dr. Potters foundation, consisting in the agreement, of scarcely one Point of Faith; what a strange Church would he make, of men concurring in some one or few Articles of beliefe, who yet for the rest should be holding conceipts plainly contradictory: so patching vp a Religion of men, who agree only in the Article that Christ is our Saviour, but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimera, having the head of a man, the neck of a horse &c. For there is greater repugnancy betwene assent and dissent, then betwene integrall parts, as head, neck &c. These words, if you read them with attention, doe not affirme what is de facto, but only goe vpon a supposition, that is, what a Church he would make, if men agreed only in fundamētall points, and for the rest, should hold conceipts plainly contradictorie; and therfor he vseth the word Model, which signifies, not necessarily what is, but what would be, if Potter proceeded according to his owne grounds, taking them for a Model of his building. Thus Ch: Ma: doth not wrong Dr. Potter in imputing to him, the opinions of others, but you misalledge Ch: Ma: that you may accuse him of calumny, created by yourselfe.

37. Secondly I answer; if Ch: Ma: had spoken, not vpon meere supposition, but by way of affirmation (as he did not) if he committed any fault, it was, in yielding too much. For indeed Protestants doe not agree, even in that fundamentall point, that Christ is our Saviour, or in Faith in Iesus Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world: Seing I haue shewed in divers occasions, that they differ toto genere, in their explication, [Page 817]and beliefe of those Articles; and accordingly, Morton teaches that the Churches of Arians (who denied our Saviour Christ to be God) are to be accounted the Church of God, because they doe hold the foundation of the Ghospell which is Faith in Iesus Christ the Sone of God and Saviour of the world, as may be seene in Ch: Ma: (Part. 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 103.) and since the beliefe of those Articles, is required to the consticuting of the very essence of a Church in the Lowest degree, and they doe not agree in them, it followes, that they doe not agree in the very essence of a Church, in the lowest degree. As for Divine Precepts, and Divine Promises, which you say are clearly delivered in Scripture, they belong to Agenda, and not to Credenda according to your distinction; and so men may agree in them, and disagree in points of simple belief.

38. Lastly: If you had a minde to defend Protestants, you should not alledg their agreement, in such Points as they haue received from vs, but in those, wherin Luther, and his fellowes forsooke the Faith of our Church, (with which all true Christian Churches did clearly agee) and in those, Protestants are so farre from agreement among themselves, that in the chiefest matters, divers of the most learned of them, stand for, vs against their pretended Brethren: and vniversally, it is most true, that their agreement is only actuall, and meerely accidentall; in regard that they acknowledg no living, infallible Judge of Controversyes, to make them agree, in case they should chance to doubt of those points, wherin they casually agree, and so still in actu primo, they are in a disposition to disagree: whereas Catholiques, believing an infallible Judge, are in a continuall disposition, or a virtuall and potentiall agreement, even in those things, wherin particular persons may happen not to agree: yea those many millions of Truths, which you say are contayned in Scripture, could not, for ought Protestants know, be so much as one, if your doctrine were true, that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith, which men are obliged to belieue. And yet (such is your inconstancy, and spirit of contradicting yourself) you say heere: is it not manifest to all the world, that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of Scripture, which were not doubted in the ancient Church without danger of damnation? Nay is it not apparent, that no man at this time, can without hypocrisy, pretend to belieue in Christ, but of necessity he must do so? Seeing he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ, but he must haue the same to believe the Scripture. Sr. If all Christians consent in the belief of Scripture, how is not Scripture [Page 818]believed? And if it be believed, how is it not a materiall object of our belief, or the thing which we belieue? Nay, you say, no man at this tyme can pretend to belieue in Christ, but of necessity he must belieue the Bookes of Scripture: and so you declare, that if Christ be a materiall object of our Faith, the Scripture must also be such.

39. But there remaines yet an other contradiction, no less manifest, and more strange, than this, which I now mentioned. Heere you say expresly; no man can pretend to belieue in Christ, but of necessity he must belieue Scripture: and you proue this your Assertion; because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ, but he must haue the same to belieue the Scripture; which proof (to be of any force) must suppose; that there is alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equall Reason: Otherwise, one might haue the same reason to belieue in Scripture, which he hath to belieue in Christ, and yet be obliged to belieue in Christ, and not be obliged, nor haue an equall necessity, to belieue the Scripture, vnder danger of damnation. Is not all this cleare? Now, I beseech you remember, what you write, (Pag. 116. N. 159.) where you treate of this very matter, that is, of the belief of Scripture, and of the belief of the contents thereof, that is (among other Points) of our belief in Christ; and you endeavour to proue, that God requires of vs vnder pain of damnation only to belieue the verities therein contained, and not the Divine Authority of the Bookes wherein they are contained. Behold your Assertion, contrary to that which we haue heard you say, that the vndoubted Bookes of Scripture were not doubted of without danger of damnation. But let vs see, whether as you contradict yourself in your Assertions, you doe not the same, in the reason you giue for them. You goe forward in the saied (Pag. 116. N. 159.) and say: Not but that it: were now very strang and vnreasonable, if a man should belieue the matters of these Bookes, and not the Authority of the Bookes: and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these, I should haue reason to feare he did not belieue that. But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief whereof there is an equall reason. No? Is there not alwaies an equall necessity for the beliefe of &c. How then did you proue, that men cannot without danger of damnation, doubt of the Bookes of Scripture, as he cannot doubt of Christ; because he can haue no reason to belieue in Christ, but of necessity he must do so, that is, belieue the Scripture.

40. Yet, this is not all, that heere offers itself about your Contradictions. You say, we haue the same reason to belieue the vndoubted [Page 819]Bookes of Scripture, which we haue for our belief in Christ. I suppose you meane vniversall Tradition, for which you profess to receiue the Scripture. How then were you obliged to belieue in Christ and teach that Christ is a materiall object of our Faith, and yet that Scripture is not such an object, If vniversall Tradition, be sufficient, to declare an Object to be revealed by God, and the same vniversall Tr. dition deliver to vs Christ, and Scripture, it is a Contradiction to say, the one is revealed (and consequently is a materiall object of our Faith) and not the other. Or if one be revealed, and not the other, than you contradict your owne saying, that there is the same reason for believing them both; seing the one hath the Formall reason, or Motiue of Faith, namely divine Revelation, which the other must want, if you will needs deny it to be a Materiall Object of Faith: And I hope to be revealed, and not revealed, are very different, and not the same things, or Reasons.

41. In your (N. 50.) you fall Heavy vpon Cha. Ma. for saying, that Protestants are f [...]rre more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith, than Catholique Divines in Questions meerely Philosophicall, or not determined by the Church. But Charity Maintayned had good reason. For wheras Catholiques haue an infallible meanes to know, what Points belong to Faith, they are Religiously carefull, and circumspect, not to broach any thing, which may in any remote way, cross any least Article of Christian Religion; as contrarily, Protestants having no certaine Rule for interpreting Scripture, must needs be subject to innumerable, and endless diversityes of opinions, which therfore they will esteeme to be no more than indifferent matters: and so you say in your answer to the Direction (N. 30.) that the disputes of Protestants are touching such controverted Questions of Religion, as may with probability be disputed on both sides. And what is this, except to dispute of probabilityes, as men do in Philosophy? For this cause, I haue shewed heretofore, that learned Protestants, speaking of the points wherin they differ, call them small matters; Things indifferent; Matters of no great moment; No great matters; Matters of nothing; Matters not to be much respected; No parte of Faith, but curious nicities. Which shewes, that Protestants, speak and proceede, with greater liberty, in matters concerning Faith, than Catholiques doe in Philosophy call Questions, which they would never handle, if they esteemed them, to be things so contemptible, as Protestants declare, the matters in which they differ, to be. Besides [Page 820]this; Catholiques in Questions of Philosophy, bejond the Direction of Faith, to which all Philosophy ought to submitt, haue also the light of Reason, and evident Principles of demonstrations, for their guide; whereas the Mysteryes of Faith, being sublime, and obscure, and Protestants having no infallible meanes, not to erre in the interpretation of Scripture, they are left to their owne freedom, or rather fancy, incomparably more than Catholiques are left to themselves in Philosophicall disputes, wherin they are restrayned, and kept within compass, both by Divine Faith, and Human Reason, subjected to Faith. It is true, when they will defend their defection, and Schisme, from all Churches, extant when Luther appeared, they will seeme to make great account, of all points, though they be not Fundamentall; but this very thing, doth indeed giue them greater freedom, to multiply opinyons, and increase dissentions, not only with vs, but amongst themselves, vpon pretence of piety, and necessity to forsake all errours, either of Catholiques, or Protestants. I know not to what purpose you say: Is there not as great repugnancy betweene your assent and dissent, your affirmation and negation your Est, Est, Non, Non, as there is betweene theyrs? For this is not the Question, but whether, we doe, or haue the freedom to dissent, as much as Protestants doe, and haue liberty, to disagree both from vs, and amongst themselves; and I haue proved that we haue not: and then I hope there is not as great repugnancy, betwene our Est, Est, as betwene the Est, and Non Est, of Protestants. The rest of this Number makes nothing against what I haue saied, and therfore I Let it pass, though there want not some points, which you could not easily defend.

42. To your (N. 51.52.) I answer; Ch. Ma. saied truly, that while Protestants stand only vpon Fundamentall Articles, they do by their owne confession destroy the Church, which is the House of God. For the fundation alone of a house, is not a house, nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect salvation, than the Fundation alone of a house is sitt to affoard a man, habitation. To this you say to Charity Maintayned; I hope 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 meane all those which are necessary: Vnless you will say that more is necessary, than that which is necessary.

43. Answer; It is impossible, that yourself can be satisfied with this your answer; seing you know Charity Maintayned disputes in that [Page 821]place expressly, against Protestants, who pretend to Brotherhood, Vnity of Faith, and Hope of salvation, in vertue of their agreement in Fundamentall Articles, though they differ in many other Points of Faith. This state of the Question being supposed, and evidently true; [...] you meane (for you speak very confusedly, in saying only, By Fundamentall Artitles, we meane all those which are necessary) If I say, you meane that Fundamentall and necessary points are the same, and that all points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God are necessary to be believed (and consequently Fundamentall) you fight for Charity Maintayned, and grant, that Protestants disagreeing in points revealed, differ in necessary and Fundamentall points, and cannot be of the same Church, nor hope for salvation. For you must giue me leaue to say; I hope you will not be difficult in granting that it is not a house, or a Church which hath not all the necessary things belonging to a house, or church. If you say, that no Points are necessary, but such as are Fundamentall of their owne nature, and are to be believed explicitely; then also you grant, that which Charity Maintayned affirmed; that the Church, or house of Protestants, consists only in the foundation, seing they may differ in other Points not fundamentall, and yet remaine a Church. But then how can this agree, with your Doctrine, that every errour against any revealed Truth, is of itself damnable? Can it be a house of God, which opposes Gods Testimony, and is not capable of salvation without repentance of its damnable errours? Haue we not often cited Dr. Potter teaching (Pag: 212.) that whatsoever is revealed in Scripture is in some sense Fundamentall, that is such as may not be denied without infidelity And (Pag: 250.) he saies plainly: It is Fundamentall to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he belieue all revealed Truths of God, wherof he may be convinced that they are from God. Do not these words declare, that though Protestants were supposed to belieue all Points fundamentall of their owne nature, yet they are guilty of infidelity (according to Dr. Potter,) and want something Fundamentall to a Christians Faith, and necessary for salvation, as long as they differ in any point sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God? Finally, what will you resolue? If errours in points not fundamentall, may stand with the substance of the same Faith, Church, and hope of salvation in those who agree in Fundamentall Articles, then you must yeald to Charity Maintayned saying, that the Church of protestants is a House builded by the foundation only, and yet you pretend to take in [Page 822]ill parte this saying of his. If you affirme, that for constituting the Church, or house of God, there is also required agreement in points not Fundamentall, you overthrow the maine tenet of Protestants, that they are Brethren, and haue the same substance of Faith, though they differ in such vn-fundamentall points; and if you turne about to agree with them, that men may be of the same Church, and hope for salvation, for the only belief of fundamentall points, though they differ in non-fundamentalls, you contradict yourself, and Dr. Potter, who saieth it is infidelity, and damnable, and a Fundamentall error to disbelieve any point, sufficiently propounded as revealed by God. So that vpon the whole matter, you perforce stand for Charity Maintayned whom you impugne, and overthrow Potter, Yourself, and Protestants, whom you vndertake to defend. To all this I add; that Charity Maintayned might haue saied, not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House, so the belief of only fundamentall points, cannot make a Church, but also that seing it is fundamentall to a Christians Faith, not to deny any point revealed by God (as we haue seene in Potters assertion) it followes, that they who disagree in such points want the foundation of Faith, and of a Church, and so cannot pretend to so much, in order to a Church, as a foundation is, in respect of a House. You say that Ch. Ma. (Pag: 131.) takes notice, that Dr. Potter, by Fundamentall Articles meanes all those which are necessary. But, by your leaue, in this you falsify both the Doctor, and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledg he doth, that by fundamentall doctrines we vnderstand such as are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved. In which words you see, the Doctor saieth not that all necessary Articles are fundamentall, but only that all fundamentall Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly, and explicitely; and so he speaks (Pag: 213.) Fundamentall properly is that which Christians are obliged to belieue by an express and actuall Faith. Now I hope, Protestants will not deny, that it is necessary to belieue every Text of Scripture, and yet will not affirme that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamentall point, to be believed by an express and actuall Faith; Therefore necessary, and Fundamentall according to the explication of the Doctor, doe not signify the same thing, nor are of the same extent.

44. In your (N. 53.54.55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.) you shew so much choler, bitterness, and ill language, that the best answer will [Page 823]be to apply my selfe only to the matter, desiring the Reader, to consider the points, which I shall set downe, and he will finde your objections answered, by only applying my considerations to them, as they come in order.

45. First. Before you can refer any considering man, as you speake, to the Scripture for his satisfaction, you must assure him, that it is the word of God, which you confesse we can only learne from the Church, and then if he be indeed a considering man, it will instantly inferr, that the Church must be infallible, or else that he cannot be infallibly true that Scripture is the word of God, nor of any one truth contained therin; and as you say, he may know that the Church holds such bookes to be canonicall, so by the like Tradition he may know, what she holds in points of Doctrine, and either belieue her in them, or not belieue her in delivering the canon of Scripture. Besides of whom shall he learne the sense of Scripture, or who will oblige him even to reade Scripture? Seing in the principles of Protestants, he cannot learne any such precept, except from Scripture itselfe; and he cannot be obliged to finde that precept in Scripture, vnless aforehand he knowes independently of Scripture, that there is such a precept, which as I sayd, is against the principles of Protestants. Moreover, yourself teach, that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith, and therfor a man must first learne the Church, and of the Church, before you can in wisdome refer him to the Scripture. Which is also conforme to Dr. Potters assertions, if he will not contradict himselfe. For (Pag: 139.) he teaches that the Church works powerfully and probably as the highest humane Testimony (and you say Faith is but probable in the highest degree, and consequently, the Church Works powerfully enough to settle an Act of your kinde of Faith) vpon Nouices (and we speake of such) weakelings, and doubters in the Faith; to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselves with, and vnderstand the Scripture. Therfore men must first be referred to the Church, and not to the Scripture, as Potter in the same place saieth expressly: The Testimony of the present Church, though it be not the last resolution of our Faith, yet it is the first externall motiue to it.

46. Secondly, you say to Charity Maintayned; To the next question; cannot Generall Councells erre? You pretend he answers § 19. they may erre damnably. Let the Reader see the place, and he shall find damnably is your addition.

[Page 824]

47. Answer. Amongst the Errata, or faults of the Print, Charity Maintayned notes this, in the (Pag: 136. Lin. 22.) Damnably. Corrige, damnably. I meane it ought not to be in a different or Curciffe letter, because it is not Dr. Potters word, though it follow out of his doctrine. All this saieth Charity Maintayned in the correction of the Errata: where you see, he was scrupulous, not to adde one word, which was not expressly the Doctors, though it be most true, that it doth not only follow out of his doctrine (as Ch: Ma: saieth) but his words in this very place at which you carp, signify no lesse, yea more. For Ch: Ma: cites these words out of Potter (Pag: 167.) Generall Councells may weakely, or wilfully misapply, or misvnderstand, or neglect Scripture, and so erre. Now what difference is there to say, a generall Councell may erre by wilfully misapplying, or misvnderstanding, or neglecting, Scripture, and a Councell may erre damnably? Is it not damnable, wilfully to misapply or misvnderstand, or neglect Scripture? Nay wilfully expresses more then damnably; because one may erre damnably, if his errour be culpable by reason of some weakeness, (which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfullnes) or for sloath, humane respects, of hope, feare &c. and yet not be so culpable, as when it proceeds from wilfulness: and therfor Charity Maintayned might haue sayd, that in the doctrine of Potter, Generall Councells may erre more than damnably. Haue we not heard the Doctours words (Pag. 212.) whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity? And shall not a wilfull misapplying, or neglect of Gods Word be damnable, and more then simply damnable, even infidelity? The Doctour teaches, that the vniversall Church cannot erre fundamentally, but he neither doth, nor can say (according to the doctrine of Protestants) that Councells cannot erre fundamentally, and if Fundamentally, surely damnably. But why doe I spend tyme in this? Yourselfe here (N. 53.) confesse, that to say Prelats of Gods Church meeting in a Lawfull Councell may erre damnably, is not false for the matter, but only it is false, that Dr. Potters sayes it (A great wrong to say the Doctour speakes a truth, which he himselfe teaches!) and so finally Charity Maintayned sayd not so much as he might haue sayd of Potters assertion, and therfor was far enough from doing him any wrong.

48. Thirdly. Seing that one must not, at first, be referred to Scripture, as we haue proved, nor to Generall Councells, which Dr. Potter says may erre weakely, and so be deceaved, and wilfully, and so deceaue, [Page 825]nor that he can consult with the whole Church collectiuè or all togeather, as you grant the Doctour sayes; what remaines, but that he must deale a parte with every particular member of the Church? Which being also impossible, as is clear of it selfe (and when you seeke to proue it, you labour for your Adversary, who sayeth the very same thing) it remaines, that all the wayes which Potter can propose, to a man, desirous to saue his soule, are not only ineffectuall, but impossible also, and only chalke out a way to desperation, and that He, and other Protestants, must haue patience to be told this truth, that they must not wonder, if contradictories be deduced from their Assertions, which they must often vary, even against their wills. Ch: Ma: never intended to make, or not make, a difference betweene the vniversall Church, and the whole Church militant, but only (Pag. 137.) cites the Doctours words, as he findes them, and proves, that they cannot serue, for the effect, of quieting an afflicted soule, not regarding whether those different words, which he vseth, signifie any different thing, or noe.

49. Fourthly; Seing in pursuit of some good and infallible ground, wheron to settle Divine Faith, Potter can admit none but the Scripture, or the vniversall Church, and that Scripture cannot instruct vs with certainty, independently of the Church, as we haue demonstrated; nor that the whole Church can be consulted; it remaines only, that he must wish one to finde out some, who believes all fundamētall points, and follow him, and that then the first question to passe betweene them should be, to know whether he knows all such points, and if this cannot be knowne, it is cleare the Doctour can giue no satisfaction, to any considering man, desirous to know the truth. It is pretty that you tell vs, the Doctour in all his Booke, gives no such Answer as this, procure to know whether he belieue all fundamentall points of Faith; as if Ch: Ma: had pretended to relate a history, and not only to tell the Reader, what Potter, must be forced to answer, according to his grounds; Though, I grant, he will by doing so, be necessitated to contradict both Truth, and Himselfe: And you will never be able to shew, but that Potter must make such answers, as Ch: ma: exprest, if the Doctor will be faithfull to his owne grounds. Your discourse about probabilities, and even wagers, is impertinent; both because we deny, that indeed Dr. Potters opinion about the Creed, hath any probability at all, and because Ch: Ma: speakes only of probabilities, and even wagers, which is a good comparison, seing a thing very probable, doth not hinder but that the contradictory [Page 826]may be very probable, and so be eaven or equall one to an other; ād your talking of probability in the highest degree, is your owne addition, or fiction, and not the Doctors Assertion, as may be seene in his (Pag. 241.) and yourself expresly confess, (N. 4. and 5. Pag. 194.) that he affirmed it only, to be very probable, that the Creed containes all necessary points, of those, which you call Credenda. What you write so often about the vncertainty that one is a Pope, hath been answered at large.

50. Fiftly. Who can deny, but that whosoever desires to be saved, and knowes that to obtaine salvation, it is necessary to belieue explicitly all fundamentall points, will instantly judge it necessary, to know what those points be, as de facto, Ch. Mist. vrged to haue a Catalogue of them? Now, if to satisfy this demand, Dr. Potter gives vs no other answer, but only some Definitions, and Descriptions, or Explications of the name Fundamentall, without specifying, what they are in particular, and so not satisfy at all the desire of any wise man, what can I helpe that? Or who can blame Ch: Ma: for having sayd, as much as Dr. Potters Booke could enable him to say? Neither hath he patched vp any thing, out of the Doctours Booke, which he (the Doctor) is not obliged to grant, according to his owne grounds, as I haue sayd.

51. Sixthly; Seing every article contained in the Creed is not Fundamentall, it would be demanded with Ch. Ma. How shall one know, which in particular be, and which be not fundamentall? You say, Dr. Potter would haue answered: it is a vaine question: belieue all, and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall. But by your leaue, this businesse cannot be dispatched to soone. For by occasion of your Answer, I must make some demands; whether every one is obliged, to belieue, or know explicitly those points of the Creed, which are not fund [...]mentall. To say, every one is bound; were to make them properly Fundamentall. For we haue heard Potter saying, Fundamentall properly is that, which Christians are obliged to belieue by an expresse and actuall Faith. If one be not obliged, to belieue explicitely those points of the Creed which are not fundamentall, then I am not bound to know the Creed, that I may know them. Perhaps some may say, I am obliged to know the Creed, because it containes fundamentall points, which I am bound to know expresly, and so I shall, at least per accidens, and by consequence, be obliged to know all points contained in the Creed, as well not Fundamentall as Fundamentall. This Answer must suppose, that I am obliged vnder damnation, to know that Symbol, which we call the Creed of the Apostles; and [Page 827]seing Protestants professe, that all things necessary to Salvation, are contained in Scripture alone, they must shew out of some expresse, evident text of Scripture, such a command, which you know is impossible to be done, since Scripture never mentions any such thing, as the Apostles Creed, and therfor one cannot be obliged to know points not Fundamentall, in vertue of a precept to know the Creed, seing Protestants cannot belieue any command, obliging men to know the Creed &c. Besides, All the Arguments, which proue that the Creed was composed by the Apostles, or that it containes all fundamentall points, must be grounded vpon the Authority of the Church, which according to Potter, and other Protestants, may erre in points not fundamentall, and none of them affirmes, that it is a fundamentall point, which all vnder damnation, are bound explicitely to belieue, that the Apostles composed the Creed, or that it containes all fundamentall points; and then, men, cannot be sure, that all points contained in it, are true; and much lesse can they be obliged, to belieue explicitly, by an act of Faith, every Article therof, according to the grounds of Protestants. Moreover, suppose one were perswaded, that all the Articles contained in the Creed were true, yet the arguments which Potter brings, from the sayings of ancient Fathers, and moderne Divines, can only, in the opinion of him, and all other Protestants, be probable, and so cannot oblige every one to know the Creed, but men may keepe their liberty. Melior est conditio possidentis. And Potter himselfe confesses it to be only probable, that the Creed containes all fundamentall points, and so he cannot oblige men to know the Creed, because it only probably containes all necessary Articles. If then you cannot proue, that any is obliged to know the Creed, in vaine doe you say, belieue all, and you shall be sure to belieue all that is Fundamentall: but you must say the direct contrary; Men are not in the Principles of Protestants obliged to belieue the Creed; Therefore they are not obliged to belieue, by it, any point, Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall. You say, Dr. Potter sayes no where, that all the Articles of the Creed, are fundamentall; Neither doth Ch. Ma. ever affirme, that he sayes so; but the thing being of it self true, (and you expressly confess it to be true) He had reason, joyning it with other principles of the Doctor, to frame such a Dialague as he did, betwene Potter, and some desirous to find the Truth. And now, I hope it appeares, that you had no reason to accuse Ch, Ma. of vn-ingenious dealing, sit for a Faire, or Comedy; of sirang immodesty; of adding to the Doctors words; of injustice; of blind [Page 828]zeale, transporting him beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion, and making him careless of speaking either truth or sense: That he is a prevaricating Proxy: That he patches together a most ridiculous answer; That it appeares to his shame &c: and finally you say; certainly if Dr. Potter doth Answer thus, I will make bold to say, he is a very foole. But if he does not, then: But. I for beare you. These be your modest epethitons. You say, that we Catholiques, interpret those divine prescriptions (Matth: 5.) to be no more than Counsells. But I pray, what Catholique ever taught, that our Saviour delivered only a Counsell, when he saied; whosoever shall say to his brother, thou foole, shall be guilty of hell fire? But all the rest of your acerbity, is nothing to that fearefull denunciation which you vtter against Ch. Ma. that our errours (as you call them) you feare, will be certainly destructiue to such as he is, that is, to all those, who haue eyes to see and will not see.

52. In your (N. 64.) you cavill, that Ch. Ma. promises to answer D. Potters Arguments against that which he (Ch. Ma.) said before. But presently forgetting himself, in stead of answering the Doctors Arguments, falls a confuting his Answers to the Argument of Ch. Ma.

53. Answer, Ch. ma. (N. 20.) promises to answer, not the Arguments, as you say, but the Objections of Dr. Potter, against that which we had said before, which be doth performe (N. 21.22.27.) and N. 23. he begins to answer the Doctors positive Arguments alledged to proue, that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of Faith. And the Confutations of the Doctors objections are so strong, that you abandon your Client, and tell vs, that he rather glances at then builds vpon thē; that they were said ex abundanti, and therefore that you conceiue it superfluous to examine the exceptions of Ch. Ma. against them. This is an excellent answer, if it could be as satisfactory, as it is easy. I must intreate the Reader to peruse the (N. 21.22.27. of Ch. Ma.) and he will finde, that Dr. Potter needed a Defence, which will be suspected you did not giue, because indeed you could not: and therefore you fly to an other Answer, which you will not find in Dr. Potter; That Scripture is not a point necessary to be explicitely believed. And How ought Protestants to accept this answer; who teach that wee can belieue nothing belonging to Christian Faith, but by Scripture alone, which if they belieue not Actually, nor are bound to belieue it, how can they Actually believe, or be obliged to belieue the contents thereof? If the Church in your opinyon, be not infallible, and that mē are not obliged to belieue the Scripture to be the word of God, and infallible (which to them, who belieue [Page 829]is not it all one, as if it were not) what certainty can Protestants haue, either that the Creed containes all fundamentall Articles of simple beliefe, or that those which it containes, are true? you say Gregory of Ualentia, seemes to confess, the Creeds being collected out of Scripture, and supposing the Authority of it. But Ualentia (2.2. Disp. 1. Quest. 1. Punct. 4.) saied only, that the Creed containes those things, which are in different places contayned in Scripture, which is evidently true; but he saieth not; the Creed was collected out of Scripture, which was written after the Creed was composed; one thinghe saieth, which had bene more for your purpose to obserue, that in believing the Creed, we are to regard the sence. Non enim (saieth he) sufficit haerere in cortice verborum.

54. Subtract from your (N. 65.) what hath bene answered already, or may be answered by a meere denyall, or which implies a begging of the Question, there will remaine only your saying (which yet I cannot say deserves any answer) that Ch. Ma. speakes that which is hardly sense, in calling the Creed an abridgment of some Articles of Faith. For I demand (say you) 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 therfore it is not an abridgment of them: Those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therfore is not an abridgment of them. If you would call it now an abridgment of the Faith, this would be sense, and signifie thus much, That all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith are comprized in it. For it is the proper duty of abridgments, to leaue out nothing necessary, and to take in nothing vnnecessary.

55. Answer; this your subtility is so farr from being of any solidity, that it overthrowes all abridgments, contradicts Dr. Potter, and yourselfe, and proves, that the Creed performes not the proper dury of an abridgment, as you say it is; and therfor you are injurious to, it and the composers therof. First your objection may be made against every Abredgment, by demanding, whether it be an abridgment of those points that are out of it, or of those that are in it? Those that are in it, it comprehends at large, and therfor it is not an abridgment of them: Those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therfor it is not an abridgment of them. Secondly; you contradict Dr. Potter, who saieth, (Pag: 234.) The Creed is an abstract or Abridgment of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Seripture, or collected ous of it: And Charity Maintay. saieth, it is an abridgment of some articles, and so the words [Page 830]of the Doctor are more restrained and limited, than those of Ch. Ma. who specifyed not necessary Doctrines, but vsed the signe, some, which abstracts from necessary or not necessary, and in that sence is more illimited, and may be better divided into diverse members or parts, and so more capable of being compendiated, than if it were more simple and individed, and as it were of it self a compendium, before it could be compendiated. Now I pray you tell the Doctor of Divinity, that he speakes that which is hardly sense: and demand of him; these necessary Doctrines, of which you say the Creed is an abridgment, 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 abridgment of them. Those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therfore it is not an abridgment of them. Thirdly: yourself in the beginning of this Chapter (N. 1. and 5.) say, that the Doctors Assertion is, that the Creed is a Summary of all those Doctrines (or Credenda) which all men are bound particularly to belieue, and this you endeavour to make good, through the whole Chapter. Now, you must ask yourself; whether the Creed be a Summary of these Doctrines, or Credenda, which are in it, or which are out of it &c. and so apply your Argument against yourself, and the Doctor. In this very place you say, if it be called an abridgment of the Faith, this would be sense. But if this would be sense, I am sure your objection can haue none. For then againe aske of yourselfe, whether it be an abridgment, of such points of the Faith, as are in it, or as are out of it; and you will find that every syllable of your owne objection, must be answered by yourselfe. Besides, is it an abridgment of all, or of some part of the Faith? You will not say it is an abridgment of all the Faith, seing you confesse, that much of the Faith is not in the Creed, namely those points which you call agenda, and you tell vs, it cannot be an abridgment of such articles as it cōprehends not. If then it be not an abridgmēt of all articles of Faith, and yet is an abridgment of Faith, as you confesse; it must be an abridgment of some Articles of Faith, which are the very words and proposition of Ch. ma. which you impugne and say, it is hardly sense. Fourthly. Having told vs that all the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith are comprized in the Creed, you add; for this is the proper duty of abridgmēts to leaue out nothing necessary, and to take in nothing vnnecescessary. Now, you grāt, that there are in the Creed, some articles not necessary, or Fundamentall, therfor the Creed or the composers therof, faild in the proper duty of abridgments, or if you deny this consequence you [Page 831]must deny your owne words, that the proper duty of abridgments is to take in nothing vnnecessary; or finally deny, that which you expresly grant, that in the Creed there are some points vnfundamentall, and so heape contradiction vpon contradiction. On the other side, Agenda are necessary, and yet are not contayned in the Creed, and so neither part of your proper duty of abridgments is true. The truth is you abuse the word necessary, not distinguishing betweene necessary to be believed, and necessary to be set downe in the Creed, For neither is it necessary, that all necessary points of beliefe be exprest in the Creed (as you confesse Agenda are not) nor is it necessary, that no point vnfundamentall, or vnnecessary, be set downe therin: only it was necessary for the Apostles, to set downe all that, which the Holy Ghost moved them to expresse, with which it is also necessary for vs to be content: notwithstanding your topicall humane reasons to the contrary. But what answer shall we giue to your objection? Truly it is so easy a taske, that I scarsely judge it necessary to giue any at all. For what is more easy, then to say? The Creed is an abridgment of some Articles, not because it doth not containe them, but because it containes them not at large, with explanations, proofes, illustrations, deductions, sequels, conclusions, and the like. For if one set downe at large, all that he pretends to abridg, he is not an Abbreviator, but an Amanuensis, or Copist. And in this I may alledge your selfe, who in this very Chapter (N. 31.) say; Summaries must not omit any necessary Doctrine of that Science wherof they are Summaries, though the Illustrations and Reasons of it they may omit. Thus then the Creed may be an abridgment of some Articles, both fundamentall, and not fundamentall, without any such non-sense, as you are pleased to object. But surely it will seeme somewhat strange to say, as you doe, Those Articles that are in the Creed it comprehends at large, and therfor it is not an abridgment of them: as if nothing can be set downe in the Creed, or any other writing, clearly, and particularly, but it must be set downe at large; which is to take away all briefe and compendious treatises; and therefore, as I sayd, your selfe must answer your owne objection. Out of what we haue saied, is answered your (N. 66.) wherein you, and the Doctor, must either suppose, and begg the question, in supposing that all points of simple belief are contayned in the Creed, or els his Argumēt is of no force at all.

56. To your (N. 67.68.) the Answer is very easy, that all those interrogations of Potter, which you call plaine and convincing Arguments, are nothing but plaine beggings of the question, and suppose that the [Page 832]whole way to heauen; all Articles of Faith; the whole Counsell of God; all necessary matters; are contained in the Creed; which you know is the thing controverted. The Doctour should first haue proved, that the Creed containes all necessary points, and then haue vrged those his interrogations: May the Churches of after ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower then our Saviour left it &c. Doe not you, and the Doctour, acknowledge, that men cannot come to heaven by believing only the contents of the Creed, but must also belieue Agenda? and besides the Faith of both these kindes of Articles, they must keepe the commandements, and so the Doctour, must answer his owne interrogations: and he himselfe was guilty of what I haue sayd; I meane, that all his interrogations could be to no purpose, vnless first it be proved, that the Creed containes all necessary points. For this cause (Pag. 222.) after he had, in a concionatory way, made his interrogations, he sayth: All that can be replyed to this discourse is this, that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed, as if a man should say, this is not the Apostles Creed, but a part of it. Now Char. Maint. (Pag. 143. N. 25.) and in the following numbers, having answered this, and other objections, and some of them in his second part (Chap. 7.) through divers numbers, it remaines that all his interrogations were fully answered; the very foundation, vpon which they stood (that the Creed containes all necessary points) being demolished, and in particular his interrogation, What tyranny is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians? Seing yourselfe acknowledge, that he professes the Creed to containe all necessary points of Faith, not absolutely, but as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent Heresies) in the other Catholick Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesius, Chalcedon, and Athanasius, which are his owne words (Pag: 216.) and therfor he must answer his owne demand, What tyranny is it to impose any new vnnecessary matters &c. Since the declaration of those Councells, were long after the Apostles time: and for this cause, you expresly professe, to forsake the Doctour, in this his explication of the Creed, as we haue seene hertofore.

57. To your (N. 69.70.71.72.73.) I answer; Ch. Ma. had reason to say, that Potter citing the words of S. Paul (Act. 20. V. 27.) adds this glosse of his owne (needfull for our salvation.) For the Apostle both in our translation, and in the Protestant English Bible, hath, profitable, not, needfull, and yourselfe here (N. 69.) grant the same. And speaking in rigor, that which is strictly profitable, is not needfull, or necessary, nor [Page 833]that which is properly needfull, is profitable, as profitable and needfull, are membra contradistincta, as when we distinguish Meanes to some End, that some are profitable, others necessary; and you know it is in Logick no good division, wherin one of the membra dividentia includes the other; and therfor, your saying to Ch: Ma: I hope you will make no difficulty to grant that whatsoeuer is needfull for salvation is very profitable, is spoken with greater confidence, then truth. But for our present purpose, seing the Apostle (Uers. 20.) sayth, I haue withdrawen nothing that was profitable, and sayth not, I haue withdrawen nothing that was needfull, it followes, that the Apostle taught, not only necessary, but also profitable things; and thence I inferr, that when he sayth (V. 27.) I haue not spared to declare vnto you all the counsel of God, he meant not only of necessary, but also of profitable points, and therfore of more thē are contained in the Creed. For which cause he (C Ma.) had reasō to take notice of this place in particular, which clearly shewes, out of the very text of Scripture, which Potter cites, his interrogations to be of no force, but only to begg the question, by supposing vntruly, that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church, is contained in the Creed. To salue this you say (N. 70.) It is not D. Potter that beggs the Question, but you that mistake it, which is not here in this particular place, whether all points of simple Beliefe necessary for the salvation of the primitiue Christians were contained in the Apostles Symbol? (for that and the proofes of it follow after in the next (§ Pag. 223. of Dr. Potter:) but whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to belieue now which was not so from the beginning.

58. Answer. Dr. Potter (Pag: 216.217.) sayeth: The Creed of the Apostles is sayd generally by the Schoolemen and Fathers, to comprehend a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentall truths; and to imply a full rejection of Fundamentall heresies: and hath been receaved by Orthodox Christians, as an absolute summarie of the Christian Faith. For proofe wherof, we will first argue ad hominem and teach the Mistaker how to esteeme of his Creed, out of his owne Masters. And then having alledged divers Catholik Writers, to proue his Assertion, he adds; it were easy to multiply testimonies to this effect, out of their late and ancient schoole Doctors if it were not tedious. All agree that the Creed briefely comprehends all Fundamentall principles or rudiments of Faith; that it is a distinctiue Character severing Orthodox believers from insidels and heretiks, that it is a full, perfect, and sufficient summary of the Catholik Faith. Thus he. And immediatly after sayth: Their judgment (that is the judgment of Catholik Authors whom he alledged) herein that is for the purpos of proving [Page 834]the Creed to containe all Fundamentall Articles, seemes full of reason. And his reasons he setts downe in these words immediatly following: For how can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed, then the Apostles had, and the Church of their times? May the Church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrower then our Saviour left it? And so he goes on with his interrogations, and in the same context hath these words of which we speake; The Apostles professe they revealed to the Church the whole counsell of God keeping back nothing needfull for our Salvation: What Tyranny then is it to impose any new necessary matters on the Faith of Christians? I pray you consider, whether he doth not speake expressly of the Apostles Creed, when he saith, How can it be necessary for any Chrictian to haue more in this Creed then the Apostles had, and the Church of their time? And doe not you (N. 15.) expressly vnderstand these words of the Doctor of the Apostles Creed, as it is a full comprehension of that part of the beliefe of the Apostles which cōtaines only the necessary articles of simple Faith? And consequently when the Doctour askes, How can it be necessary for any Christian to haue more in his Creed then the Apostles had, his demand must be; How can it be necessary for any Christian, to belieue more then the Creed containes? Which evidently supposes, that the Creed containes all things necessary; otherwise it might be necessary, to belieue some thing, not contained in the Creed. Besides, what connexion can ther be in the Doctours words, taken in your sense, which will make him argue in this manner? No Christian is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed, who certainly believed more then is contained in the Creed, Therfor the judgment of those who teach that the Creed containes all Fundamentall points is full of reason. And indeed the Doctor had no occasion at all, to proue, that it can not be necessary, for any Christian, to belieue more then the Apostles did belieue, neither did Ch: Ma: say any such thing. And why doe you (N. 67.) exact of C Ma: an āswer to D. Potters interrogations, if they proue only, that no Christiā is obliged to belieue more then the Apostles believed, which as I sayd Ch: Ma: never denied. Will you haue him (C: Ma:) confute his owne judgment, and answer those arguments, which were intended only to proue his owne beliefe? Thus while you will be clearing the Doctour, from begging the question, you make him with great paines, and pompe of words, make many patheticall interrogations nothing to the purpose, and grant that which is the only maine point, that those his interrogations, proue not, that all fundamentall points be contained in the [Page 835]Creed. Chuse of these inconveniences which you please. Truly I cannot imagine, that any man would haue dreamed, that Dr. Potter did not intend, by those interrogations, to proue that the Creed containes all fundamentall points; whether we consider the only question in hand, or the clear connexion, and thread of his words, as I haue shewed, and that all his interrogations tended to make good, that no Christian can be obliged to belieue more, as necessary, then the Apostles believed to be necessary; of which necessary points you say (N, 65.) the Creed is a full comprehension, and consequently, that he intended to proue so much by his interrogations, though, I grant, he faild in his proofes and performance of his intention; which he perceiving, did afterward seeke to corroborate them with other reasons; which consideration, beside what hath been sayd, doth evidently declare, that in his interrogations he intended to perswade vs, that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith. For let vs suppose with you, that his purpos was only to proue, that no Christian is bound to belieue more then the Apostles believed, and not, that no Christian is bound to belieue more then the [...], with what connexion, or sense, could Potter say immediatly after those interrogations? All that can be replyed to this discourse is, that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed; which [...] all one as if a man should say, this is not the Apostles Creed, but a part of it. For the Apostles and the Church of their times in giving it this name, do [...] they not plainely tell vs that the Summe and Substance of their Credenda is comprized in it? If Potter in his interrogations, meant only to proue, that no Christian is bound to belieue more thē the Apostles believed, how did he imagine, that it could be replyed, against that discourse, ād those interrogations of his, that the whole Faith of those times is not contained in the Apostles Creed, if, I say, his discourse according to your interpretation, aymed at no such matter? Or to what purpos doth the Doctour as soone as he had sayd, that nothing could be replye to his discoursed, except that the whole Faith of those times, is not contained in the Apostles Creed, instantly set himselfe to proue, that the Creed containes the Summe, and substance of the Credenda of the Apostles, and Church of their times? As if by proving this, that reply were confuted, and his Interrogations made good; which yet had been good (if they were vnderstood of the whole extent of the Apostles beliefe) though it were supposed, that the Creed containes not all fundamentall points of Faith. For whether it contained them or no, it is most true, that no Christian is obliged, to belieue more then [Page 836]the Apostles believed of things, contained, and not contained, in the Creed. Looke now whether I may not retort the words which you direct against Charity Maintayn? Consider I pray a litle better, and then I hope you will acknowledge, that there was no Petitio principij in Dr. Potter, but rather Ignoratio Elencht, in you.

59. You doe but loose time, in proving, that S. Paul (Act: 20.) spoke to the Pastours, yet that he spoke of what he taught not only them, but also the Laity as well as them. And you wonder Charity Maintayned should read the Text so negligently, as not to obserue it. Ch. Ma. never sayd, that the Apostle spoke to the Pastors only, or that he instructed them only, but that the sayd words were directed particularly to the Pastors or Governours of the Church, and yourselfe grant the Apostle did all these things (of which he speakes) to the Pastours among the rest, nay aboue the rest: ād therfor C: Ma: did clearly deduce, that the Doctour could not collect from those words, that the Apostle spoke of things necessary, for all sortes of persons, to belieue; seing (Pag; 244.) He acknowledges, that more knowledge is necessary in Bishops, and Priests, to whome is committed the government of the Church, then in vulgar Laicks, as Charity Maintayned observes; and consequently, he could not gather out of those words, what points be necessary for all, and much lesse that all necessary points are contained in the Creed. In a word, the Apostle spoke of more then all are obliged to belieue, and more then is contained in the Creed, and therfor, Potter could not prove by those words, that if it were necessary for every one, to belieue more than is contained in the Creed, every one must belieue more, or as much, as the Pastors are obliged to belieue.

60. No wonder if those Reasons of Dr. Potter, which you mention (N 74.) were not particularly answered, being so clearly false, as they are answered by a meere denyall. For that the Ancient Church appointed her infants to be instructed for matters of simple beliefe only in the Creed, and admitted her Catechumens vnto baptisme and strāgers to her communion, vpon their only profession of the Creed, is evidently false. For how many notorious heretiks pretēd to belieue the Creed? Which therfor alone, without other knowledge, and circūstances of the persons, &c. could not be sufficiēt to admit strangers into the communion of the Church: and who knows not that Catechumens are instructed, in many more points of Faith, then are exprest in the Creed? Infants, if you speake properly cannot be instructed in the Creed, or any other part of Christian Faith? Their Patrini surely know more points of Faith, then the Creed alone. But [Page 837]why did you not confute the answer, which you confesse Ch: Ma: gives to Potters Fourth Reason about the letters called formatae, which containe more then the Creed, as may be seene in Charity Maintayned (Par: 2. P: 171.) and it will be found, that you had reason to dissē ble his discourse, which proves, that more was required to be belieued then only the Creed, as appeares even by Potter himselfe, speaking of those letters (Pag: 224.) in these words: If in those letters he did professe entirely to adhere to the Catholick Creeds, his profession and person was accepted as sound and Orthodox. Wher you see the beliefe of more Creeds was required, then of the Apostles Creed only.

61. Although the rest of the numbers in this Chapter, containe no particular difficulty, which may not be solved, by our former grounds, and therfor might well be omitted, especially seeing you, and the Doctor, grant as much, as is more then sufficient, for our maine purpos, that in vaine Protestants alledge their beliefe of the Creed, to shew that they agree in all Fundamentall points of Faith, and it appeares very cleare of it selfe, seing it containes not all essentiall points of Christian practice, yet I will cast an eye on your Numbers (75.76.77.78.79.80.81.82.83.84.) as they lye in order. Divers Points, which haue connexion, or were circumstances of the Articles set downe in the Creed, might haue been exprest, besides those which are specified in it, and therfor Ch. Ma. may still aske, why some such are exprest, and others are not; and you must finally answer, with Ch. Ma., that the Apostles set downe those Points Fundamentall, and not Fundamentall, which the Holy Ghost inspired them to deliver; as you say, they were inspired to set downe Credenda, and not Agenda, though these be of no lesse importance, and necessity then those, and you still begg the Question (N. 75.) that the end which the Apostles proposed, was to set downe all necessary points of Faith. The reasons which you giue (N. 76.) why some mysteries were omitted, and others set downe, can only be congruences of that which is done de facto, and not arguments convincing that they could not haue done otherwise, thē they did, ād if they had set downe others, and not these, there could not haue wanted reasons for their so doing. That the three Sages who came to adore our Saviour, were also Kings, is no new invention of Ch. Ma. but the judgment of the Ancient; as may be seene in Cornelius a Lapide (in Matth. Chap. 2.) citing by name the Saints, Ciprian, Basil, Chrisostom. Hierom, Hilary, and Tertullian, Isidore, Beda, Idacius. The words which you [Page 838]cited out of Gordonius Huntlaeus (Contr: 2. Cap. 10. N. 10.) that the Apostles were not so forgetfull, after the receiving of the holy Ghost, as to leaue out any prime ād Principall Foundation of Faith, make nothing for your purpos; seing we dispute not whether any prime or principall foundation of Faith be left out (for we acknowledge that the Creed expresses the Creator of all things, and Redeemer of mankinde, as also the Blessed Trinity, Resurrection, Catholique Church, Remission of sinnes, and life everlasting, which of themselves, are prime and principall foundations of our Faith, if they be vnderstood, according to the interpretation, and tradition of the Church) but whether any necessary, (though not prime, and principall) be left out; and that may well be necessary, which is not prime and principall, as many parts are necessary to make a house, which are not the prime, and principall parts therof. Yet indeed Gordonius in that 10. Chapter, assignes the properties of the foundation of Faith, that is, of that Authority vpon which our Faith relies; which he proves (Chap. 11.) not to be Scripture alone, and (C. 12.) not to be the private spirit; but (Chap, 13.) to be the Church, and he saieth, the Apostles could not leaue out of their Creed (in quo continentur omnia prima fundamenta Fidei) this primum & praencipuum Fidei fundamentum. Where you see he speakes of the First foundations of Faith, and more things may be necessary than the First foundations. Besides, we deny not, but all necessary points are contained in the Creed, in some of those senses, which I haue declared hertofore: which being well cōsidered (particularly that Article of the Catholick Church) will demonstrate, that the Creed, togeather with those means, which are affoarded vs by tradition &c: for the true vnderstanding therof, and vndoubted supplying of what is not contained in it, is of no lesse vse, and profit, then if all points had been exprest, which indeed had been to little purpos, yea would haue proved noxious, by the malice of men, without the declaration of the Church, for the Orthodox sense, and meaning of them.

62. You doe not well in saying, that Charity Maintayned denyes this consequence of Dr. Potter (That as well, nay better, they might haue given no Article but that of the Church, and sent vs to the Church for all the rest. For in setting downe others besides that, and not all, they make vs belieue we haue all, when we haue not all) and neither gives reason against it, nor satisfies his reason for it. For Charity Maintayned performes both those things, neither of which you say he performes, as every one may see, who reads [Page 839]his (N. 29.) to say nothing, that in good Logick the defendent is not obliged to giue a reason, why he denyes a consequence, it being reason sufficiēt, that the opponent, or disputant proves it not; though yet indeed Charity Maintayned doth shew the insufficiency of the Doctors inference, by giving the like consequences, which confessedly cannot be good, and yourselfe endeavour to answer the reasons of Charity Maintayned, which he brought against the sayd inference of Potter. You say, If our doctrine were true this short Creed, I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible, would haue been better, that is, more effectuall, to keepe the believers of it from heresie, and in the true Faith, then this Creed which now we haue: a proposition so evident, that I cannot see, how either you, or any of your religion or indeed any sensible man can from his hart deny it. Yet because you make shew of doing so, or else, which I rather hope, doe not rightly aprehende the force of the Reason, I will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it, by comparing the effects of those sever all supposed Creeds.

63. Answer: perhaps I shall say in the beginning, that which will make your endeavour, proue vaine. You say: If our doctrine were true, this short Creed, I belieue the Roman Church to be infallible, would haue been botter, that is, more effectuall to keepe the believes of it from heresie, and in the true Faith, then this Creed which now we haue. But this ground of yours is evidently false. For the effect, or Fruit, or Goodnesse, or Betternesse (so to speake) of the Creed, is not sufficiently explicated, by being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy, and in the true Faith, but it implies also, som particular articles, which are to be believed, in the beliefe of which, that we may not erre, the infallibility of the Church directs ād secures vs, which office she might, and would, haue performed, although this Article, I belieue the Catholick Church directs, ād secures vs, had not beene exprest in the Creed: yea that article, ād the whole Creed, supposes the infallibility of the Church to haue been proved, ād believed antecedēter to thē, that so we may be assured, all the contēts therof, to be infallibly true. Now by the precise beliefe of that Creed, which you propose, taken alone, we could not belieue any particular article of Faith; because this precise act, I belieue the Church to be infallible, terminates in that one object of the infallibility of the Church, from which I grant the beliefe of other particular objects may be derived, when the Church shall propose thē, but thē ipso facto, we should begin to beleeue other particular objects, and so haue an other Creed, and not that little one, of which you speake, and besides which, we are obliged to belieue other particular [Page 840]revealed Truths; and therfor we must still haue some other Creed, or Catechisme, or what you would haue it called, besides that one article of the Catholick Church, as Charity Maintayned observes (Pag: 144.) and consequently, though that article of the Church, haue that great, and necessary effect, of keeping vs from heresy, and in the true Faith; yet it wants that other property of a Creed, of setting downe particular Truths. Whence it followes, that that article alone cannot be a Creed, as men speake of Creeds, and particular points may be a Creed, though that article of the Church were not exprest, but presupposed, and proved independently, both of the Creed, and Scripture, in manner declared heretofore. And here Dr. Potter should remember his owne doctrine, and the doctrine of most Protestants, that the Church cannot erre in Fundamentall Articles of Faith, and therfor, according to your manner of arguing, this short Creed I belieue the Church to be infallible in all Fundamentall points, would haue been better, that is, more effectuall to keepe the believers of it from heresy and in the true Faith, then this Creed which now we know: and so, either you must forsake the Doctor, about the Churches infallibility in fundamētalls, or he must reject your argument and both of you grant, that you proue nothing against Ch: Ma: but only contradict one another: You confesse, that the Creed containes not Agenda; why doe you not say? It had been better to refer vs to the Church, then to set downe in the Creed only Credenda, which alone are not sufficient to bring any man to heaven; and so make men thinke hey haue all in the Creede, when the haue scharsly halfe. Motrover, If you respect only infallibility, or being more effectuall to keepe men from heresy; in your grounds, neither the Articles of the Church, nor the other articles, as they are now in the Creed, could haue so great commodity, and no danger (as you say, speaking of the Churches infallibility) as this one generall article, belieue the Scripture to be infallible; and therfor, either you must take this one article as the best Creed, (which no man will ever grant) or answer your owne argument, by saying: To belieue the Scripture, is too generall an object, and that a Creed, or Catechisme, must include some other particular objects; or some such answer you must giue, which will be easily turned vpon yourselfe. Thus your (N. 78. and 79.) which goe vpon your first supposition, that that Creed is the better that keepes the believer of it frō heresy &c, remaine confuted and the Syllogisme which you make, proves a meere paralogisme. For, that petite Creed, which [Page 841]you propose, would be so farr from having greater commodities (in order to the intent of Creeds) then this other, that it could be no Creed at all, in that sense, in which hitherto the ancient Fathers, and all Divines haue spoken of Creeds, and of summaries of Faith. If you haue a minde to change the name, and meaning of Creeds, and to substitute some one proposition, indeed I know no better, in order to vse and safety, then this The visible Church of Christ is infallible. For this being once believed, I may learne what is true Scripture, what the sense therof, what points be necessary in all occasions; which commodity we cannot attaine by Scripture alone, as hath been often sayd,

64. You say (N. 80.) That having compared the inference of Ch. ma. and Dr. Potters togeather, you cannot discover any shadow of resemblance betweene them, nor any shew of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some Body to deliver it. Much lesse why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary, should make the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary. As well for ought I vnderstand, you might avouch this inference to be as good, as Dr. Potters: The Apostles Creedcontaines all things necessary, therfor there is no need to belieue in God. Neither does it follow so well, as Dr. Potters Argument follows, That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary, that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherin are added diuers other particulars, are superfluous. For these other particulars may be the duties of obedience, they may be profitable points of Doctrine, they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed, and so not superfluous; and yet for all this the Creed may still containe all points of beliefe that are simply necessary. These therfor are poore consequences but no more like Dr. Potters, then an apple is likean Oister.

65. Answer; Dr. Potter argued, that if the Apostles, did not deliver in the Creed all necessary points, they might as well haue given only that Article of the Church. Which manner of arguing Ch. Ma. retorts, and sayth, we may rather inferr thus: If the Apostles delivered in the Creed, all necessary points, what need we any Church to teach vs? And consequently what need is there of the Atticle concerning the Church? What need we the Creed of Nice, Constantinople, &c. Superfluous are your Cathecismes, wherin besides the articles of the Creed, you haue divers other particulars. These would be poore consequences, and so. is yours. Thus Ch. Ma.; who, as you see, doth not approue these consequences, but expresly saith, they are poore ones. Which consequences, while you also, labour to disproue, you doe but take paines for your adversary, to your owne cost. But at least you will [Page 842]say, ther is no shadow of resemblance betweene them, and that of Dr. Potters. Yes; ther is this resemblance: That as the Doctour argues: all necessarie points are not contained in the Creed, therfor, it had been as good, or better, to haue no Article of the Creed, but that of the Church, least that as he saieth (Pag. 226.) in setting downe others besides that, and yet not all, they may make vs belieue we haue all, when we haue not all: So, contrarily, Ch: Ma: argues; That if all other necessary points be contained in the Creed, what need we the Church to teach vs, or that Article of the Church? which deduction might be made good, by the Doctours feare, least that if we haue that Article of the Church, we may thinke that alone sufficient, (wherein he might be confirmed by the commodityes which you say are implied in the point of the Churches infallibility) and so be carelesse, in seeking any other particular object, or article of Faith. Which argument is like to that of the Doctours, except only, that indeed it is much better than his, and may be made a kinde of demonstration, by adding, that, in your grounds, the article of the Church is not fundamentall, or necessary to salvation, and therfor whosoever believes all the articles of the Creed (if it be supposed to containe all necessary points of Faith) may be saved, though he belieue not that of the Church, of which you say expresly in this your fourth Chapter (N. 34.45.) that it is not a fundamentall article, and consequently, not necessary to salvation: yea, it is further infer'd from hence, that D. Potters argument is of no force; seing it cannot be better to haue one only vnnecessary article of Faith, then to haue divers fundamentall articles (which no man denyes the Creed to containe) and want that one, not necessary, or vnfundamentall point. You say, that you cannot discover any shew of reason, why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it. Neither can I discover, how this argument is not against yourselfe, who teach that the Creed containes all necessary points of Faith, and that the article, which doth concerne the Church, is none of those necessary points: from whence it follow, that the perfection of the Creed, that is the beliefe of all necessary articles, excludes a necessity of believing that article of the Church. For it implyes contradiction, that I should belieue all that is necessary to be believed, and yet some other points should be necessary, or that a point not necessary, should be necessary. Neither is this, in your grounds, to exclude a necessity of some body to deliver the Creed, but only, to exclude a necessity of believing, that this must be done by a perpetuall visible Church, which you say (N. 34.) is not a fundamentall [Page 843]article; and the same you teach in divers other places of your Booke. You add, much lesse can I discover any shew of reason, why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should mak the beliefe of a part of it vnnecessary. As well, (for ought I vnder stand) you might auouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters: The Apostles Creed containes all things necessary, therfor their is no need to belieue in God. But who makes any such generall or causall inference? Because the whole Creed containes all things necessary, therfor the beliefe of a part of it is vnnecessary: rather we must say the contrary; Because it containes divers necessary points, therfore the beliefe of divers of them is necessary. I hope you will not deny this to be a good consequence; the Creed containes all necessary articles, togeather with some not necessary; Therfor the beliefe of some part of it is not necessary. And I wonder you would paralell our beliefe in God, with that of the Church, since the one is the most necessary article of all others, and the other, in your opinion, is not necessary. The rest of your discourse in this Number, serves only to confirme the argument of Ch. Ma. who never sayd absolutely, that if the Apostles Creed containe all things necessary, all other Creeds, and Catechismes are superfluous, but expresly called it a poore consequence, and yet that it was as good as Potters, which must be to this effect: It is enough (vpon the Doctours supposition, not in truth) or it is only necessary, to belieue the article of the Church, Therfor it is superfluous to belieue other articles contained in the Creed.

66. In your (N. 81.) you are pleased to spend words in vaine. D. Potter says, As well, nay better, they might haue given vs no article but that, and sent vs to the Church for all the rest. Ch. Ma. having first proved, this inference, to be of no force; by way of superrogation, grants the thing inferred, not absolutely, but thus farr (which words you leaue out, and yet they overthrow all that you say here) that, de facto, our B. Saviour hath sent vs to the Church; by her to be taught, and by her alone: because she was before the Creed and Scriptures; and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing vs had delivered vs the rCeed, holy Scripture, vnwritten, Divine, Apostolicall, Ecclesiasticall Traditions. Thus Ch. Ma. hath granted you all that he pretended to grant, as might haue been apparent, if you had not omitted his first words (Thus farr) and not farther, nor so farr, as you would needs make him to haue pretended.

[Page 844]

67. Your (N. 82.83.) haue been answered already. For if Dr. Potter meant, that the article of the Church, might be sufficient, as containing all things necessary to be believed, and that therfor we needed not the Creed, Ch. Ma. sayth truly, it is no good argument; The Creed containes not all things necessary, and that article of the Church, is in rigour sufficient; Therfor the Creed is not profitable: or if the Doctour meant, that the article of the Church were enough, because the Church afterward, would teach all things by Creeds, or Catechismes &c. that were but to leaue the Creed, and afterward to come to it; and indeed to tell vs, that the Church must doe that, which had beene done already: and therfor in what sense soever you take the Doctours argument, it was confuted by Ch. Ma. But now, while you pretend to stand for the sufficiency of the Creed, in all necessary points of beliefe, you doe indeed overthrow it, while you speake to Ch. Ma., in this manner: Supposing the Apostles had written [...]hese Scriptures as they haue written, wherin all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered, and preached that doctrine which they did preach, and done all other things as they haue done, besides the compossng their simbol: I say, if your doctrine weretrue, they had done a work infinitly more beneficiall to the Church of Christ, if they had never cōposed their simbol, which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe, and no distinctiue mark as a Simbol should be betweene those that are true Christians, and those that are not so; but in steed therof, had delivered this one proposition, which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the forsaid good intēts ād purposes, the Romā Church shall be for ever infallible in all things, which she proposes as matters of faith. who sees not that according to this discourse of yours, the Apostles assuring vs, that the scripture is infallible, ād evidēt in all necessary points, de facto haue done as much service to the Church, as you say they would haue done, by that article, I belieue the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible. For this evidence of Scripture being supposed, you teach, that ther is no need of a guide or an infallible Church, when the way is plaine of it selfe. And if, notwithstanding this your doctrine, of the sufficiency of Scripture alone, the Creed is not vnprofitable, and that the Apostles haue done better service to the Church, by giving vs both the Creed, and Scripture: So I say, that one article of the Church, togeather with the Creed, had been more profitable, and of greater service, then that Article alone; yea the Church, as I sayd, must haue delivered some Creed, and it was a great service to vs, that the Apostles had done it to her hand. If you deny this, you must deny the Creed, [Page 845]and Scripture, to be de facto more profitable, then the Scripture alone, and so the Creed shall be of no profit. For I suppose, if either the Creed, or Scripture be not profitable, you will say it is the Creed, rather then the Scripture. If you say, the articles of the Creed being clearly, but diffusedly set downe in the Scripture, (as Potter speakes) haue been afterwards summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed, which therfor is of great vse: I reply, that by this answer, you teach vs to confute your argumēt, by saying, that, as Scripture is too large for a Creed, or an abridgment, so this one article of the Church, is too short for a Creed, or abridgment of Faith, and must haue been enlarged, by some Creed, Cathecisme, &c. And as Potter, and you, limited the promise of our Saviour, to the Church, that the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it, to fundamentall points, or to a sufficient, but not a certainly effectuall assistance, or some other way; the same would you haue done though he had specified the Roman Church.

78. Your last (N. 84.) containes nothing in effect, besides what you and Potter haue saied, and hath been confuted already. We deny not, but that the Creed, containes all fundamentall points in the sense, which I haue declared more then once, ād which Catholick Writers intend, when they say it containes all fuch articles: and the Reader will receaue further satisfaction by perusing the (N. 26.) of Ch▪ Ma., as it is delivered by himselfe; as also he will finde that you haue omitted some points of importance, which Ch. Ma. hath set downe (N. 27.) as in particular: That the very councell of Nice which (sayth Whitg [...]ft in his defense ( Pag. 3 [...]0.) is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed and imbraced, next vnto the Scriptures themselves) decreed that, to those that were chosen to the ministery vnmarried, it was not lawfull to take any wife afterward, is affirmed by Protestants. Lastly; in answer to the direction, (N. 33.) you vndoe, all that Dr. Potter, and you haue done, in labouring to proue, that the Creed containes, all necessary articles, of simple Belief. For thus you speak: The granting of this principle (that all things necessary to s [...]lvation, are evidently contained in Scripture) plainly renders the whole disppute touching the Creed vnnecessary. For if all necessary things, of all sorts, whether of simple belief, or practice be confessed to be cleerly contained in Scripture, what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed?

[Page 846]

CHAP: XIV. THE ANSWER TO HIS FIFTH CHAPTER ABOVT SCHISME.

1. OMitting to say any thing by way of preface, and introduction; your (N. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.) haue been answered, particularly, and at large, in my Chapter 7. The cavills, which (N. 10.11.12.) you vse in avoyding the Authorities of some Fathers, (which Ch: Ma: alledged N. 8. to proue, that it can never be Lawfull to separate from the Church) doe proue more and more, the impossibility of deciding controversies, by Scripture, or any one writing. Whosoever considers the place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Austin (Cont: Parmen: L. 2. C. 11.) Ther is no just necessity to divide vnity, will finde, that those words must be vniversall and serue for the Major Proposition, to proue, that the Donatists could haue no necessity, to divide thēselves from the Church; of which division he saieth, that it appeares, non esse quicquā gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis. And if S. Austins proposition be not vniversall, his argument, had been but Petitio princicipij, taking for granted, that which was in controversie, namely, whether the Donatists had just cause to depart from the Church. So that indeed, those words of S. Austin, There is no just necessity to divide vnity, must suppsose, that the Church cannot erre, nor that men can receaue any spirituall hurt by her doctrine, and that she can neither doe, nor approue ill. All which hath been declared hertofore, both for the matter itselfe, and for the meaning of S. Austin, in divers other sayings of his. But it seemes you wanted better matter, when you tell vs, of want of diligence in quoting the 62. Ch. of that booke of S. Austine, which hath but 23. in it. And when you say that the words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter are not inferred out of any such promises as Ch. Ma. pretends. For, as lately you did persecute the printer, for that which Ch. Ma. had [Page 847]put amongst the Errata, so here you note, that which Ch. Ma. himselfe cited right (N. 21.) as every one may see. Neither is it any better then ridiculous for you to say, that the words of S. Austin, are not inferred out of any such premisses, as Ch. Ma. pretends; seing he neither pretends nor mentions any other premisses, besides that which he in the immediatly precedent Number had sayd, out of the Holy Fathers, that Schisme was a grievous sinne; and I beseech you, from whence can S. Austin inferr, that ther can be no just necessity, to divide vnity, except from a supposition, that Schisme is a grievous sinne, or as he speakes here, non esse quicquā gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis. But it is a signe, you are sinking, when you are glad to take hold, of any thing, be it never so weake.

2. The same answer, serves for your evasion to the words of S. Irenaeus cont, heraet. (Lib. 4. Cap. 6 [...].) They cannot make any so important reforma [...]ion, as the [...]ll of the Schisme is pern [...]ous which must suppose, that the Church cannot erre, in matters of faith, whether they be great, or little, in their owne nature; and therfor he sayth expresly, God will judge all those who are out of truth; that is who are out of the Church. Iudicabit omnes eos quisunt extra veritatem, id est qui sunt extra Ecclesiam. And therfore much more will he judge men, if for small matters they should part from the Church. And you see he supposes all to be out of the Truth, who are out of the Church, which were not true, if the Church could deliver fals Doctrine. For so one might be in the Church, and not in the Truth. The example of the Quartodecimani, who, by the ancient Fathers, are reckoned among Hereticks, makes directly against yourselfe. Neither doth it import, that the controversie about keeping Easter, may seeme to be, only concerning a circumstance of time, and not immediatly and expresly, of a revealed Truth. For indeed, to say, it was necessary, to keepe Easter as the Jewes did, for the circumstance of time, was a formall pernicious heresy, no lesse, then to bring in a necessity of observing othr rites, of the Jewish Law: and so the words, which you alleadge out of Petavius, make nothing for you, against vs. For this cause, the observation of Easter, at a certaine time, might be tolerated, as some rites of the Jewes were, till they were affirmed to be necessary; after which time, they were to be reputed, not only dead, but deadly: and so would that custome, of keeping Easter haue been, after it was pretended to be kept as necessary. Of which point, and of the excommunication inflicted by holy Pope Uictor, Ch. Ma. hath spoken sufficiently in his 2. part.

[Page 848]

3. Your answer to the words of S. Denis of Alexandria, is evidently a meere shift. For to say, as he doth (apud Eusebium Hist. Eccles. L. 6. Cap. 25.) All things should rather be endured, then to consent to the division of the Church of God, must necessarily suppose, that it can never be lawfull to part from the Church: and if it were lawfull to doe soe, it could not vniversally be a vertue, rather to endure all torments, and death itselfe, then consent to it. Who can deny, but that in common speach, to say, we ought rather to dy, then doe such a thing, signifies the absolute vnlawfulnes therof? Which in our case appeares more, by his comparing the dividing of the Church, to the offering sacrifice to Idolls. Those Martyrs, saith he, being no lesse glorious, that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church, then those that suffer rather, then they will offer Sacrifice to Idolls. In your (N. 13.) you vainly distinguish, betweene the deficiency of the visible Church, and of the Churches visibility, seing visibility is essentiall to the Church: and I hope you will grant, that nothing can exist, without that, which is essentiall to it.

4. Your (N. 15.16.17.18.19.) make no lesse against S, Austin; D. Potter; and the most learned Protestants, then against Ch: Ma. All your objections are answered, by considering, that we doe not affirme, the Church to be at all tymes a like conspicuous, glorious, and, as I may say, prosperous: but only, That she shall be alwayes so knowne, that men desirous of their salvation, may be able to distinguish her, from all other congregations, and haue recourse to her, for matters belonging to Religion, seing in the ordinary course (for we speake not of extraordiry cases, or Miracles) we must learne of her. Fides ex auditu. And your selfe (Pag. 149. N. 38.) say, I must learne of the Church or some part of the Church, or I cannot know that there was such a man as Christ, that he taught: such Doctrine, that he and his Apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it, that the Scripture is Gods word, vnles I be taught it. So then the Church is, though not a certain Foundation and proofe of my Faith, yet a necessary introduction to it. How then doe you (N. 17.) aske this Question? If some one Christian lived alone among Pagans in some country, remote from Christendom, shall we conceaue it impossible for this man to be saved, because he cannot haue recourse to any cong regation for the affaires of his soule? Seing yourselfe tell vs, that you must learne of the Church, or some part of it, or you cannot know that there was such a man as Christ, and consequently you suppose, a Christian living among Pagans, to haue learned of the Church the Christian [Page 849]Religion; wherein being once instructed he may afterward, be saved, by an act of contrition, when he cannot actually receaue any Sacramēt; and so he is not saved without dependance on the Church, of which he first learned the Doctrine of Christ. Neither doe I say, that every part, of the vniversall Church, must alwayes be visible to the whole, but that every part, must be visible to some, and so the whole collection of Churches, will come to be visible, in all places, and knowne to the whole world. Yea, every particular Church, is of it selfe, visible to the whole, that is, from all parts of the Church, it may receaue writings, letters, messages, and messengers, though it be not needfull, that actually it doe so, ād so be actually visible to the whole, as I sayd. That the true Church cannot be without the preaching of the word, and right administration of Sacraments, is the common Doctrine of Protestants; who say they are essentiall notes of the Church, as hath been declared hertofore. And though it were granted, that per accidens, these things could not be actually performed in some particular case (which yet indeed cannot happen, because even the profession of Faith is a reall preaching) that makes nothing, to proue, that the vniversall true Church, can be invisible, which in the greatest persecutions, was visible, both to friends, and foes, and became more conspicuous, even by persecution it selfe. Glorious S. Austin, brings so many, and so cleare texts of Scripture, for the Amplitude, and Perpetuity of the Church, against the Donatists, that you may blush, to speake so contemptibly of his Doctrine in this behalfe, as you doe (N. 16.) or to say, as you doe (N. 20.) that it appeares not by his words, that he denyed not only the actuall perishing, of the Church, but the possibility of it; seing he vrges the promises of God, and predictions of the Prophets, for the stability, and perpetuity of Gods Church.

5. You say (N. 20.) All that S. Austine saies is not true: and that you belieue heate of disputation against the Donatists, transported him so farr, as to vrge against them more than was necessary, and perhaps more than was true. As concerning the last speach of S. Austine, I cannot but wonder very much, why he should think it absurd for any man to say, There are sheepe which he knowes not, but God knowes: and no less at you, for obtruding this sentence vpon vs as pertinent proofe of the Churches visibility. Answer: The words cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Augustine (De ovibus Cap. 1.) are these: Peradventure some one may saie, there are other sheepe I know not where, with which I am not acquainted, yet God hath care of them. But he is too absurd in humane sense, that can imagine such things. Which words of S. Austine are evidently true. For is [Page 850]he not too absurd in humane sense, that can imagine one to be a member of the Church, to which, visibility is essentiall, and yet not be visible to men, but knowen to God alone?

6. Ch. Ma. (Pag 165. N. 11.) sayth: These men doe not consider, that while they deny the perpetuity of a visible Church, they destroy their owne present Church, according to the Argument which S. Austin (Lib. 3. de Baptismo cont. Donat. cap. 2.) vrged against the Donatists in these words. If the Church were lost in Cyprians (we may say Gregories) time, from whence did Donatus (Luther) appeare? From what earth did he spring? From what sea is he come? From what heaven did he drop? And in another place: How can they vaunt to haue any Church, if she haue ceased ever since those times (Lib. 3. cont. Parm.?)

7. To this authority of S. Austin, you answer (N. 21.) Neither doe I see, how the trath of any present Church, depends vpon the perpetuall visioility, nay nor vpon the perpetuity of that which is past or future. For what sense is there, that it should not be in the power of God Almighty to restore to a flourishing estate a Church which oppression hath made in visible? To repaire that which is ruined; to reforme that which was corrupted, or to reviue that which was dead? Nay what reason is there, but that by ordiuary meanes this may be done, so long as the Scriptures by Divine providence are preserved in their integrity and Authority? as the commonwealth, though never so farr collapsed, and overrunne with disorders, is yet in possibility of being reduced vnto its Originall state, so long as the Ancient Laws and Fundamentall Constitutions are extant, and remaine inviolate, from whence men may be directed how to make such a reformation.

8. Answer: The Question is not, what is in the Power of God Almighty, or what may be done depotentia absoluta, as Divines speake, but what may be performed, in sensu composito, according to the course, and order, which de facto God hath been pleased to appoint: according to which, that which you mention, cannot be done by Scriptures alone, as appeares by what we haue proved in divers places. For if the Church be supposed to be fallible, we can haue no absolute certainty, that Scriptures are the word of God, or preserved in their integrity: Neither would this suffice, seing they doe not containe evidently all points necessary to be believed; ād though they did; we should be to seeke for the true meaning of them: as also no man can be obliged to belieue, nor can in prudence belieue, any person whatsoeuer against the vniversall Church, and ordinary Governours, and Pastours therof; and such Persons [Page 851]might expect to be entertained, with those pithy words of Tertullian (Lib. de prescript.) Qui estis vos? Vnde & quando venistis? vbi tamdiu latuist is? Which words are paralell to those of S Austin recited aboue. Vnde ergo Donatus apparuit? De qua terra germinavit? Ex quo mari emersit? De quo Caelo cecidit? Your example of a common wealth, hath no parity, with our case: seing you suppose, that notwithstanding all disorder for practice, ther remaines still the same certaine knowledge of the Lawes, and meanes for the interpretation of them, which were before it was collapsed, and that the lawes containe evidently, and perfectly all things necessary for the constitution of a commonwealth; all which we deny in order to Scripture, as hath been often shewed. And so you see the reason, why the truth of the present Church, depends on the Perpetuity and Incorruption of Gods Church for all ages; without which ther could be no meanes to rectify, the present Church.

9. What you say (N. 22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.) either containes no difficulty, or hath been answered already, in my chapter of Schisme: Only I must entreate the Reader, not to trust your summing vp in your Number 24. the arguments of Ch. Ma., but to read them, in the Author himselfe.

10. All that you haue (N. 37. and 38.) is answered out of Dr. Potters owne words (Pag. 76.) where speaking of the Church of Rome he sayth; Her communion we forsake not, no more then the Body of Christ, whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member though corrupted: and this cleares vs from the imputation of Schisme, whose property it is (witnesse the Donatiste and Luciferians) to cut of from the Body of Christ, and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates. And if any zelots among vs haue proceeded to heavier censures, their zeale may be excused, but their Charity and Wisdome can not be justified. Doe not these words clearly declare, that one is not a Schismatick, if he separates from a Church in such manner, as he doe not cut of from the hope of salvation the Church from which he separates; and that the Donatists, and Luciferians, were not Schismaticks precisely because they divided themselves from the Church, but because they added to their separation, the cutting of from the hope of salvation, the Church from which they separated? Two things then according to the Doctour, are necessary and sufficient, to incurre the sinne of Schisme; a separation, and a condemnation of that community, from which that division is made. For both D. Potter and those zelots, agreed in a separation, [Page 852]and in the pretended just cause therof (the corruptions of the Roman Church) and the only difference is the cutting or not cutting her of from the hope of salvation; and consequently, this cutting of, is that which condemnes some of Schisme, and cleares other from it, though they agree in all the rest; and so your example (that though one symptome of the plague be a feaver, yet not every one that hath a feaver hath the plague: because he may by reason, (as you speake) of the absense of other requisits not haue the plague,) makes against your selfe, by applying it; That as he who hath a feaver with other requisits for a plague, must haue the plague, so the cutting of from hope of salvation a Church, and separating from it, will make vp a compleat Schisme; and then the Syllogisme, will not be that, which you make, against all good Logick, but this: Whosoever divides himselfe from the Roman Church, and cuts it of from the hope of salvation is a Schismaticke, but those hoate Protestants of whome you speake, doe all this: Therfor they are Schismaticks. Yea, seing Ch. Ma. (Pag. 190.191.) shewes, that even D. Potter doth also cut vs of from hope of salvation, without repentance, by his owne rule, he makes himselfe guilty of formall Schisme.

11. Your (N. 41.) is against Dr. Potter, who (Pag: 126.) teaches, that to limit the Church to the part of Donatus, was an errour, in the nature and manner of it, hereticall against that Article of the Creed, wherin we professe to belieue the holy Catholick Church. And for that other Article Remission of sinnes, seing by Holy Scripture we learne, that some are elect to eternall happinesse, which they cannot attaine without the remission of their sinnes, it followes, that it is an Article of Faith, not ōly that God will forgiue the sinnes of all that repent, as you say it may be vnderstood, but that de facto there is Repentance, Remission of sinnes, and salvation. But these are not Questions to be treated in this place: and by these examples it appeares, to how little purpos you, and the Doctor will haue all fundamentall points of Faith, to be contained in the Creed, seing you cannot agree, about the meaning of them, without which the words are but words. Your instance about the stars, and sunne, which doe not cease to be, although they be not alwayes visible, is nothing to the purpose, vnless you could proue, that perpetuall visibility, is essentiall to the starrs, or Sunne, as it is to the true Church of Christ: and I might add, that they are alwayes visible to some people, and not wholy invisible, as some Protestants dreame, the Church to haue been invisible, and withdrawen to the harts of some particular [Page 853]godly men, during the space, of one thousand two hundred three score yeares, as Ch. Ma. shewes (Pag: 161.)

12. Your (N. 42.43.) neede no answer. You will finde, that the authority of S. Cyprian, to which Ch. Ma. (N. 16. Pag: 161.) refers the Reader, is very pertinent, to proue, that it is vnlawfull, for those, that esteeme themselves moderate Protestants, to communicate, with those other, who say, the Church perished; because these being formall Heretikes (according to Dr. Potter) and so out of the Church, it is impossible for those other, to remaine in the true Church, and yet communicate with them, who are out of the Church, according to the saied words of S. Cyprian (Epist: 76. ad Mag.) The Church is one, which being but one cannot be with in and without. If she be with Novatianus, she was not with Cornelius. But if she were with Cornelius, who succeedes Fabianus by Lawfull ordination, Novatianus is not in the Church. If then, the milder Protestants, will pretend to be in the true Church, they cannot be with those other, who, by teaching an heresy, against the Article of the Church, in our Creed, put themselves out of the Church; otherwise those milder Protestants should come to be both within, and without the Church. You tell vs, that the saying of S. Cypriā hath no more to doe with our present businesse of proving it vnlawfull to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwayes visible, then In nova fert animus. But I am sure, In nova fert animus, agrees as fitly to your frequent changes of Religion, as it is impertinently applyed against Ch: Ma. Your last words (That S. Cyprians words are by neither of the parts litigants esteemed any rule of Faith: and therfor the vrging of them, and such like authorityes serves only to make bookes great, and Controversies endles) shew what esteeme you haue of Antiquity, and the holy Fathers; how diffident you are of your cause, if their authority might prevaile; and how vnjustly you proceed, in alledging against vs, the authority of Fathers, of whom you make so small, and so ill account, as to say, the vrging of them, serves only, to make bookes great, and which is worse, controversies endles.

13. For answer to your (N. 45.) I must still entreate the Reader, to peruse (N. 17.) of Ch. Ma. and withall to remember, what I haue proved heretofore, that it is impossible, to leaue the externall communion of the Church, and not to leaue the Church; externall communion being of the essence of the Church. And therfor your example, that a man may leaue any fashion, or custome of a Colledge, and yet still remaine a member [Page 854]of the College, is not to the purpose, seing a fashion, or custome of the Colledge, may be meerely accidentall, to the constituting one a member therof: or, if you suppose, any custome to be of the essence, and a Signum distinctivum of that Colledge, from all other communities, then the example makes against you; for in that case, to leaue that fashion, or custome were to leaue the Colledge.

14. Vpon this errour, that externall communion, in profession of Faith, Liturgie, Sacraments &c: is not essentiall to the Church, is grounded all that you haue (N. 47.) Neither is C. Ma. deceaved, in not distinguishing betweene a local ād morall forsaking any thing: But he sayth, and hath proved, that externall communion, being essentiall to the Church, it is impossible, that they can be of one Church, who are divided in that communion, but doe forsake one another morally, and locally also, refusing to be present, at their publik worship of God: nor doth he (C. Ma.) vse any pretty Sophisme, and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any errour they hold, or any vice they are subject to; Because forsooth they cannot forfake themselves, and vices and errours are things inherent in themselves. For (to turne your owne Instance against your selfe) if vices, and errours, were essentiall to a man, it were impossible, to forsake them, and not forsake ones selfe; so, vnion in externall communion, being essentiall to the true Church, which is one, it is impossible, to forsake her externall communion, and not forsake her; as it is impossible to forsake the company of Dr. Potter and keepe company with the Provost of Queens colledge (which is the example of Ch. Ma.) otherwise he should be with, and not be, with himselfe, according to the forsayd words of S. Ciprian, the Church being one, cannot be within, and without. It is not therfor Charity Maintayned, who distinguishes not between a locall and morall forsaking any thing, but it is you, who doe not distinguish, between a reall physicall, and a morall forsaking of a mans selfe; as if one could not cease, to be a member of the Church, by heresy, or Schisme, because he cannot cease to be physically himselfe. Thus your (N. 48.) is answered; and as you are pleased to repeate here againe, In nova fert animus, so I, not to be too bold, with the Reader, by a vaine repeating of the selfe same words, may well add, as fitly agreeing to you, the witty saying of Tertullian adver. valent. (Cap: 12.) Ovidivs metamorphoseis suas delevisset, si hodie majorem cognovisset. Certaine it is that your changes of religion ought in reason, to be esteemed more strange, and I am sure, more vnreasonable, [Page 855]then all the metamorphosies in Ovid.

15. Your (N. 49.50.51.52.53.54.55.56.) giue no occasion of matter to be particularly confuted. Only to say to your (N. 50.) that it is certainly true, that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholik Church, if indeed their division be culpable, and Schismaticall. For in that case, the innocent part only, remaines a true member of the Catholick Church; because if both remained vnited to the Catholike Church, they should also be vnited among themselves; Quae sunt vnita vni tertio, sunt vnita interse. And Potter (Pag: 76.) saith; Whosoever professeth himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confesse himselfe consequētly to forsake the whole. How then doe you say, it is certainly false that no two men or Churches, divided in externall communion, can be both true parts of the Catholick Church? Seing to be divided Schismatically, from any one member of the Church, induces necessarily a division from the whole, as the Doctour confesses. As for your (N. 55.) wherin you say to Charity Maintayned; the reason of this consequence which you say is so cleare, truly I cannot possibly discerne. But the consequence, which Ch. Ma. makes (N. 17. Pag: 172.) of which you speake, seemes so cleare, that I belieue every Body will see it, if his words be set downe as they are delivered by him, and not abbreviated, and obscured by you. Thus he sayth: I obserue, that according to Dr. Potter the selfe same Church, which is the vniversall Church, remaining the vniversall true Church of Christ, may fall into errours, and corruptions; from whence it clearly followes, that it is impossible to leaue the externall communion of the Church so corrupted, and retaine externall communion with the Catholick Church; since the Church Catholick, and the Church so corrupted, is the selfe same one Church. What consequence can ther be more clear? The Church Catholick, and the Church corrupted, is the same Church, therfor, it is impossible, to forsake the externall communion of the Church corrupted, and not forsake, but retaine externall communion with the Church Catholick.

16. To your (N. 56,) I will only say, That you conceale the words of Ch. Ma., so to impugne them more freely. His words are: When Luther appeared ther were not two distinct visible true Catholick Churches, holding contrary Doctrine, and divided in externall communion; one of the which true Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practice, but the other was stained [Page 856]with both. For to finde this diversity of churches cānot stand with reds of Histories, which are silent of any such matter. It is against Dr. Potters owne grounds, that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall. It contradicts the words in which he sayd (Pag: 155.) The Church may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour, till she be in Heaven. It evacuateth the brag of Protestants, that Luther reformed the whole Church. Of these last words you say, Let it be so, I see no harme will come of it. What indeed? Is it no harme, that it may be sayd with truth, that your Protestants are proved, bragging, false Lyars, in saying Luther reformed the whole Church? But, (to omit this) these words declare that Ch. Ma. speakes of two Churches, wherof one did triumph over all errour, and then adds, to find this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with records of Histories &c: where the particles (this diversity) are referred to two kinds of Churches, wherof one did triumph over all sinne and errour; and yourselfe explicating the Doctors words say: To triumph over errour, is to be secure from it, to be out of danger of it, not to be obnoxious to it. This supposed, the objection is clearly of no force, wherin you say, To suppose a visible Church before Luther, which did not erre, is not to contradict this ground of D. Potters, that the Church may erre. Vnless you will haue vs belieue that May be and Must be is all one; which rule if it were true, then sure all men would be honest, because all men may be so. And you would not make so bad Arguments, vnless you will pretend you cannot make better. But this whole objection, is grounded vpon concealing the words of Ch. Ma., who spoke of a Church triumphing over all errour, as we haue seene by his express words: and therfor when in the very next consequent period, he mentions a Church free from errour, it cannot be otherwise vnderstood, then of such a freedome, as he spoke of immediatly before, that is of a Church, (as indeed the true Church ought to be) free from all danger of falling, into any least errour, against Faith. Besides; suppose he had spoken of a Church, which defacto did not erre in any point fundamentall, or not fundamentall, from the Apostles time to Luther; it had been no ill argument, to inferr, that she could not erre; because morally speaking, and without a miracle, or particular assistance, or infallible direction of the Holy Ghost, it had been impossible, for so many men, in so many Ages, of so different dispositions, through the whole world, to haue agreed in the same beliefe, concerning matters, not evident of themselves, but farr exceeding the light of naturall reason, and seeming contrarie [Page 857]to it; and therfor, if they had not been effectually preserved from errour, no doubt but some would haue fallen into it: which is so true, that Dr. Potter sayth (Pag, 39.) it is a great vanity to hope or expect that all learned men, in this life, should absolutely consent in all the pieces, and partiticles of divine truth. The rest of this Number hath been particularly answered heretofore, and your weakning the strength of Historie, and tradition serves only, to call in question all Religion, in your ground, who belieue Scripture for tradition.

17. In your (N. 57.) you say to those words of Ch. Ma. (N. 18. Our Saviour foretold that there would be in the Church tares with choice [...]) Looke again I pray, and you shall see, that the field he speaks of, is not the Church, but the world. Answer; Ch. Ma. doth not (as interpreting our Saviours Parable, Matth: 31.) saie, that the field he speaks of is the Church, but that he foretold, that there would be in the Church tares with choise corne; which is very true, seing he expresly makes the parable of the kingdom of Heaven (which is the Church) saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is resembled to a man &c. and the amplitude of the word (world) doth not exclude the Church, for which, and her Pastours he gaue that wholesome Document; Sinite vtraque crescere, Let both grow vp; and I pray, where but in the Church, can there be the wheat, which our Saviour would not haue rooted out? And because your owne guiltiness, moves you in this occasion to tax Catholiques, because they punish obstinate Heretiques; you should reflect, that the tares are not to be gathered, when there is danger, least by so doing, the wheat may be rooted out; and therfore, a contrario sensu, if there be no such danger, yea that by sparing the cockle, the good corne, will suffer, the cockle is rather to be taken away, than the corne destroied. In your (N. 58.) may be observed a strange kinde of saying, that God is infinitly mercifull and therfor will not damne men for meer errours, who desire to finde the truth and cannot. Is it mercy not to damne men for that which is no fault? And for which to damne one were injustice, and therfor not to doe it, is not mercy, but justice.

18. Your (N. 59.60.) haue bene answered at large, in the Chap: 7. about Schisme. Neither can these propositions be defended from a contradiction; The Church of Rome wants nothing necessary to salvation, and yet it is necessary to salvation to forsake her. For, as I haue proved, even he who believes she erred, yet is supposed to belieue that, notwithstanding that error, still she wants nothing necessary to salvation; and therefore the [Page 858]distinction of persons, whereof one believes she errs, and the other believes she does not erre, cannot saue this contradiction.

19. That which you say (N. 61.) is answered by these few lines. Almighty God hath promised to giue his sufficient grace to avoyd all deadly sinne, and consequently all damnable errour, as you confesse every errour against any revealed Truth to be, vnles ignorāce excuse it, which cannot happen, if, as you affirme, such an assistance is promised to vs as shall lead vs, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all not only necessary but very proficable truth, and guard vs from all, not only destructiue, but also hurtfull errours; because this assistance supposed, the Church, if she fall into errour, must be wanting to herselfe, and her ignorance can not be invincible, but culpable, and damnable both in it selfe, and to her; and if her errours be damnable, she wants some thing necessary to salvation, that is, the true assent of Faith, contrary to that damnable errour, and she hath something incompatible with salvation, namely, that damnable errour; and so indeed that truth, which you call only profitable, becomes necessary, and that errour which you suppose to be only hurtfull, is destructiue, if your Doctrine be ttue, that God gives sufficient Grace, to avoyd all sortes of errour, and to lead to all very profitable truths. And thē further it followes, that you must recall your Doctrine, and say, that if the Church may fall into errour not damnable to her, it must be in case it be invincible, and yet it cannot be invincible, if she haue sufficient Assistance, to lead her into all, not only necessary, but profitable truth, and therfore you must deny, that she hath such an assistance, and we must conclude, that by not erring in any fundamentall point, she performes her duty to God, and so can not be forsakē without Schisme. For you doe not deny the proposition of Ch: Ma: (N. 20.) that the externall Communion of the Church, cannot be forsaken, as long as she performes the duty which she oweth to God. Besides, how doe you not contradict yourselfe,, in saying, Who is ther that can put her in sufficient caution, that these errours about profitable matters may not bring forth others of higher quality, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and vndermine by secret consequences the very Foundations of Religion and piety? For if the errours be such as you describe, they come to be concerning things, not only profitable, but necessary, as vndermining the very foundations of Religion: and therfor to say she erres culpably in them, is to say that she erres damnably, and fundamentally; and you must say, she erres culpably, if she haue assistance sufficient to avoid them. By this discourse, and other [Page 859]points handled heretofore, is answered your (N. 62.63.) as also your (N. 64.65.66.67.68.69.70.71.72.73,) only it is to be observed, that (N. 64.) you paralell the security of private men from errour, in fundamentalls, to that of the vniversall Church. And (N. 68.) you will not see the reason of a consequence, deduced by Ch. Ma. which had been very cleare, if you had set downe his words, which are these: (N. 22. P. 185.) Since it is not lawfull to leaue the communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners, because such miseries cannot be avoyded in this world of temptation: and since according to your Assertion, no Church may hope to triumph over all sinne and errour (and I add what the Doctour sayth (Pag: 39.) that it is a great vanity, to hope, or expect, that all learned men, in this life should absolutely consent, in all the pieces of Divine truth) you must grant, that as she ought not to be left, by reason of sinne; so neither by reason of errours not fundamē tall, because both sinne and errour are (according to you) impossible to be avoided, till she be in heaven: and that it is a great vanity to hope or expect the contrary in this life. And is not this a cleare consequence? The Church cannot be forsaken for sinnes, because they cannot be avoided in this life, therfor, seing errours, at least in not fundamentalls, cannot be avoyded in this life, the Church cannot be forsaken for them.

20. To your (N. 72.) it is sufficient to say, that although we must not doe evill to avoide evill, yet when a position is such, as evill cannot but follow of it, ex natura rei, it is a clear argument, that such a Position includes falshood, and errour. Now as Ch. Ma. proves (N. 24.) your grounds doe, of their owne nature, giue scope to perpetuall Schismes, and divisions: And then the consequence is cleare, that they are false and erroneous. His words (which you by abbreviating make ineffectuall) are: they (who separate themselves) will answet as you doe prompt, that your Church may be forsaken, if she fall into errours, though they be not Fundamentall; and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errours: which two grounds being once layd; it will not be hard to inferr, the consequence, that she may be forsaken.

21. All that (N. 74.75.76.77.) you vtter with too much heate, is answered, by putting you in minde, that Ch. Ma. never affirmes, that Protestants say, the cause of their separation, and their motiue to it, was (absolutely and independently of any separation) precisely because they did not cut her of from hope of salvation (as you impose vpon him) for which foolish reason even Catholiks might be sayd to be Schismatiks, [Page 860]from their owne Church, because they are sure she is not cut of from hope of salvation) but that, supposing their separation from vs vpon other causes (for example, pretended corruptions) they pretend to be excused from Schisme, and say they did well to forsake her, because they doe not hold, that she is cut of from hope of salvation. Which to be true, he (C: Ma:) shewes out of Potters words. And yourselfe (P. 284 N 75.) say to C: Ma: can you not perceaue a difference betweene justifying his separation from Schisme, by this reason and making this the reason of his separation. And whosoever reads Ch: Ma: [N. 27.] will finde, that which I say to be true. For he expresly sayth, that both they who doe, and doe not, cut of the Church of Rome, from hope of salvation, agree in the effect of separation: Only this effect of separation being supposed (without which ther could be no imaginable Schisme) they doe alleadge for their excuse, that they did it in a different manner, because the one part, of which we speake, conceaved that, though they did separate, yet they should be excused from Schisme, because they did not cut of, from hope of salvation, the Roman Church: ād so, this was the motiue, or reason, for which they judged, they might separate from her, without the sinne of Schisme, and consequently, they would not haue done it, if they had not had this reason, or motiue, and consideration, wherby to excuse themselves. Thus your examples of one saying to his Brother, I doe well to leaue you, because you are my Brother, or of a subject, saying to his Soveraigne Lord, I doe well to disobey you, because I acknowledge you to be my lawfull Soveraigne, are meere perversions of Ch. Ma. his words, who sayth truly against Potter, that if one should part from his Brother vpon some cause, and excuse such his departure from fault, because he still acknowledges him to be his Brother, or if a subject should disobey his Soveraigne, vpon some motiue, and then should thinke to justify his fact, by saying, he still acknowledges him, to be his lawfull Soveraigne, C: Ma: I say affirmes, that such an excuse, may justly seeme very strange, and rather fit to aggravate, then to extenuate, or excuse the departure, of the one, from his Brother, and disobedience, of the other, to his Souveraigne. And yet this is our case. For, both the violent, and moderate Protestants, agree in the same effect of separation, from the Roman Church, and disobedience to her Pastours, with this only difference, that the one sorte, sayth, that she is cut of from the hope of Salvation, and the other sayes she is not, and pretend to be excused from Schisme, because they say so, though they separate themselves [Page 861]from her, no lesse, then the other doe.

22. To your (N. 78.79.) I answer, that when the Fathers, and Divines, teach, that schisme is a division fro that church, with which one agrees in matters of faith, they doe not distinguish, betweene points fundamētall, ād not fūdamēntall, in order to the negatiue precept, of not disbelieving any point sufficiētly proposed as revealed by God, ād so in fact, all points being fūdamētall, in this sense (as both you, and Potter are forced to confesse more then once, though in other occasions you contradict it, as even in this place you make such a distinction, and vpon it ground your objection) whosoever agree truly in all Fundamentall points in this sense, agree in all points, of truths, revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed for such. If Protestants will faine to themselves, another kinde of points, not fundamentall, in order to the Negatiue precept of Faith, Charity Maintayned is not obliged to side with them, but may and ought to say, that if Protestants pretend to agree with vs, in fundamentall Points, they must a parte rei agree with vs, in all Points, sufficiently proposed as divine Truths, and that agreement supposed, while they depart from our Communion, they becocome most formall Schismatiks, as Schisme is distinguished from heresy. Thus your Sillogisme (which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch: Ma) is answered. For when you say; He that obeyes God in all things, is innocent; Titus obeys God in somethings; Therefore he is innocent. Your Minor should be, Titus obeys God in all things, as they who agree in fundamentall points of Faith, must agree in all things, that is, they must not disagree in any revealed truth; for to agree in that sense, is fundamentall to the Faith of a Christian, as Potter confesses. By this also your (N. 79.) is answered. Neither doe your (N. 80. and 81.) containe any difficulty, which is not answered by a meere denyall. I wish the Reader for his owne good, to reade what you omitt in the (N. 29.) of C: Ma: where he shewes, that Luther was farr enough from intending any reformation, with some other points, which you omitt, or involue in darkness, and which being read in him, answer all your Objections.

23. Your (N. 82.) gives as great a deadly blow to Protestant Religion, as no adversary could haue givē a greater. C: Ma: sayd, that Luther, ād his Associates, did wholy disagree in the particulars of their reformatiō; which was a signe, that the thing vpon which theyr thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Relig ō, but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome. This you not only grant, but proue, that it could not [Page 862]be otherwise, saying to Ch Ma. Certainly it is no great marveile that ther was as you say, disagreement between them in the particulars of their Reformation: Nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise. And why? You giue the reason, in these remarkable words: the Declination from which (originall purity of religiō) some conceaving to haue begunne though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in worke; and after their departure to haue shewed itselfe more openly: others againe believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles, and then declined: And consequently, some ayming at an exact conformity with the Apostolique times: others thinking, they should doe God and men good service could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fift ages: some taking their direction in this worke of Reformation, only from Scripture; others from the writings of Fathers, and the decrees of Councells of the first fiue Ages: certainly it is no great mervaile that ther was, as you say, disagreement between them, in the particulars of their Reformation; nay morally speaking it was impossible it should be otherwise. Yet let me tell you, the difference between them (especially in comparison of your Church and Religion) is not the difference between good and bad, but between good and better. And they did best, that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition: which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow. I know not, whether the vncertainty, or misery, of Protestant religion, could haue been described in more lively colours, then you haue set it out. For if they be vncertaine, from whence to beginne their Reformation, and for that cause, you confesse it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars therof, it followes, that now they haue no certainty, what Reformation is true, or whether a Reformation, ād not rather a Deformation, or falshood And indeed the different heades, even as you propose them, are so confused, that it is not easy to vnderstand, what they meane: and then, how hard must it be, to take them for a distinct rule, how to proceed, in the Reformation of the whole world! If the principles be doubtfull, the conclusion can not be certain. You make your Progenitours, to resemble perfectly, the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers, who not agreeing in their Principles, proue vaine, and ridiculous in their predictions. You are like to a certaine man, who not long a goe, in a citty, which I could name, apprehending himselfe in his climactericall yeare, could not be induced to eate, as despayring to passe that Criticall time, till he was told by a witty Physition, that he must count his age, from the time of his conception, not of his nativity, as he had done, according to which [Page 863]rate, finding, as he thought, his fatall yeare to be past, was presently cured. Truly whosoever advisedly, and seriously, considers this Number of yours, can not but forsake Protestantisme, if he meane not to forsake his owne soule. You endeavoured, to perswademen, that by the ordinary meanes, which are left vs, a Church collapsed, may be restored to purity, which certainly you make impossible to be done, by the Doctrine you deliver here; Seing, confessedly ther is no certainty, vpon what Grounds, or by what settled directions, such a Reformation should proceed; nor from whence it should beginne. It is also strange to heare you say; They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition: Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow. What? doe you now tell vs, that there be traditiue interpretations of Scripture? A thing disclaymed by you, through your whole booke, denying all other Traditions except that, wherby we accept Scripture, as the word of God, but not the interpretation of it, it being (as you saie) evident of itselfe, and ther being no infallible Judge to declare it, or any points of Faith which are not contained in it. Moreover by what commission, or coherence to yourself, say you, (Pag: 375. N. 56.) That the Bible, I say the Bible only, is the Religion of Protestants? Seing you tell vs here, that some of them tooke their direction in this work of Reformation, only from Scripture; others from the Writings of the Fathers, and the Decrees of the Councells, for the first fiue Ages: and that they did best, that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholick written Tradition? Heere, yourselfe expressly distinguish, those who tooke their direction only from Scripture, from others, who tooke it from the Writings of the Fathers, and the Decrees of Councells &c. The truth is you vndertooke to defend Potter, and Protestants, only to haue the occasion of venting Socinianisme, and covertly overthrowing Protestantisme, and vpon grounds, which indeed overthrow all Religion. You say; Let me tell you the difference between them (especially in comparison of your Church and Religion) is not the difference between good and bad, but between good and better: Answer: in matters of Faith, of two disagreeing, the one must be in an errour, against Divine Testimony, and the other in the right. I hope you will not say, that the difference betweene an Assent of Faith, and an errour against Faith, is not between good and bad, but between good and better, as if errour against Faith were good, but not so good, as Faith. Now those different capitall Principles, of which you spoke, cānot chuse but produce different, and opposite conclusions, and Doctrines of which one must be an errour.

[Page 864]

24. In your (N. 83.84.85.86.87.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.96.) you spend many words, with much vnnecessary fervour against the answers which Ch. Ma. gives to two similitudes, which D. Potter brings to excuse Protestants from the guilt of Schisme: which similitudes you alledge in a cursiffe letter; but add words of importance, which the Doctour hath not. His words faithfully alledged by Ch: Ma. (P. 194. N. 30) taken out of the Doctours (P: 81. 82.) are these: If a monastery should reforme it selfe, and should reduce into practice, ancient good discipline, when others would not, in this case could it in reason be charged with Schisme from others, or with Apostasie from its rule, and order? Or as in a Society of men vniversally injected with soxie disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therfor sayd to separate from the Society: so neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schisme from the Church, seing all they did was to reforme themselves. You say this argument is pressing, and vnanswerable. But, Examples, and similitudes, are commonly sayed, rather to illustrate, then demonstrate, and are often more captious, then solid, and convincing. You haue no reason to accuse Ch: Ma: for perverting them; for he first set downe the very words of Potter, and then sets downe the case, with application to our present purpose, never affirming, that the Doctour sets it downe, in the manner, and in those words, but contrarily, shewing, that it should be so set downe; which appeares by his express words (N. 31. Before you make your finall resolution heare a word of advice) And (N. 32.) Let me set before you these considerations. All which words, in both these places, declare manifestly, that Ch: Ma: did not pretend to set downe verbatim the Doctours case, but to signify, what he ought to haue considered, and set downe, and what de facto past in the division of Luther from the Church. And lastly, he shewes, that the case, being set downe, as it ought to haue been, made against the Doctour, in favour of his adversary. That all this is true, will appeare by reading the discourse of Ch: Ma: [N. 31.32.33.34.]

25. And it was easy for Ch. Ma. to retort the similitudes, out of these grounds, which he had proved: That there is a most strict divine command, not to forsake the communion of Gods Church; Dr. Potter (Pag; 76.) sayes: Whosoever professeth himselfe to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confesse himselfe consequently to forsake the whole; and therfor her (the Roman Churches) communion we forsake not, no more then the Body of Christ: And that externall communion, is essentiall, to make men members, of the same Church: which he ( Ch. [Page 865]Ma.) shewes (Pag: 155. N. 5) and I haue proved heretofore. For, out of these two grounds, it followes, That it is de Jure Divino, not to forsake the communion of the Church, which according to Dr. Potter, were to forsake the body of Christ, and that to forsake the externall communion, which is essentiall to the Church, is to forsake the communion of the Church. Now, the similitudes of the Doctor, to be of any force, must suppose that ther is no divine command, to remaine in that Monastery, or company of those infected persons, or else, that to leaue their externall communion, were not to leaue them; and so, in one word, the parity must be absolutely denyed; seing it is supposed, that ther is no divine precept for remayning in that Monastery, or Hospitall of sick people, or else, that to remaine in their company, were not essentiall to be a member of such communities; and therfor you say very irreligiously (N. 84.) That as it is possible to forsake other Societies, that is, their externall communion, so also it may be Lawfull to forsake the communion of the Church, for her pretended faults, and corruptions. But let vs see, what you can object; and I must here againe entreate the Reader, to read Ch: Ma. and not take his answers, not only at a second, but at an adversaries hand. For here you practice an art, first to divide the Reasons of Ch. Ma. and then to set vpon every single one a parte, wheras there is such a connexion between his reasons, that one receaves light, and strength from another. It seemes you haue a minde to cavill, when you would seeme to make a difference, between one Monasterie compared with other Monasteries of the same order, and one, or some few persons, compared with the one Monasterie in which they liue: Wheras you cannot but judge that there is the selfsame proportion, and that the reason, which may excuse, or accuse, in the one, may doe the like, in the other, or rather indeed, it is but one, and the selfe same case, for as much as belongs to our present purpose.

26. You (N. 85.) in stead of āswering the case as C. Ma. puts it, professe to alter it, and to put it not just as Ch. Ma. would haue it. Well, even taking the case as you put it, I say, that if there were, as ther is in our case, a divine command, not to part from such a community, those observances, which you suppose to be obliging, would cease to oblige, if they could not be kept, without forsaking such a community: yea, though they did still oblige, it were not Lawfull, to leaue that community, as I declared heretofore, in case of minoris mali, and perplexity. [Page 866]But indeed Ch. Ma. speakes not of observances, the omitting wherof did import sinne, but in express termes, of a case, wherin a Monastery did confessedly obserue their substantiall vowes, and all principiall Statutes, or constitutions of the order, though withsome neglect of lesser Monasticall Observances. Neither is the streame of Casuists against Ch. Ma. in this; nor S. Paul, whome you cite, while he sayes, that we may not doe the least evill, that we may doe the greatest good: Seing in this case, the omission of those observances, would be so farr from being evill, that the contrary would be a great offence, against God, and his Church. This very same answer, serves for your other discourse, about a company, vniversally infected with some disease, and needs only the application, from observance, to a disease, which certainly we should rather endure, then make a breach, from such a community, if by a divine precept, we be obliged to remaine therein.

27. You cite (N. 87.) the words of Ch: Ma. disadvantagiously. He sayth indeed, that those few that pretended a Reformation, were knowē to be led not with any spirit of Reformation, but by some other sinister intention; which is very true. And (N. 29.) he shewed it out of Luthers owne words, which you thought fit to dissemble: and the same may be demonstrated of your other primitiue, prime, Reformers, if it were necessary. It is also very true, that by going out of the Church, no man must hope to be free from those or the like errours, for which they left her. For they may returne to morrow, to their former opinions, as heresy is always instable, and also to vs Catholiques; because out of the true Church; they can haue no certaine rule of Faith, nor are assisted with plenty of grace, for exercising acts thereof, as experience teaches vs, in the irreconciliable contentions of Protestants, and yourselfe say heere (P: 277. N. 61.) The vsuall fecundity of errours is to bring forth others of a higher quality, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and vndermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety. It is pretty, to heare you say, (N. 88.) that the Church is secured from fundamentall errours, not by any absolute promise of divine assistance, but by the repugnance of any errour fundamentall to the essence and nature of a Church, as you may say, men are secured from being vnreasonable creatures, or beastes, because if they were such, they could not be men. You know very well that when Charity Maintayned sayd, (N. 31.) You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall) he meant of an absolute promise of [Page 867]assistance, which Potter affirmes the vniversall Church to haue, for all fundamentall points, and yet grants it not to any particular Person, or Church, and therefor you had no reason to call that true saying of Ch: Ma: a manifest falshood. Of Luthers opposing himselfe to all, I haue spoken heretofore, and answered the objection, you bring about that matter, in your (N. 89.)

28. Your (N. 91.) yealds as much as can be desired, against yourself, and all Protestants, That many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the antiquity of our doctrine and practice; which you doe not deny; but goe about to specify some particular points, of which learned Protestants doe not confesse the antiquity; but indeed they are such, that any judicious Protestant, will wonder, that you did mention them in particular, confessing therby, that for those which you doe not expresse (and they are the chiefest differences betwixt Protestants and vs) antiquity stands for vs, against Protestants: though I must add withall, to make vp the number, you are forced, to bring in some things, which are not matters of Faith with vs, and some other points, which are even ridiculous. We deny, that any Catholick approved Authour, acknowledges the novelty of any of our Doctrines, or the Antiquity of yours, except in that sense, as we are wont to say, such, were Ancient Heresies, and Heretikes. But you know Erasmus is no competent witnesse in our account. Your (Num. 72.) containes no new difficulty.

29. To your (N. 93.) In answer; that the Profession of true Faith, is essentiall to every member of the Church, as such, but Charity is not: and therfor every errour against Faith, is incompatible with such a Denomination, but not sinnes against Charity. If the Church might erre in any point of Faith, it is true, that, ex natura rei, and considering only that errour, or only that one part of the supposition, in itselfe, her communion might be forsaken; and yet it is also true, that taking into consideration all sides, ād comparing the greater Inconvenience, of leaving the communion of the Church, with a lesser of professing an errour not Fundamentall, it is necessary, to remaine in her communion, as minus malum, and therefore, in case, and supposition, of perplexity (not absolutely, and per se loquendo) to be perferred, and chosen: so the saying of Ch. Ma. that the Church might be forsaken, if she could fall into any errour against Faith, is true per se loquendo, and not contrary to his other saying, that vpon that impossible supposition, it were lesse evill; [Page 868]and therfor in case of perplexity, necessary not to forsake her: all which I explicated heretofore at large. For avoyding of which inextricable Labyrinths, and perplexities, and taking away all shadow of contradiction, we must belieue, the Church to be infallible, and secured from all errour against Faith.

30. All that you haue (N. 94.) hath been answered heretofore, when we shewed that to depart from the externall communion of the Church, was to depart from the Church. Your (N. 97) containes no difficulty, except against yourself, who cannot avoide the Authority brought by Char. Main. out of S. Optatus, except by saying, his sayings are not rules of Faith; and I desire the Reader, to peruse the words of Ch. Ma. (N. 35.) that the Protestants departed from the Roman Church, and not the Roman Church from them, with some other reflections of moment.

31. In your (N. 98.) you grant the thing which Ch. Ma: affirmes, that the Primacie if Peter is confessed by learned Protestants to be of great antiquity, and for which the judgment of divers most ancient Fathers is reproved by them, as may be seene in Brereley (Tract: 1. Sect. 3. Subdivis. 10.) Which, to such as beare due respect, to the agreement, of so many ancient, learned, and holy Fathers, ought to proue that it is, not only ancient, but true. And I wonder you can say, that having perused Brereley you cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with vs, that the Popes Primacy is de Jure Divino, wheras he cites divers Protestants, confessing (forced by evedence of Truth) that divers Fathers proved that Primacy, out of the Power given, and Promise made by our Saviour to S. Peter, and that vpon Him he builded his Church. And to speak Truth, it is no better than ridiculous, to imagine, that all other Churches, did, or would or could in prejudice to the Authority of particular Churches, confer vpon the sea of Rome, an vniversall power over them all, to admitt Appeales against them, to reverse their decrees &c. vnless they had believed, such a Power to haue bene granted by a Higher power. We see how zealously every one is bent, to preserue his owne Right, and is more inclined, to deny what is due to an other, than to giue vp his owne. And when, or where, did all Churches, vnitedly and joyntly, offer vp this vniversall supreme Authority, to the Bishop of Rome?

32. To the authority cited by Ch: Ma: out of S. Cyprian (Epist. 55.) Heresies haue sprung, and Schismes been bred from no other cause, [Page 869]than for that the Priest of God is not obeyed, nor one Priest and Judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God; You answer that S. Cyprian spoke not of Cornelius but of Himself, and yet you confess (N. 91.) that Goulartius a learned Protestant, grants that it is meant of Cornelius, and Pamelius in his Annotations vpon this Epistle of S. Cyprian brings divers Arguments to proue the same: Neither can it be denyed but that in his Booke de Vnitate Ecclesiae, he affirmes Heresies to spring from not acknowledging one Head, S. Peter. vpon whom our Saviour builded his Church: Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam. Primatus Petro datur, vt vna Christi Ecclesia, & Cathedra vna monstretur. Which is so manifest, that the Protestant Chroniclers, (cent. 3. col. 84. lin. 59.) say, Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse, vr Lib. 1. Epist: 3. (which is the Epistle cited by C. Ma. and of which we now speak) And Lib: 4. Epist: 9. &c. But although it were granted, that S. Cyprian in his Epist 55. did speak of a particular Church, it is cleare, that for avoiding Schisme in the whole Church, there is a necessity of one Head, if for that cause one Head be necessary in every particular Church, as heretofore we cited out of S. Hierom, that among the Apostles one was chosen, vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio. And even Dr. Covell a learned Protestant in his examination &c. saieth; How can they think that equality would keepe all the Pastors in the world in peace and vnity. For in all Societies Authority (which cannot be where all are equall) must procure vnity and obedience. Otherwise the Church should be in a farre worse case, then the meanest commonwealth. To which purpose he alledges that Sentence, which we mentioned out of S. Hierom, vt capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio. You say; whether the words of S. Cyprian condemne Luther, is another Question. Answer; If those words condemne Luther of Schisme, for withdrawing his Obedience from the Pope (which Ch: Ma: affirmes, and you for the present do not deny) it evidently implies, that the Pope was Superiour, to him, and all other Christians.

33. In your (N. 99.100.) you labour to elude these words of S. Optatus (alledged by C. Ma: in the same N. 36.) Thou canst not deny, but that thou knowest, that in the Citty of Rome, there was first an Episcopall chaire placed for Peter, wherin Peter the head of all the Apostles sat, whereof also he was called Cephas; in which one chaire, vnity was to be kept by all, least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves, each one his particular chaire; ād that he should be a Schismatique [Page 870]and a sinner, who against that one single Chaire should erect an other. (lib: 2. cont: Parmen:) You tell vs; That the Donatists had set vp at Rome a Bishop of their faction, and that Optatus proves them Schismatikes for so doing, vpon this ground, of one Bishop in one Church. But whosoever reads Optatus, will clearly see, that he expresly speaks of the Catholique (not of a particular) Church, which he saieth, hath quinque ornamenta or dotes, the first whereof is a chaire, on which chaire (of the Catholique and vniversall Church) he saith S. Peter first sat, whom he calls the Head of all the Apostles, whereof he was called Cephas; in which one Chaire, vnity was to be kept by all. Now I beseech you, is it not cleare, that Optatus speaks of S. Peter, and of his Sea, not as of a particular Bishop, of a particular Church, but as Head of the Catholique Church, by whose meanes vnity was to be conserved, and that Schisme, and Heresie are to be discovered, by opposition to that chayre? which he calls singularem cathedram, and may well signify not only a single, or particular, or individuall chaire, but indeed singular, by reason of singular preeminence, and priviledg aboue all other Churches. For this cause, he speaks thus to the Donatist Parmenian: Contra quas portas (inferorum) claves salutares accepisse legimus Petrum, cui a Christo dictum est, Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum, & portae inferorum non vincenteas. Vnde est ergo quod claves regni vobis vsurpare contenditis, qui contra cathedram Petri, vestris presumptionibus & audacijs, sacrilegio militatis? To what purpose should he insist, vpon these priviledges of S. Peter, and his Chaire, if he meant no more than what is common to all particular Churches? Or how doth he afterward proue, that they whom the Donatists opposed were [...]in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica, per Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est? But why do I labour, to proue, that which our Adversaries, your Brethren, are forced to grant? For the Centurists (cent 4. col. 556. lin. 17.) alledg Optatus calling Peter, Apostolorum caput, vnde & Cephas appellatur. And indeed not only in the place alledged, but also (lib: 7.) he calls S. Peter caput Apostolorum, And Fulk (in his Retentiue, Pag: 248.) chargeth Optatus with absurdity, for saying of Peter, Praeferri Apostolis omnibus meruit &c He deserved to be preferred before all the Apostles. You say; When Optatus stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles, and sayes, that from thence he was called Cephas; Perhaps he was abused into this opinion, by thinking Cephas derived from the greek word Kephale: wheras it is a Syriack word and signisies a stone. But what imports it vpon what ground he called him head, seing he called him so, and believed him to be such? Beside, [Page 871]that which is the stone, Rock, or Foundation, in a materiall Building, in a mysticall Body is the Head, as the vulgar saying is, Homo est arbor inversa, The roote is to a tree, as the Head is to a man; and therefore our Saviour sayd, I will build my Church vpon this Rock, after he had saied to S. Peter, that he was a Rock. In this manner the Centurists, Cent: 3. col: 85. say, that Origines (Tract: 5. in Matth:) dicit, Petrus per promissionem meruit fieri Ecclesiae fundamentum, and yet that (Hom: 17, in Lucam) Petrum vocat Apostolorum Principem, where we see that S. Peter is called both a Foundation, and a Prince, Chiefe, or Head.

34. But now, giue me leaue, to say plainly, that it is intollerable in you, to impugne by Reasons, which you expressie only call probabilityes, a matter delivered clearly in Scripture, testifyed by Antiquity, embraced by Nations, and corroborated by the great Plea of Possession, peacefull, and tyme out of mynd; against all which, what wisdom is it to oppose, meere Topicall Socinian conjectures? You saie, First, That S. Peter should haue authority over all the Apostles, and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them, and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection, me thinks is as strang, as that a King of England for twenty fine yeares should do no Act of Regality, nor receiue any one acknowledgment of it:

35. Answer 1. I would ask, how you can assure vs, that S. Peter exercised no one act of authority over any one of the Apostles, vnless first you suppose, not only that all points of Faith, but also all matters of fact, are registred in Scripture, which I hope you will not say, S. Luke in the Acts having set downe but a few things, and of fewe? 2. If you belieue Scripture, you cannot doubt, but that in divers occasions, S. Peter exercised Actions, declaring him to haue an ordinary Charg, and Power proper to him. It was hee, who spoke first in the Apostles Councell in Hierusalem; who proposed the Election of S. Matthias; in warning Christians, that in the writings of S. Paul, there were things difficult to be vnderstood, which in my opinyon deserves to be noted, declaring that the charg of the whole Church, was committed to him, even in things relating to other Apostles; who is still named in the first place, and named in such manner, as the rest are named as belonging to him, or of his family, which appeares (Mark: 1. Luc: 8. & 9. Act: 2. & 5.) It was Hee who was wont to speak for the rest, and so S. Cyrill: vpon those words, Joan: 6. Domine ad quem ibimus? saieth: Per vnum qui praeerat omnes respondent. But of the authority and prerogatives of S. Peter, Bellarmine writes at large de Rom: Pontifice (Lib: 1. Cap: 17.18.19.20.21.22) [Page 872]to whom I referr the Reader. 3. The Apostles being dead, or dispersed, no wonder, if S. Peter, either had no occasion of exercising Iurisdiction over them, or at least there was not occasion of writing it for posterity. Besides, all the Apostles having jurisdictiō, over the whole world (which in them was extraordinary, but ordinary in S. Peter) and being particularly assisted by the Holy Ghost for the due performance of their office, no wonder if S. Peter had no occasion of exercising his Power, in order to them, who wanted neither Power, nor knowledg, nor will to correspond to the vocation of an Apostle; which consideration confutes ād retorts your similitude of a King, who certainly would not be solicitous, to exercise any act of regality over those, who had as great Power as hee himself, ād who he was assured, would make the best vse of their Power, if we imagine any such case in a Kingdom, as de facto it was true in the Apostles, of whom S. Cyprian saieth (De Vnitate Ecclesiae) Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum: Ego tibi dico, inquit, quia tu es Petrus, & super istam Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae inferorum non vincent eam. Et tibi dabo claves regnicoelorum, & quae ligaveris super terram, erunt ligata in coelis; & quaecumque solveris super terram, erunt soluta & in coelis. Et iterum eidem post Resurrectionem suam dicit: Pasce Oves meas. Super illum vnum aedificat Ecclesiam suam, & illi pascendas mandat oves suas. Et quamvis Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat & dicat; Sicut misit me Pater, & ego mitto vos, accipite Spiritum Sanctum; Si cui remiseritis peccata, remittentur illi; Si cui retinueritis, tenebuntur: tamen vt vnitatem manifestaret, vnam cathedram constituit, & vnitatis ejusdem originē, ab vno incipientē sua authoritate disposuit. Hoc erant vtique & caeteti Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab vnitate proficiscitur. Primatus Petro datur, vt vna Christi Ecclesia & cathedra vna monstretur. Behold, how the Apostles had jurisdiction over the whole world, though in a different manner, from that according to which it was conferred vpon S. Peter, to descend to his Successours.

36. Secondly. You object, As strang it is, that you so many ages after should know this so certainly, and that the Apostles should be so ignorant that S. Peter was Head of the rest, as to question which of them should be the greatest, after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue wherof S. Peter is pretended to haue been made their Head: yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error, by telling them S. Peter was the man, but rather [Page 873]confirme it by saying, the Kings of the Gentils exercise authority over them, but it should not be so among them. Answer: It is more strange, that you should make this objection, who teach that the Apostles, even after the receiving of the Holy Ghost, having had an expresse revelation, and commād from our Saviour, were doubtfull, whether they ought to preach to the Gentills. For if they might erre in Faith, and practice, notwithstanding so direct a revelation, and precept, how can you wonder that before the receiving of the Holy Ghost, they might contend among themselves, which of them were the greater, although our Saviour had promised to build his Church vpon S. Perer, (and why do you not say against yourself, it is strang, that you so many ages after should know the Apostles did erre in that matter.) Besides, Bellarmine de Romano Pontifice (Lib: 1. cap: 28.) demonstrates, both by testimonyes of Fathers, and Scriptures, that S. Peter was not with the other Apostles, in that contention of theirs, which of them was the greater, and so cannot be sayd, to haue been ignorant of his owne authority, which our Saviour had promised (Matth: 16.) and actually conferred (Joan: 21.) Yea perhaps the Apostles did propose to themselves, some temporall kinde of glory, or kingdome, as the mother of S. James and S. John did, when she petitioned our Saviour, that one of her sonnes might sit at the right hand, the other at the left, in his Kingdome, and did not thinke, of being Head of the spirituall Kingdome of Christs Militant Church. According to which consideration, it is no wonder, If our Saviour should not bring them out of their errour, by telling them S. Peter was the man (seing indeed he was no such man, in order to a temporall Kingdome) but rather confirmed it by saying, the Kings of the Gentils exercise authority over them, but it should not be soe among them. Which sacred advice, had been also good, and necessary, though their contention had been, about their preeminence in the Church, which to seeke ambitiously, is evill, though the thing, to which they pretend, be good. And seing our Saviour was afterward to commit the charge, of the whole Church, to S. Peter in expresse termes, by a triple injunction of Pasce oves meas, Feed my sheep, (Joan: 21.) his divine wisdome thought fit (Matth: 18.) to giue them that holy advice of humility; it being time enough, for them, to know, and reflect, that S. Peter was their Head, by that expresse future declaration, of our Saviour (Joan: 21.)

38. Thirdly. You would proue that S. Peter was not Head of the rest, because the Scripture sayth, God hath appointed first Apostles, secondly [Page 874]Prophets, but sayth not, God hath appointed First Peter, then the rest of the Apostles; which, to speake truth is a childish reason: it being cleare, that the Scripture, in that place, doth not compare the Apostles among themselves, but with other degrees in the Church, as Prophets, Doctours &c. Otherwise, you might proue, that one Magistrate can not be subordinate, and subject to another, if one, for example, should say, the commonwealth, consists of Magistrates, and people, because forsooth, in that division, you doe not expresse the authority of one Magistrate, aboue another.

39 Fourthly; you say, S. Paul professeth himself to be nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles; and (if S. Peter was Head of the Apostles) it was a wonder, that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himself, as that mentioning him often, he should doe it without any title of Honour. But I beseech you, can you belieue, that S. Paul would say of himself, that he was not inferiour to the chiefest of the Apostles, absolutely, and in all things? He accounted himself to be the first and chiefest amongst sinners, and laments, that he had bene a persecutor of Christians; and will you needs vnderstand him to say, that in such respects, he was not inferiour to the other Apostles, who were innocent of those things? He was an Apostle, as the others were, and that is all, you can vnderstand by his words; and all that, makes just nothing to the purpose. But S. Paul mentions S. Peter without any Title of honour. No more doth he giue any title to S. James, though he were Bishop of Hierusalem, which surely deserves some honour, if the simplicity, of those blessed tymes, had bene accustomed to testify honour by titles. Yourself say heere, S. Peter might be head of the Apostles, that is first in order, and honour among them, and not haue supreme Authority over them; and Protestants easily grant that he had that Priviledg of being first, in order, and honour; how then will your answer your owne objection, that it was a wonder S. Paul should mention him, without any title of honour, seing particular honour was due to him, even by our Saviours command? For, from what other cause could it proceede? But shall I disclose to you a mystery, on which it seemes you do not reflect? Our Saviour, whose words are operatiue, and deeds; by calling S. Peter, Cephas, or a Rock, had also made him such, and saied Tues Petrus, Thou art a Rock, and vpon this Rock I will build my Church, so that to name Peter, is to call him the Foundation, and head of the Church, and all Christians; and with what greater title of honour, could any body mention any Creature? we may therefore say, of S. Peter, as S. Ambrose saieth, of the title of Martyr (De [Page 875]Uirginibus Lib. 1.) Quot homines tot praecones, qui Martyrem praedidicant, dum loquuntnr. To name one a martyr, is a title of honour; and so it is to name Peter, for the foresaied Reason.

40. You conclude; Though we should grant against all these probabilities, and many more (fooleries, say I, not probabilities) that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles, not in our, but your sense, and that S. Peter indeed was so; yet still you are very farre from shewing, that in the judgment of Optatus, the Bishop of Rome was to be at all, much less by Divine Right, Successor to S. Peter in this his Headship and Authority. For what incongruity is there, if we say, he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care, the Government of that particular Church, (as sure he did even while S. Peter was living) and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed in his Apostleship, nor in his government of the Church vniversall? Especially seing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles, by laying the foundation of the Church, were to be the foundation of it, and accordingly are so called in Scripture. And therefore as in abuilding it is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation: so it may be in the Church, that any other Apostle should succeed the first.

41. Answer; If you suppose (as for the present you doe) that S. Peter by our Saviours institution (and consequently by divine right) was Head of the Apostles; you should not say, what incongruity is there, but what incongruity is there not, if we say, that the Bishop of Rome, might succeed S. Peter, only in the Government of that particular Church. For what can be more incongruous, and foolish, than to imagine, that S. Peter was ordained by our Saviour Head of the Apostles, and the whole Church, only for his life time, when there was no need, and, as we may saie, litle vse thereof, seing all the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Christians, and Power to preach the Gospell, through the whole world; and so the necessity of such vniversall Power in S. Peter, must haue relation to future Ages, after the death of the Apostles; and if it must still reside in some, in whom can you imagine it to be seated, except in him whom you deny not to be Successor of S. Peter for the Church of Rome? And that Optatus supposed the vniversall Power of S. Peter, to remaine in his Successors, appeares by his words, which I haue pondered aboue; as also because he speakes of the Sea, or Chaire of Rome, as of the Rule, whereby to judg of heresies, and Schismes, not only for the tyme of S. Peter, but for ever; and therefore he sets downe a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome only, and saith: Cathedra vnica quae est prima de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus: cui successit Linus, Lino successit Clemens, Clementi Anacletus &c: and so goes on till [Page 876]his owne ayme. And I would gladly know, by what text of Scripture you can proue that the Power of S. Peter over the whole Church, was so particular, and personall, to him, that it ceased with his person? Will you haue vs measure matters of Faith, with your congruities, or incongruities? With your Socinian, topicall, humane vaine, discourses? What meane you by these words as sure he the Bishop of Rome did even while S: Peter was living? I will not examine heere, whether, or in what manner Linus, and Cletus were Bishops of Rome, before S. Peters death (wherof may be seene Baronius Anno 69. who saieth, they were not Romanae sedis episcopi, but only Coadjutores) I beseech you remember, what you saied (N. 98. and 99.) interpreting S. Cyprian and S. Optatus, that, in one particular Church at once there ought to be but one Bishop; and certainly it is no consequence, The Bishop of Rome appointed by S. Peter for Rome, and supplying his place, and depending on him, was not head of the Church, while S. Peter did liue; therefore he could not be his successor, in that vniuersall power, after S. Peters death. Neither do you so much as offer to proue, that S. Peter ever relinquished his being the particular Bishop of Rome, and therefore how can you say; the Bishop of Rome did succeed S. Peter, while he was living, seing no man can succeed a Bishop while that Bishop lives, and is still Bishop of that particular Church, in which an other is pretended to succeed him?

42. Your Argument. (That, as in building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations: so it may be in the Church, that any other Apostle should succeed the first) is to giue it the right name a nothing, or a meere equivocation in the Metaphor of a foundation; whereas a Foundation in our case signifies a Head, or chiefe, and if you hold it incongruous that foundations in this sense should succeed foundations, you must say, that no King, Prince, or magistrate can without incongruity, succeed one an other. Besides, The Apostles were Foundations of the Church, by their Preaching, and Teaching (for not all of them wrote, and they were foundations of the Church before any one of thē wrote) and I hope you will not say, it is incongruous, that Preachers, and Teachers should haue Successors. Was not Judas an Apostle, and was not S. Matthias chosen, not only after him, but expressly for him, or in his place, or to succeede him? For so S. Peter (Act: 1.) applies that place of Scripture, Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter: and the prayer of the Christiās was, Ostende quem elegeris ex his duobus vnum accipere locum ministerij hujus, & Apostolatus, de quo praevaricatus est Judas. But [Page 877]what, if your very ground, or foundation (That in building it is incongruous, that foundations should succeed foundations) be false, as certainly it is? For, if you suppose the first foundation to faile, or be taken away, may an other, be substituted, and succeed it? The Apostles were Foundations, but being mortall, they faild, and needed successours to supply their absence, and so your similitude returnes directly vpon yourself. If you will follow, the metaphor of a foundation, in all respects; how do you say; S. Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, by laying the foundations of the Church, were to be the foundations of it, seing you may saie, in building it is incongruous that a foundation should laie a foundation? Will you haue it laie itself? Why do you not also say, that as the foundation, is vnder the building; so the Apostles, and all Pastors, Prelats, and Superiours, are inferiour to the rest of the Church? It seemes though the Scripture should be vnderstood, (as indeed it ought) that Christ intended, that S. Peters successours should haue jurisdiction, over the whole Church, you will controll God himself, and say, It is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation. You say els where, vntruly, that Ch. Ma. trifles, about the word foundation, which you confess to be metaphoricall, and ambiguous, and yet heere you ground your whole Argument, vpon that metaphor, ill applied; as, (beside what hath bene sayd) not only the Apostles, but Prophets also, are called in Scripture foundations; super fundamentum Apostolorum, & Prophetarum; and will you except, that in a building, it is incongruous to haue more than one firme and perfect foundation, as certainly the Apostles were? But I spend too much tyme in confuting such toyes, as these.

43. Your (N. 101.102.) haue bene answered already. The Donatists for the cause of their separation pretēded, not only, that the men frō whome they separared, were defiled with the contagion of the Traditors (as you say) but also that they erred in Faith, in believing that Baptisme, might be conferred by Heretiques; to omit other things. Your calumnie about a picture hath beene confuted heretofore Your (N. 104.) containes no difficulty, which may not be answered by former grounds.

44. To your (N. 105.) I answer, that seing Potter accounts the errours of the Roman Church to be damnable, to such, as are not excused by Ignorance, Ch. Ma. had reason to say, the Doctour condemnes all learned Catholiques, who least of all men can plead Ignorance. It is evidently true, that (as Ch. Ma. P. 205.206) saith, these two Propositions, cannot consist in the vnderstanding of any one, who considers what he [Page 878]saies: After due examination I judg the Roman errours not to be in themselves fundamentall, or damnable; and yet I judg that according to true reason, it is damnable to hold them. For, according to true reason, one is to judg of things, as indeed they are in themselves; and therefore, if in reason, I judg them not to be fundamentall in themselves, I must in reason conceyue, that they are notfundamentall, being held by mee; neither doth there in this case intervene any lye, seing one professeth that not to be damnable, which he holds not to be damnable. But where doth Ch. M. say, as you cite him; These Assertions, the Roman errours are in themselves not damnable, and yet it is damnable for me (who know them to be errours) to hold and confess them, are absolutely inconsistent? For it is impossible, that any man can hold that which he knowes to be an errour; because even by knowing it to be an error, he holds it not, but dissents from it. He saieth only, that it cannot be damnable, to hold an error not damnable (which is very true) but saieth not that one can hold an errour, which he knowes to be an errour.

45. You make Ch. Ma. speak in this ridiculous manner to Protestants; If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errours, this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed ād deposed, by judging those errors not damnable; and then you triumph, and spend many words in proving the very same thing, which Ch. Ma. never denied, but expressly affirmed; namely, that the errours of the Roman Church (vpon a fals supposition that she had any) were not damnable. These be his words in the sayed (N 206.) If you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church, by reason of her errours, there is no other remedie, but that you must rectifie your erring conscience, by your other judgment, that her errors are not fundamentall. nor damnable. And this is no more charity, then you dayly affoard to such other Protestants, as you tearme brethren, whome you cannot deny to be in some errours (vnless you will hold that of contradictorie propositions both may be true) and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their communion, because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall. Is this to say; If you erred in thinking that your Church holds errours, this errour might be rectified, by judging these errours not damnable? Is it not directly the contrary, and supposes errours, though they be not damnable? Or doe you thinke, that Ch. Ma. holds Protestants not to be in errour? All that Ch. Ma. sayes, is, That if you erre, in judging you cannot be saved, in [Page 879]the Roman Church, by reason of her errours, you must rectify your conscience, by judging the errours, not to be fundamentall, or damnable, and therfor not excluding salvation. Is this good dealing in you? And why doe you say (N. 106.) A fifth falshood it is that we daily doe this favour for Protestants, you must meane (if you speake consequently) to judge they haue no errours, because we judge they haue none damnable? Seing Ch: Ma: sayd most expresly, that you doe the favour to other Protestants, whome you cannot deny to be in some errours, not to judge it damnable to liue in their communion, because you hold their errours not to be fundamentall. Once againe I must aske, whether this be conscionable dealing?

46. You are too resolute, in this (N. 106.) to impugne the saying of Ch: Ma: That according to the Doctrine of all Divines, ther is great difference betwixt a speculatiue perswasion; and a practicall dictamen of conscience. And I feare, you doe not well vnderstand, this true Doctrine, when you say; These are but divers words signifying the same thing; neither is such a perswasion wholy speculatiue, but tending to practise: nor such a dictamen wholy practicall, but grounded vpon speculation. For, you should say the contrary, that a perswasion purely speculatiue, is so far from tending to practice, that oftentimes, it is joyned with this judgment; I cannot frame my practice, according to this speculation; and consequently my practice, can not be grounded vpon such a speculation, as Catholike Divines doe learnedly explicate, particularly, in the matter and forme of Sacraments. But this is not a place, to handle this matter at large; it being sufficient to haue sayd, that a speculation, taken alone, and abstracting from all other considerations, of all sides, oftentimes would proue pernicious, if it were applyed to practice. You falsify Ch: Ma: as if he did affirme, that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation, that the Church of Rome erred in some Doctrines, and had not also a practicall dictamen, that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errours. For, Ch: Ma: sayth not, that Protestants did only conceaue in speculation &c.? And had not also a practicall dictamen &c. but his words are: Although they had in speculation conceaved, the vissble Church to erre in some Doctrines of themselves not damnable; yet with that speculatiue judgment, they might, and ought, to haue entertained this practicall dictamen, that for points not suhstantiall to Faith, they neither were bound, nor lawfully could, breake the bond of Charity, by breaking vnity in Gods Church. You see Ch: Ma: declares not, what dictamen Protestants had, but what they might, and ought, to haue had, which are as different things, as to say, one is an honest man, and might, and ought to be such an one. [Page 80]Ch: Ma: sayes not, that Dr. Potter teaches, in express words, that Luther was obliged to forsake the Church, for an vnnecessary light, but that it followes, vpon his assertion that he was bound to forsake her externall communion, for poinrs not necessary to salvation.

47. In your (N. 107.) your example, that Euclide was not infallible, yet was he certaine enough, that twice two are foure, is not to the purpos, because such truths, are evident by the light of nature, as the mysteries of Christian Faith are not. Otherwise how were it possible for you to disagree, so irreconciliably, as the world sees, you doe?

48. Ch: Ma: sayth (N. 41.) Since in cases of vncertaintyes we are not to leaue our Superiour, nor cast of his obedience, or publickly oppose his decrees, your Reformers, might easily haue found a safe way, to satisfy their zealous conscience, without a publick breach: especially, if with their vncertainty, we call to minde the peaceable possession, and prescription, which by the confession of your owne brethren, the Church, and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy. To this you answer, by abbreviating the words of Ch: Ma: thus; Your Church was in peaceable possession (you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it) and enjoyed prescription for many ages: and then you add: Doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed: and the Professors of it were the Church it selfe, and in nature of Possessours, (if we may speake improperly) rather then the thing possessed, with whome no man hath Reason to be offended, if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession. But by what commission, or warrant, doe you say to Ch: Ma: (you must meane of her Doctrine and the Professors of it) as if his words must needs be so restrained? Wheras the Church of Rome was in possession of Right, not to bee opposed in her Doctrine by private persons; she was in possession, of the good Name, and Estimation, of being a true Church, for which she is commended by S. Paul; The Pope was in possession, of power, and jurisdiction, over all Christians; of making lawes, Accepting appeales gathering Councells &c. And both the Pope, and Church, were in possession, of the Professors of her Doctrine, that is, Christians were their subjects, who could not be seduced by fraude, Schisme, Heresy, or violence, without offence to God, and man: as you will not deny, all lawfull Communities, to haue Right, that their subjects, should not withdraw, and divide themselves, from such a mysticall Body. Neither is it pertinent, whether in this place we take possession, as it is defined; Detentio rei corporalis, corporis, anim [...]jurisque adminiculo, it being sufficient for our present purpose, that it be that which is called [Page 881]quasi possessio, the having any thing; as we are sayd, to haue hands, feete, life &c. You say, the Professors of the Doctrine were in nature of Possessors (if we may speake improperly) rather then the thing possessed, with whome no man hath Reason to be offended, if they thinke fit to quit their owne possession. Answer: It is strange, that no man hath reason to be offended, if men quit the possession, or forsake the true Doctrine, the grace of God, or vertue, or honesty, because he is supposed to possesse them, or for a man, to depriue himselfe, of some member of his body, or even of life it selfe. Your last words; That the possession which the Gouvernours of our Church had for some ages, of the party gouverned was not peaceable, but got by fraude and held by violence, are most injurious to Truth, to Gods Church, and to God himselfe; as if our Saviours promise, of a stable Church, should be verified, only by fraude and violence, seing as I haue often sayd, ther was no visible Church vpon earth, except the Roman, and those who agreed with her against the Doctrines which Luther did broach, as Ch: Ma: shewes here (Pag 173.) and you doe not deny (Pag: 274. N. 56.) where I obserue by the way, that you say, I know not who they be that say Luther reformed the whole Church; wheras Ch: Ma: cites divers Protestants that say so.

49. In your (N. 108.) There is nothing, but a perpetuall begging of the Question, and taking that for true, which you know we deny; and talking of odious matters, as of the oath of Allegiance, and Supremacy, which only shewes your charity to vs, and zeale to adde affliction vpon the afflicted, if it had beene in your power, and which you would haue wished vnwritten, if you were now a liue. You say our rule out of Uincentius Lyrinensis advers: Haere;: Cap: 27. (Indeed it is a matter of great moment, and both most profitable to be learned, and necessary to be remembred, and which we ought againe and againe to illustrate ād inculcate with weighty heaps of exāples, that almost all Catholiks may know, that they ought to receiue the Doctours with the Church, and not forsake the Faith of the Church with the Doctours) is to no purpos against them, that followed Luther, seing they pretend, and are ready to justify, that they forsooke not with the Doctours the Faith, but only the corruption of the Church. But I pray, doe you not teach, and proclayme, and therby pretend to excuse your Schisme, that the whole Church before Luther was corrupted in Faith; and so by leaving her pretended corruptions, you left her Faith, and those doctrines which she believed? To your (N. 109.) it is easy to answer, that about interlining [Page 882]Potters words in the (pag: 209. N. 42.) you will finde among the Errata, that Ch: Ma: only askes what the Doctour meanes. You do not well to explicate Hooker about externall obedience against ones internall judgment, by paying mony vpon the judges sentence, which is a thing not evill of it self; but in matters of Faith, to yeald externall obedience against his internall belief. is perse loquendo, evill. Your (N. 110.) about the words of Hooker, hath bene answered in all those places, where I haue shewed, that Protestants, can haue no certainty out of Scripture against Catholiques, (as appeares by the agreement of many of them with vs) and therefore, (according to the principles of Hooker) Luther and his followers, were bound to obey the Pastors of that vniversall Church, which he found, before his revolt: and so you haue no reason to accuse Brereley, or Ch: Ma: of any ill dealing in alledging Hooker as they doe, who I do not wonder if sometyme he speak inconsequently, seing all Protestants are forced to do so in this matter. And heretofore, I haue proved at large, out of the grounds which Hooker laies, that Protestants cannot be excused from Schisme. You know your (N. 111.) is answered by a meere denyall, of that which you affirme, without any proofe.

50. You say (N. 112.) that Ch. Ma. (N. 43.) hath some objections against Luthers Person but none against his cause. But the Reader will finde, the contrary to be true, That they concerne his cause, in so high a degree, as no man, desirous to embrace the truth, and saue his solue, or hath the feare of God, can belieue, that Luther was a man sent to reforme the world by preaching the true doctrine. I beseech the Reader to peruse that whole (N. 43.) of Ch. Ma. yet, I cannot for beare to set downe these words of Luther (Tom. 2. Germ. Fol. 9. and Tom. 2. Witt. Anno. 1562. de abrog. Missa privat. Fol. 244.) How often did my trembling hart beate with in me, and reprehending me object against me that most strong Argument. Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds erre? Were so many Ages ignorant? What if thou errest, and drawest so many into Hell to be damned eternally with the? And Tom 5. Annot. Breviss: Dost thou, who art but one and of no account take vpon the so great matters? What if thou being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all, to erre, why may be not permitt the to erre? to This belong those arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Councells, and Customes, the multitudes and greatnes of wise men; whome do not these Mountaines of Arguments, these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow? And these thoughts wrought so deepe [Page 883]in his soule, that he often wished, and desired, that he had (Colloq. Menfal, Fol. 158.) never begun this businesse; wishing yet further that his writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion, Praef. in Tom: German. Jen. Your glancing at the lives of some Popes, makes only against yourselfe, considering that God did not vse these men to beginne a new pretended Reformation as Luther did, but they continued in that Sea, and Place, which had beene established by our Saviour; and therfore the bad lives of some Popes, which had been enough to overthrow that Sea, if it were not setled most immoveably by the absolute Divine promise, thou art Peter &c: and the Gates of hell shall not prevaile &c. yeild vs an argument, against Luther, and all those, who opposed not the vices of particular Popes, but their place, and Authority, and the Church of Rome. The words with which you close this Number, containe nothing but calumnie, falshood, and bitterness, and shew with what spirit you were possest. In your (N. 112. it should be 113.) you grant all that Ch. Ma. endeavoured to proue; and I haue shewed that in this grant, you contradict yourselfe. You say that in a Work which C. Ma. professeth to haue written meerely against Protestants, all that might haue been spared which (N. 45.) he wrote against them that flatter themselves with a conceite, that they are not guilty of Schisme, because they were not the first authours therof. But by your leaue, seing those men keepe themselves within the Communion of the Protestants, Charity Maintayned had reason, to write as he did, that they might be induced, to forsake that Communion, in which to persever, in them were the most formall sinne of Schisme, which consistes in forsaking the externall Communion of Catholicks with whome such men pretend to agree, in beliefe. Besides, perhaps they are not Catholiks so far, as to belieue, they are obliged to forsake the externall communion of Protestants, and returne to vs; which if they belieue not, they are not Catholicks, in all points even of Faith, which teacheth vs, that it is Schismaticall, and damnable to be divided, from the externall Communion of the true Church: and I pray God this kind of men would reflect on this your grant, and consider, that their condition is lamentable in the opinion, both of Catholiques, and Protestants.

[Page 884]

CHAP: XV. THE ANSWER TO HIS SIXTH CHAPTER ABOVT HERESY.

1. THe neerer I come to an end, the swifter the motion of my pen may be; in regard that the more is past, the more Points I find answered, even for that which remaines.

2. Charity Maintayned (Chap. 6. N. 1.) hath these words: Almighty God having ordained Man, to a supernaturall End, of Beatitude, by supernaturall meanes, it was requisite, that his vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes, by a supernaturall knowledg. This saying you approue (N. 2.) if Ch. Ma. mean by knowledg, an apprehension, or belief. But if he take the word properly and exactly, Faith is not knowledg, no more then three is foure, but eminently contained in it, so that he that knowes, believes, and something more, but he that believes many times does not know, nay if he doth barely, and meerely belieue, he doth never know.

3. Answer; accordingly to the right method, and order of doctrine, Ch. Ma. takes knowledg in generall, as an act of the vnderstanding, or Congnoscitiue, and knowing Power of our soule, which must be knowledg, as it is distinguished from an act of the Will; and so in that Axiom of Phylosophers, and Divines, Nihil volitnm, quod non cognitum, nothing is willed or desired, which is not knowne, knowledg is taken in generall, for an act of the vnderstanding, or cognoscitiue Power without distinguishing betweene acts: evidēt, obscure, probable containe distinct, or confused. And if this be a true, and proper acception, of knowledg, taken in generall, certainly in the same sense, it must be true in the particular species of knowledge, as all genericall natures, are properly, found in every species, and so we say, of knowledg, some is evident, some obscure &c, and I would gladly know; what other genus; you would find, to those, and other particular species. It was therfore necessary for Ch. Ma. while he spoke in generall, and abstracted from evident, or [Page 885]obscure assents, to speak as he did: but then descending to particular species, he distinguishes faith, which must be obscure, from evident knowledg, but not absolutely from knowledg; and therfore you cite him amiss, when you affirme, that He requires that the object of Faith must be both naturally and supernaturally vnknowne, whereas he saieth, it should be voide even of supernaturall evidence (which is not all one as to say, it must be voyde of supernaturall knowledg) and when he saied, our assent to divine truths must be vnknowing (for so it should haue bene written, and not vnknowen, which belongs to the object, not to the act of assent) he explicated it, or inevident by humane discourse. So that heere is no retractation, of what he sayd of knowledg in generall; but wheras you would proue a retractation by his words, Faith differs from science in regard of the objects obscurity, though I find not these formall words in Ch. Ma. yet I must say they proue not your purpose. For knowledg, being a Genus to Science, it doth not follow, Faith differs from Science, therefore it differs from, (or is not) knowledg; but contrarily, science being aknowledg, it cannot be distinguished from Faith by knowledg taken in generall (seing Faith is also a knowledg [...] Difference v.g. by being an evident knowledg, and ther [...] to cleare all, when Ch. M. (N. 3.) teaches that Faith liffers fro Sea in the adds, naturall sciēces, to declare the evidēce of such knowledg. For Theolegy, in the opiniō of divers, is a science, though it hath not the evidēce which naturall sciences haue, in regard, that one premisse at least must be an Act of Faith, and obscure. All which considered; you shew too much confidence (some would say ignotance) in saying so resolutely as you doe, to Ch. Ma. That science and knowledg properly taken are Synonimous termes, I think is a thing so plain, that you will not require any proofe of it. For it is cleare, that knowledg, is Genus to science, taken properly and strictly, ād therfore they cannot be synonimous termes. Nay, though knowledg were taken for one species of knowledg, not as it is genus to different species, but as it is determined to signifie an evidēt knowledg, yet it is not Synonimous with science taken properly, as Philosophers speak of it, not that [...], for knowledg produced by demonstration, but it is of a larger compass, and comprehends all evident assents, and among the rest, the most generall Principles of nature, as also the immediate Principles and premisses of science itself. I meane of a demonstratiue conclusiō. As, for the signification of the word, knowledg, in our English phrase, it depends on the circumstances, in which it is vsed, whether, or no, it be, [Page 886]termined to an evident knowledg, or may also signify any assēt, though it be obscure. If one should say, I know no such man as Jesus Christ, not any such thing as Christian Religion, would you approue his saying, by your speculation, that he knowes nothing of Christ, or Christianity, because he believes it, and belief or Faith is not knowledg, as you speak? But if an other, to shew the fervour of his Faith, should say, I doe rather know, than belieue, the truth of Christian Religion, he would be vnderstood to take knowledg for an evident assent, distinct from Faith which is obscure. If you consult holy Scripture you will find S. Paul to say (2. Tim. 1.12.) scio cui credidi, I know whom I haue believed, as even your Protestant English Translation hath it. And (1. Cor. 13.12.) videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate; your English Translation hath; Now we see through a glasse; And yet seeing seemes more to signify evidence, and to be opposite to believing, then only knowing. And (Joan: 14.9.) the English Protestants Bible hath: haue I bene so long with you, and yet hast thou not knowne me, Philip: and Beza in Latine, Non cognovisti me? And, (Job. 19.25.) your English Bible also hath; I know that my redeemer liveth. Innumerable other Texts, may be seene, in the Concordance of the bible, to this purpose, wherein knowledg is applyed to objects of Faith. And S. Austine, (Lib. 1. de Doctr. Christ.) saieth: non verendum dicere, nos scire, quae idoneis testibus novimus. But I may justly be thought to haue said too much, in this Question, which may seeme, de nomine, if your presumptuous and insincere dealing had not forced me, and if I had not taken occasion, to explicate some other points, by occasion of the word (knowledg) from which I now pass to the Matter.

4. You affirme, the saying of Ch. Ma. to be good, if he meane by knowledg, apprehension, or belief; wherein you are greatly mistaken, if you take apprehension particularly and strictly as it is a species, and the first operation of the vnderstanding, distinct from the second, which is Judgment, or affirmation, or negation, and the third which is discourse; For, Faith is an assent or Judgment, that a thing is, or is not, which apprehension, is not, nay (to vse your owne expression) if he doth barely and meerely apprehend, he doth never affirme, or deny; and in our case one may apprehend an object revealed, without Judging it to be true, or fals. A learned Heretique, or infidell, may apprehend the objects of our Faith, better than some true believer; but the difference is in the act of judging, or assenting, which the one does; the other does not. If you [Page 887]take apprehension in generall, as it abstracts from, and is common to the three particular species, or acts of the vnderstanding, apprehension, judgment, and discourse, as Ch. Ma. does, when he sayes mans vnderstanding must be enabled to apprehend that End, and Meanes by a supernaturall knowledg, you do not distinguish it, from knowledg in generall, or as it is common to all the particular species of acts in the vnderstanding, evident, obscure; certaine, probable, &c. and then you fall into that very thing, which you object against your adversary, that Faith is knowledg, taking knowledg, in generall, as I explicated aboue. Yet all this, is nothing to the Philosophy, which you deliver in these words. Faith is not knowledg, no more then three is foure, but eminently contained in it. But if you consider well, you will find, that three taken materially is contained formally in foure, or if you take them, as they are distinct species, the one is not contained in the other, but are indivisibly distinct in nature, and essence, and exclusiue one of another: and therfore your inference so that, he that knowes, believes, ād something more, but he that believes many times does not know cannot be good, taking knowledg (as you doe, and vpon which acception you ground your objection) for an evident knowledg, as if an evident assent did necessarily and vniversally include belief, that is an obscure, or inevident assent, either formally, as is manifest it doth not, or eminently, seing an humane naturall knowledg, though it be evident, is not more perfect than an inevident, certaine, and supernaturall act of divine Faith: and yourself pretend, that you are ready to renounce, all evidence of whatsoever human reason, in comparison of any truth revealed in Scripture You say, a knowledg of a thing absolutely vnknownen, is a plain implicancy, but you say so to no purpose, since Ch. Ma. never saied, that Faith is knowledg, as knowledg is taken for any particular species of knowledg which is evident. But in the meane time looke, how you can reconcile your owne words, he that knowes believes, and something more, whereof I haue spoken already. Finally; Faith must be an evident knowledg, in your opinion, who hold it to be an evident conclusion, clearly deduced from evident premisses, and so you impugne yourself, not your adversary. Your (N. 3.4.5.) haue bene answered already. Only I obserue that, Hooker cited in your margent, for any thing that can be gathered by his words, vnderstands no more, than that Faith is not so absolutely certain as knowledg, speaking of certainty joynd with evidence wherein all men cannot but agree; whereas the certainty, of Faith, is of a different kind of [Page 888]certainty derived from the Diviue Testimony, and speciall motion of the Holy Ghost, and such as doth not necessitate vs to an assent, because it implies obscurity; which makes nothing for your purpose, who teach that Faith hath no absolute certainty, either evident, or obscure.

5. In answer to your (N. 6.) you know, C. Ma: never resolves Faith into Tradition, in your sense, as it signifies meere humane testimony, but teaches, that the infallible Proposer of Divine Uerityes, is the Church of every age; and other arguments of credibility are, of themselves, only preparations, and dispositions, to an act of Faith; but the Church we belieue to be infallible, by the same meanes, whereby the Apostles proved themselves to be infallible, as I shewed (Chap 5.) Thus the first contradiction, which you impute to C. Ma. is of no force; as also the second, which goes vpon a very fals, and injurious assertion that Charit: Ma: professes to haue no assurance, but that Protestants dying Protestants may possibly die with Contrition, and be saved, whereof I treated (Chap: 8.)

6. Your (N. 7.) gives vs a strang kind of Philosophy, while you say, That obscure and evident are affections not of our assent, but of the object of it, not of our belief, but of the thing believed; whereas the direct contrary is true. For, objects, or things in thēselves, are neither evidēt, nor obscure, but by acts of ours, and from thē, receyue an extrinsecall denomination, of evident, obscure, certaine, or probable: Otherwise the same object should be, in itself, at the same tyme, obscure, evident, certaine, probable, doubtfull, confused, distinct, perfect, imperfect, as at the same tyme, it may chance to terminate, different kinds of acts: and even God, who is infinite Light, should be obscure, yea imperfect, because in this life we can know him only ex parte, and imperfectly. Yourself in this very next (N. 8.) say; We cannot be infallibly certain of the Truth of the things which we belieue, vnless our evidence of it were of the highest degree; where you declare, that evidence, is ours, and not inherent in the objects, as green or blew are, and therefore our sight is not green or blew (as you (N. 7.) infer it must be, if our assent itself could be called obscure) and yet it is more abfurd, to say, our sight is greene, ther that the object v.g. God himself, is obscure, probable, vncertaine, confused, imperfect, because he may be knowne by such different acts. And this your example is retorted against yourself. For as the same object, without any alteration in itself, may beseene clearly, and dimly by different acts of [Page 889]our Eye, which makes it cleare that the more or less cleareness is in the act of seeing, not in the thing seene; so we must say of our vnderstanding, which is the Eye of our soule, that evidence, probability &c. are in the Acts of that Eye, and not in the objects which are vnderstood. Whereby it appeares, that you had no reason to please yourself so much in this ignorance of yours as to vpbraied Ch. Ma. and saye: In other places I answer your words, but heere I must answer your meaning. The word vnknowne, as I noted aboue, which you cite out of Ch. Ma. should haue bene put to the Errata, and corrected vnknowing, as it appeares by the word with which he joynes it, and by which he declares it, saying (or inevident) and by the words which follow, that Faith absolutely should be obscure in itself. The rest of this Number hath bene answered at larg heretofore, neither is there any particular difficulty in your (N. 8.)

7. In your (N. 9.10.) you say to Ch. Ma. For your making Prudence not only a commendation of a believer, but also essentiall to it, and part of the definition of it, in that Questionlesse you were mistaken. Answer; C. Ma. sayes not that Prudence is essentiall to Faith, and parte of the definition of it nor in the definition which he gives (N. 8.) prudence is so much as mentioned. Yet for the thing itselfe, seing I haue proved in the Introduction, that Faith is supernaturall in essence, and cannot be produced, but by the speciall grace of the holy Ghost (whatsoever you may thinke to the contrary) and that the Holy Ghost cannot moue to an action, all things considered, imprudent; it followes, that an act of Faith, cannot be imprudent, as it is impossible it should be supernaturall in essence, and not involue an order, or reference, to a supernaturall cause. Now your selfe here (N. 9.) confesse, that without credible reasons, and inducements, our choice even of the true Faith, is not to be commēded as prudent, but to be condemned of rashness and levity. I say, an act of Faith must alwayes be prudent, not that every one, must be able to giue to others an account of his faith, as you interpret the matter, but that the capacity of the believer, and all other circumstances, considered, the beliefe of such a man, is indeed prudent. I wonder what could moue you (N. 10.) to say to Charity Maintayned; It is against Truth and Charity to say as you doe that they: with cannot doe soe (that is cannot giue a Reason and account of their Faith) either are not at all, or to no purpos true believers: whereas Charity Maintayned hath no such matter.

[Page 890]

8. In your (N. 11.12.) you say It is not Heresy to oppose au Truth proposed by the Church, but only such a Truth, as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ.

9. Answer: you haue no constancie in your doctrine. Here you say, Heresy cannot be without errour against some essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ. And; every errour against any Doctrine revealed by God, is not a damnable Heresy, vnless it be revealed publickly, plainely with a command that all should belieue it. By essentiall, I suppose you meane Necessary, and Fundamentall, as contrarily (Pag. 140. N. 26.) you say not Fundamentall, [...]. e. no essentiall point of Christianity. But contrary to this your doctrine, in other places you teach, that whatsoever is opposit to Scripture, is an Heresy; as (Pag: 101. N. 127.) you say; If Scripture be sufficient to informe vs what is the Faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach vs what is Heresy; seing Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from and opposition to the Faith. But you will not deny, that every text of Scripture is sufficient to make a thing a matter of faith; therfore you cānot deny, but that errour against any such text, being a deviation from, and an opposition to Faith, must necessarily be heresy: which is more cleare in your groundes, who teach, that it is impossible, to know what points in Scripture be fundamentall, and consequently what is Heresy, if you take it for a deviation, only from fundamētall points. And this you declare clearly in the same Number, (Pag: 102.) Saying: If any man should obstinatly contradic̄t the truth of any thing plainely delivered in Scripture, who doth not see, that every one who believes the Scripture, hath a sufficient meanes to discover, and condemne, and avoyd that Heresy, without any need of an infallible guide? You teach also, that, as things are ordered, there is equall necessity of believing all things contained in Scripture, whether they be Fundamentall, or not Fundamentall: and nothing is more frequent in your Booke, than that it is a damnable sinne, to disbelieue any one truth, sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God, and what sinne can it be but the sinne of Heresy, which is opposit to the Theologicall vertue of Faith? Potter also, speakes clearly to this purpose, saying (Pag: 98.) He is justly esteemed an Heretick, who yealds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded, and yet it is cleare, that in Scripture there are millions of truths, not Fundamentall. And (Pag: 128.) An obstinate standing out against evident Scripture cleared vnto him makes an Heretick: And (Pag: 247.) If a man by reading the Scriptures be convinced of the truth, this is a sufficient proposition to proue him th [...]t gainesayeth any such truth, to be an Heretick, and obstinate opposer of the Faith: And (Pag: 212.) It is true, whatsoever is revealed in Scripture [Page 891]or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense Fundamentall, in regard of the Diuine Authority of God and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such, as may not be denyed or contradicted without in fidelity: Such as every Christian is bound with humility, and reverence to belieue whensoever the knowledge therof is offered to him. And further (Pag: 250.) Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded; there he that opposeth is convinced of errour, and he who is thus convinced, is an Heretique, and Heresy is a worke of the flesh, which excludeth from heaven (Gal: 5.20.21.) And hence it followeth, that it is Fundament all to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he belieue all revealed truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they are of God. And (Pag: 57.) Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholick verity maintayned by this Church, the fellowship of the Saints (or the Catholick visible Church) as doe Heretiks; [...] perversly divides himselfe fromthe Catholik communion, as doe Schismatiks: the condition of both these is damnable. And Field (L. 2. C. 3,) speakes plainely: Freedom from Fundamentall errour, may be found among Heretiks; Therefore errour, against points not fundamēntall is Heresy, seing they be may Heretiks, ād yet be free frō fundamētall error. Fulk (in his Rejoinder to Bristow P. 82.) The parliament determined Heresy by contrariety to the Canonicall Scripture. Can you expect a greater authority then that of the Parliament? But no wonder, if Heresies be familiar and ripe among you, if they consist only in fundamentall errours, and that, you are not able to determine, what errours be fundamentall, and thē who will be carefull to avoyd they know not what: For the rest of this number, I need only say, that it is vnreasonable in you to desire a proofe, of that which here you expresly grant to be true, and is cleare of itselfe; that either the Protestant, or Roman Church, must erre against the word, and testimony of God, seing they hold contradictories, in matters belonging to faith; and it is a fond thing in you to say, that Ch: Ma: hath for his reason, their contradiction only, seing we alwayes speake of contradiction in matter of Faith. Your (N. 13.) containes no difficulty, supposing we haue already proved, the infallibility of the Church, as we haue done in divers places.

10. To your (N. 14.) I answer; that if Luther were an Heretick, who can deny, but that they who followed, and persist in the same Doctrine, must also be such; seing it is a foolery, to thinke, that all of them can be excused by ignorance? Besides we speake, per se loquendo that the Doctrine of it selfe being Hereticall, the defenders of it must also be Heretiks, abst [...]acting from ignorance, &c. And so your [Page 892]distinction, out of S. Austin, of Haeretici, and Heraeticorum sequace is not pertinent; neither did Charity Maintayned ever affirme, that alls Arians, who followed their teachers, were excused from formall Heresy by Salvianus, and I am sure, Ch: Ma: himselfe is far from any such opinion; yea even Dr. Potter, who (Pag: 119.) alleadgeth the words of Salvianus, sayth he speakes of some Arian Hereticks; from whence it doth not follow, that he spoke of all those, who followed their teachers; and those of whome he spoke, he doth not absolutly excuse, but sayes, How they shall be punished in the last day of judgment, for this errour of their false opinion, none but the judge himselfe can know: Qualiter pro hoc ipso falsae opinionis errore in die Judicij puniendi sunt, nullus potest scire nisi Judex, as Potter cites him in the margent: Which wordes if one take in rigour, suppose, they are to be punished, and that they haue sinned, but that none can tell how, or how far, or how much, their ignorance might lessen their punishment. Your saying to Ch: Ma: You yourselfe though you pronounce the leaders among the Artans formall Hereticks (which words you put in a different letter as if they were his words, though I finde them not in him) yet confesse that Salvian was at least doubtfull (that at least is your owne word) whether these Arians who in simplicity followed their teachers, might not be excused by ignorance. And about this suspension of his you also seeme suspended, for you neither approue nor condemne it. Thus you, not without some tincture of your Gall. For Ch: Ma: being only to declare Salvians minde, had neither reason, nor occasion, to declare, in this place, his owne opinion, how far ignorance, may excuse some particular persons, which he did (Part: 1. Cap: 1. N. 3. and 5. and Part 2. Pag: 102.) in the Conclusion of his Booke, where you will finde, but very cold comfort, for such as hope to be saved by ignorance.

11. That which followes, is more against Potter, then against Ch: Ma:, who grounds his argument, vpon the expresse words of the Doctor, That to confine the Church to one part, and place, as the Donatists did to Africa, was an errour, In the matter and nature of it properly Hereticall, against that Article of the Creed, wherein we professe to belieue the Holy Catholick Church. To which Major proposition he adds this Minor. But Luthers Reformation, or Church (if one man may be cald a Church) was not vniversall, but confined, to that place, which contained Luthers body; (a lesse compas then Africa.) Therefore his Reformation, or doctrine can not be excused from formall Heresy. This Deduction to me seemes no lesse then demonstratiue, supposing the express grant of Dr. Potter for [Page 893]the Major proposition, and yet you are pleased to call it a rope of Sand, and an vnsyllogisticall syllogisme, and say it is even cosen German to this; To deny the Resurrection is properly an heresy; but the preaching of the Ghospell at the beginning was not vniversall; Therfore it [...]nnot be excused from formall heresy. For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not deny the Resurrection, so may he also not deny the Churches vniversality; and as the Apostles who preached the Ghospell in the beginning did belieue the Church vniversall, though their preaching at the beginning was not so; so Luther also might, and did belieue the Church vniversall, though his Reformation were but particular. But good Syr, how then do you defend your client, the Doctour from this your argument? To say, the visible Church is confined to one place, is properly an heresy, as Potter affirmes it to be; But the preaching of the Ghospell at the beginning was but in one place, therfore it was formall Heresy. As also from your other: To deny the Resurrection is properly an Heresy &c. Be pleased then, to doe your Doctor the favour, to reflect, That considering the Predictions of the Prophets, of the Amplitude, Propagation, and Promise of our Saviour, for the stability of his Church, to say, that after sixteene hundred yeares, it was reduced, not only to that compass, which contained Luthers body, but that it was corrupted, with many, and damnable errours, that is, in true Divinity, to a No-Church; yea, and that many chiefe Protestants expresly affirme, that it wholy perished, is a vast Heresy; vnles you would rather call it, by the name of infidelity; the consideration wherof, did bring some chiefe learned Protestants to renounce Christian Religion. And so your argument, drawen from the first preaching of the Apostles, is of no force, and cosen German to this: To deny, that divers Churches, and Nations did receaue the Faith of Christ (as S. Paul testifieth of the Church of Rome in particular) is properly an Heresy, against the expresse wordes of Scripture; but at the very first preaching of the Apostles, Rome, and many other places, did not receaue the Faith of Christ, but only some of those who heard their first Sermons, Therefore their first preaching was Heresy. And for you to say, that the Church is only vniversall de jure, because it ought to be so, is no lesse ridiculous, then impious, against the promise of our Saviour, which was that she was de facto to be vniversall, and not, that she ought to be vniversall, and perpetuall, as every man ought to be vertuous, and as the Donatists did not deny she ought to be vniversall, as Ch. Ma. shewes (N. 17. Pag. 242.) of which Number you take notice, for some other matter, but dissemble this point, which yourselfe [Page 894]also affirme (Pag: 300. N. 99.) in these words: The Truth is the Donatists had set vp at Rome a Bishop of their faction: not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church, but of that Church in particular. And although in this you be much deceaved, because the intention of the Donatists, was not that which you faine, for your owne purpose, but vnder pretence to take care of their Brethren in that Citty, though indeed that the world might account them Catholiks, by communicating with the Bishop of Rome, with whom to communicate, was taken by the Ancient Fathers, for an assured signe of being a true Catholik. They had also, as S. Austin (de vnitate Ecclesiae C. 3.) witnesseth, a pretended Church, in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady, called Lucilla. And the same Saint speaking of the conference, he had with Fortunius the Donatist, sayth (Epist. 163.) Here did he first attempt to affirme, that his communion was spread over the whole earth &c. But because the thing was evidently false, they got out of this discourse by confusion of Language: Whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared, that they did not hold, that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined, to one place, but only by meere necessity, were forced to yield, that it was so in fact, because their Sect, which they held to be the only true Church, was not spead over the whole world. In which point Fortunius, and the rest, were more modest than he who should affirme, that Luthers reformation, in the very beginning, was spread over the whole earth, being at that time, by many degrees, not so far diffused, as the Sect of the Donatists. This is the discourse of Ch. Ma. in the sayd (N. 17.) whereof you thought safest, to take no notice, as indeed destructiue of your argument. As for your objection, that the greater part of the world▪ is not Christian, &c. every Christian, and in particular, Dr. Potter must answer it; seing all Christians read in the Holy Scripture, in omnem terram exivit Sonus eorum, which is to be performed, not in an instant, but in due time, as the Prophets and Apostles did avouch it should, and, which is most for our present purpose, none must deny, but that it is impossible for her to faile from all places, which is more then even the Donatists taught, who pretended, that she remained at least in Africa. Now, as for your Syllogismes, make them like to that of Ch. Ma., and they will not be like a rope of sand, or vnsyllogisticall, but will appeare in this manner: To deny the Resurrection is to teach an Heresy, but some haue denied the Resurrection; Therefore some haue taught an heresy, as Ch. Ma. sayd; To deny the Church to be de facto vniversall, for all times, is to teach [Page 895]Ann: heresy, as even Dr. Potter affirmes but Luther at his first being when he sayd of himselfe, Primò solus eram, denyed the Church to be vniversall; Therfor he taught an heresy. But enough of this, wherof I haue more heretofore. Your bold speech against S. Austine, that he was most palpably mistaken, I omit, as being but agreable to your Socinian Spirit.

12. Your (N. 15.) requires no other answer, except a desire, that the Reader will peruse the (N. 17.) of Ch. Ma., which you pretend to answer, but leaue out points deserving particular consideration, for the matter of which we spoke in the last Number. You say to Ch. Ma. that he prosecutes the similitude of Protestants with the Donatists: with as much spight and malice as could be devised; But, by your leaue, who is ignorant, that the Donatists, hated the name of a monasticall life; constrained Religious Nunnes to forsake theyr Profession; cast the Eucharist to Beasts; demolished Altars; persecuted Catholiques, in all kinds, and detracted from their good name, accusing them for Traditors, (you know who haue murthered innocent, holy, learned Catholiques, vnder a most false pretence of Treason) as also that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiasticall, to secular Judges, in spirituall causes? And do not Protestants follow them in these things? Which yet Ch: Ma: did not mention. Your Number 16. about the accusation of Donatists, that Catholiks set vp pictures vpon the Altar, hath been answered at large, heretofore.

13. Your (N. 17.) objects to Ch: Ma: a contradiction, as if he sayd, the Donatists held the Church to haue perished, and yet that the Protestants are worse then Donatists, who sayd that the Church remained at least in Africa. But certainely no Logick will teach, that it is a contradiction, to say according to Donatists the Church through the whole world perished, except in those who were in their communion, or in Africa, and yet remained in Africa, yea the first part infers the second, that their Church remained in Africa. And you must object the like contradiction to S. Austin (cited, and approved by Potter (Pag: 125.) and so the Doctot must be involved in the same contradiction) saying (de vn it. Eccles: cap: 13.) Periisse dicunt de coetero mundo Ecclesiam, & in parte Donati in sola Africa mansisse. And you know very well, that Ch: Ma: in that place, speakes not of the perishing, or extinction of the Church, absolutely but expresly, as it was asserted by the Donatists.

14. All that you haue (N. 18.) hath been answered, in severall places, and it seemes you are too well furnished with leasure, when (N. 19.) to [Page 896]the demand of Ch: Ma: (Pag: 251. How can the Church more truly be sayd to perish, then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy?) You answer, she may more truly be sayd to perish, when she is not only permitted to doe soe, but de facto doth maintaine a damnable Heresy; as if when we say, God permitted one to fall, into such a sinne, it did not signify, that de facto he fell into it. But here you discover, a secret poison, that Faith is not the guift of God, nor requires his particular assistance to persever therin, which if it were substracted, ād so we be permitted to fall, we shall be too sure to fall de facto; otherwise it followes, that by our owne naturall forces, we may belieue, and persever in Faith. In the rest of your instances, that the Church may be more truly sayd to perish, if she fall into Heresy Fundamentall of it selfe, you doe but trifle, seing that either one truth, cannot be more true then an other, as divers teach; or else you know, that for our purpose, it is more then sufficient, that it be certainly, and absolutly, and vnavoydably true, that the Church must perish, if she fall into any damnable errour. But the truth is, you vse this art, to divert the Reader, from the Demand of Ch: Ma: that he might not obserue, your not giving Answer thereto: and therfor, I must returne to make the same demand; Whether the Church, were not truly sayd to perish, if she did fall into any damnable Heresy? Or whether Heresy may consist with salvation? Or whether it be not Heresy, to reject any truth sufficiently propounded as delivered by the word of God? Where I must put you in minde, that you forget your owne Doctrine; that Scripture is not an object of our Faith, but that one may be saved, though he reject it, and yet here you say of the Church; She may more truly be sayd to perish, when she rejects even those truths, out of which her heresies may be reformed, as if she should directly deny the Scripture to be the Word of God. How will you avoyd, but that according to this last saying of yours, yourselfe and your associats, are no members of any Church, seing you teach that the Scripture may be denyed, to be the word of God, as not being a materiall object of Faith? Or how must not your errours be desperate without possibility of being reformed, since you may reject those meanes by which alone, according to Protestants, they can be reformed? Or how could you say truly, That a Church lapsed may be recovered, and reformed by Scripture, if you be not obliged to belieue Scripture itselfe, by an act of Faith, or as an object of Faith?

15. In your (N. 20.) you doe but repeate, what you say else where; That if the visible Church be an infallible guide, it is strange, the [Page 897]Scripture doth nowhere say so, in plaine termes. To which I answer, as heretofore, that we proue the infallibility of the Church, independently of Scripture: That Scripture also speakes clearly enough therof; That I may as well aske of you, why the Apostles, and Evangelists haue not delivered clearly, these or the like Propositions? Scripture alone containes all things belonging to Faith; That it is evident in all necessary points &c. or, Be sure to belieue a certaine man, who will come to oppose the errors of the Roman Church, called Luther &c. Nay, though the Scripture had sayd, belieue the Roman Church in all things, which she proposes, you would not haue wanted evasions, by saying, we should belieue her, as far as she agreed with Scripture, or in Fundamentall points only, as now Protestants say of the vniversall Church.

16. Ch: Ma: (Pag: 251. N. 18.) sayth: The Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assigne separation from the visible Church as a marke of Heresy, which he proves by some textes of Scripture; as (1. Joan: 2.19.) They went out from vs; And (Actor: 15.24.) Some went out from vs; and (Actor: 20.30.) Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things. This, say you, is certainly a strange and vnheard of straine of Logick, vnless we will say that euery text whe in it is sayd that some body, goes out from some body affoards an argument for this purpos: and yet you confesse that Hereticks doe alwayes separate from the visible Church; but that they who doe soe are not alwayes Heretiks. Now if all Heretiks separate from the visible Church, ād yet doe not separate from every some body (for they doe not separate from themselves, and their owne Associates) it is a signe, that their is great difference, betwixt some some body, and orhers some body, betweene separating from the Church, or the Congregation of the Faithfull, and frō every other some body. But if I proue these propositions; every Heretik separates from the Church, and, every one that separates from the Church is an Heretik, to be convertible, you will yeald such a separation to be a Mark of Heresy. This is easily done, by taking your owne grant, That Heretiks do always separate from the Church. For Heresy being an error against some revealed truth, if the Church also may erre against any such truth, there is no necessity, that an Heretik should separate from the Church, but may very well agree with her in such error, and so the first part of your assertion (that Heretiques do alwayes separate from the Church) would be false: or if the Church cannot erre; every one who separates from her, in matters of Faith, must be guilty of an errour against Faith, and so be an Heretik: if therfore the first part of your assertion [Page 898]be true, you must grant, that the second is false; and that, as every Heretik separates from the Church, so conversivè every one, who separates from the Church, in matters of beliefe, is an Heretik; and then it is no wonder, if Scripture, and Fathers, assigne a separation, or going out of the Church, as a mark of Heresy. Which may be further declared in this manner. If all Heretiks separate from the Church, the reason must be, because there is in the Church, something incompatible with their Heresy, which can be nothing, but the true Doctrine and Beliefe, which she holds, and is opposite to the error, which makes thē Heretiks, and which whosoever hold, are Heretiks, and consequently, whosoever leaves the Church, by occasion of such errors, are Heretiks, and if they had not held such errors, they had remained in the Church; Therefore, for the same reason, for which all Heretiks forsake the Church, we must necessarily inferr, that whosoever forsake the Churches doctrine are Heretiks; that is, for the errors, which they hold against the truth, which the Church is supposed to belieue; and if she be supposed to belieue an error, an heretique may belieue the same and so goe out of her, no more, than she goes out of herself. For this cause, our Saviour saied (Matth. 24.26.) If therefore they shall say vnto you behold he is in the desert, goe you not forth: Of which words Henoch Clapham (in his souveraigne remedy against Schisme Pag: 23.) sayth, that therby our Saviour forbids going out vnto such desert and corner Ghospells; which declares that going out of the Church is Heresy, or Schisme, and not only, that all Heretiks, or Schismaticks goe out. And now I hope you being convinced by Reason, will be better disposed to receiue authority, and the true exposition of the text alleadged aboue by Ch: Ma: of which you say; For the first place, there is no certainty that it speakes of Heretiks, but no Christians, and Antichrists, of such as denyed Iesus to be the Christ. Answer: That S. John speakes of Heretiks, will appeare by reading Cornelius a Lapide vpon this psace, who cites holy Fathers to the same purpos. See also the annotation of the Rhemes Testament, vpon this Chapter of S. John. (Uers: 18.) shewing out of S. Cypriā, that all who separate themselves from the Church, are called without exception Antichrists. Pantaleon (in Epist: nuncupator. Chrongraph:) saith, Tertium locum assignabimus Haereticis, qui exierunt de electo Dei populo, at non erant ex illo. And in Osiander (Epitom: Histor: Ecclesias: cent: 1. lib: 3. cap: 1.) saith Nota, Haereticiex Ecclesia progrediuntur.

17. The second place, say you, It is certaine you must not say it speakes of Heretiks; for it speakes only of some who believed and taught an error, [Page 899]when it was yet a question, and not evident, and therfor according to your Doctrine, no formall Heresy. Answer; I see no such certainty, as you pretend, that the text, (Act: 15.24.) Some went out from vs, must not speake of Heretiks, that is of persons, who held an errour against a revealed truth, of which some might haue been sufficiently informed, before the Councell, and Definition, or Declaration of the Apostles; and that some did proceed, in a turbulent, and as a man may say, Hereticall manner, appeares by reading the same Chapter in the Acts. And for our present purpose, it is sufficient, that separation from the Church, is a signe, at least of a materiall Heresie, or Heretique; since the being a formall Heretique, depends vpon individuall, personall, and accidentall circumstances, of which to judg in particular, is the part of prudence, not of Faith; though if once the partie know, that his opinyon, is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, and will yet persist therin, and rather leaue the Church, than forsake it, he cannot be excused from pride, singularity, and Heresie.

18. You say; The third sayes indeed, that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy: But not one of them all that sayes, or intimates, that whosoever separates from the visible Church, in what state soever is certainly an Heretique. Answer; we haue shewed, that as you say, all that are Heretiques goe out of the Church, so you must grant that whosoever separates (for matter of Doctrine) from the visible Church, is an Heretique. And holy Scripture mentioning so particularly and frequently, going out, or separation, doth clearly put a particular emphasis, and force therin, as a mark of fals believers, and seducers. And this to be the sense, of the Holy Fathers, Ch: Ma. hath proved; and now we will make good his Proofes, by confuting your evasions to the contrary. And I must intreate the Reader, to consider the words of the Fathers, as they are cited in Charity Maintayned, with the Inferences which he deduces from them, and not as they are interpreted by you.

19. In your (N. 21.) you endeavour to answer some Fathers, alledged by Ch. Ma. (N. 18.) to proue, that separation from the visible Church, is a mark of Heresie, namely, Uincentius Lirinensis, saying (Lib. Advers. Her. Chap. 34.) who ever began heresies, who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity, and Consent of the Catholique Church? And S. Prosper (Dimid. Temp. Chap. 5.) A Christian communicating with the Catholique Church, is a Catholique, and he who is divided fro [...] her, is an Heretique, and Antichrist. S. Cyprian (Lib. de Vnit. [Page 900]Eccles.) Not we departed from them, but they from vs; and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards, while they make themselves divers conventicles, they haue forsaken the head and Origen of truth.

20. To these Authorityes, you answer; That the first and last are meerely impertinent, neither of them affirming, or intimating, that separation from the present visible Church is a mark of Heresy: and the former speaking plainly of separation from vniversality, Consent, and Antiquity. And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true, according to your owne grounds; For you say a man may be divided from the Church vpon m [...]ere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy: And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy. Lastly a man may be divided by an vnjust excommunication, and be both before and after a very good Catholique; and therefore you cannot maintain it vniversally true, That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique, and Antichrist.

21. Answer; I haue often put you in minde, and the thing is evident of it self, and still to be repeated, that Luther separated not only from the Roman Church, but from all true Churches of the whole world, who all agreed with the Roman, as also from all true Churches of many precedent Ages, which if you once suppose to haue erred, against the Word of God, the Rule of those Fathers, That separation from the Church is a mark of Heresy, had bene plainly impertinent, and of no vse at all. For still the Question would haue remayned, whether the Church of all Ages had erred, as well as the present Church; since we cannot know what the Ancient Church taught, except vpon the credit, and Tradition of middle ages till our tyme, which passage if it be stopt, and bridge broken, we must liue in ignorance; and not be able irregularly, and per saltum, to reach immediatly, from the last to the first. Besides, you hold, all Churches of all Ages to be fallible, and not to deliver vniversally any other point, except that Scripture is the Word of God; and therefore it is a meere evasion in you to make a difference, for matters of doctrine, betweene the whole present visible Church, and the Churches of all Ages; and if separation from these be a mark of Heresy, separation from that must also be such: Yea S. Cyprian speakes expressly of the, then present, Church: Not we departed from them, but they from vs; and since Heresies and Schismes are bred aftherwards, while they make themselves divers Conventicles, they haue forsaken the head and origen of Truth. As for S. Prosper; you do not defend, but impugne him. But I wonder you will offer your Reader, such toyes, as you produce [Page 901]for good Arguments, against the words of that Saint, which are both evidently true, and coherent with themselves. For, as whosoever communicates with the vniversall Church in Faith, and externall communion, is a Catholique, (which was the first part of S. Prospers sentence) so it is vniversally true, that, whosoever is divided from the Church in Faith, and externall communion, is an Heretique, as S. Prosper affirmes in the latter parte of his speach, and which you know is the thing which Charity Maintayned intends to proue; and which makes your talking of meere Schisme without any mixture of Heresy, to be wholy impertinent; seing we treate of division both in Faith, and externall communion: though it be also true, that Schisme is wont to end in Heresy, as Cha. Ma. (Part. 1. Chap. 5. N 3.) declares out of S. Hierom, and others. No less impertinent, is your objection, taken from persons divided from the Church, by the Censure of Excommunication, which is a kind of Division, in many respects, far different from separation by Schisme, or Heresy, (as hath bene declared heretofore at large) and which is not incurred at all, in the sight of God, if the Excommunication be vnjust. Agreable to this doctrine of these Fathers, is that excellent document of S. Optatus (Lib. 1. contra Parm.) how to judg who be Schismatiques, and Heretiques: Uidendum est, quis in radice cum toto orbe manserit: quis foras exierit: quis cathedram sederit alteram quaeante non fuerit: quis altare contra altare erexerit: quis ordinationem fecerit, salvoaltero ordinato (were there not Protestant Bishops set vp in the place of Catholique Bishops. yet living, in England?) quis jaceat sub sententia Joannis Apostoli, qui dixit multos Antichristos foras exituros: quia non erant, (inquit) nostri: nam si nostri essent, mansissent nobiscum. If you examine the proceeding of your first Protestants by the Rule of this holy, and ancient Father, you cannot but condemne them of Schisme, and Heresy.

22. Your (N, 22.) being but a passage to the next Section; I neede only saie, that there is great difference, between Catholiques, and Protestants in order to the admitting, or rejecting, some doctrine of some particular Fathers, seing we, for interpreting Scripture, and all Points of Faith, acknowledg an infallible guide, to whom even the Fathers themselves humbly submit; but when you forsake the Fathers, be they never so many, the comparison runnes not betwene them, and Gods Church, but betwene them, and every single Protestant; and who will not sooner belieue the Holy Fathers, for the interpretation of [Page 902]Scripture, than such men, as can neither agree amongst themselves, nor with the whole Church of God? And if you will but heare, what your owne knowledg, and conscience, tells you, you will confess, that you acknowledged, the ancient Fathers to stand for vs.

23. Your (N. 23.) is employed in answering some Authorityes, alledged by Ch. Ma., out of S. Hierom, wherein you shew the litle reckon you make of the holy Fathers; since you do covertly, or rather, expressly, tax this blessed Saint of writing over-truths, and you know what it is to write beyond truth, which in true Philosophy consist in indivisibili, and what is beyond it, must be against it. The words of S. Hierom (Ep 57. ad Damas.) are these: I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter; I know the Church is built vpon that Rock. Whosoever shall eate the Lambe out of this house he is profane. If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe, he shall perish in the time of the deluge. Whosoever doth not gather with thee, doth scatter, that is, he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist. And (Lib. 1. Apolog.) which doth he call his Faith? That of the Roman Church? Or that which is contained in the Books of Origen? If he answer, the Roman; then we are Catholiques who haue translated nothing of the error of Origen. And yet further (Ibid. Lib. 3.) know thou that the Roman Faith commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not receyue these delusions, though an Angell should denounce otherwise, than it hath once bene preached.

24. To these words of S. Hierom you answer. First, that he writing to Damasus a Pope, might be apt to write over-truths. An answer not deserving a confutation! Secondly, you say, S. Hierom chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall, vpon the Authority of the Easterne Church, then to reject it from the Canon vpon the Authority of the Roman. But this hath bene answered heretofore; neither was there ever any decree of the Roman Church, Pope, or Councell, excluding, that Epistle from the Canon, or rejecting any Book, of the old, or New Testament, which was afterward admitted. Thirdly, you ask; How was it possible that S. Hierom should ever belieue that Liberius Bispop of Rome either was or could haue bene wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileiae, and brought after two yeares banishment to subscribe Heresy? Sr. It is a signe you want solid Objections, when you fly to so farre fetched evasions; and your proceeding is inexcusable, in dissembling the Answer which Ch. Ma. (Part. 2. Chap. 3, N. 30.) gives out of Baronius, [Page 903]Ann. 357. and Bellarmine (De Roman. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 9.) who affirme, that Liberius never subscribed to Arianisme, or any error against Faith, but only to a Point which concerned matter of fact; and even greater Protestants than you, doubt of that which you will needs haue to be vndoubted. But indeed this old Objection is directly nothing to the purpose, of proving that Liberius did ever define ex cathedra, any errour against Faith, but only that de facto, by force of feare, theates, banishment, and other sufferings, he did subscribe against S. Athanasius, as S. Peter denied our Saviour, without forfeit of his Faith (though he failed in the profession thereof) our Saviour having saied, Oravi pro te Petre, vtnon deficiat Fides tua: or, as the same Apostle was reprehended by S. Paul, even after, the comming of the holy Ghost, and yet I hope you will not denie, but that one might haue saied, I am in the cōmunio of the Chair of Peter, I know that the Church is built vpō tkat Rock; whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth; and the same I say▪ S. Hierom might haue saied of, and to Liberius, defining, as Pope, not as failing in fact, as a man; and we see, that both before, and after, that forced act, he was constāt, not only in the true faith, which he never lost, but also in the profession thereof, and what he did by force, and feare, must no more be imputed to him, as Pope, than a confession extorted by torture, can be of force, without a voluntary ratification. Our Saviour saied, men were to obey the words of the Scribes, ād Pharisees, not their deeds. Is it not a doctrine of your owne, (Pag. 144: N. 31.) that the doctrine of the Apostles was either fals or vncertain, in no part of that which they delivered [...]onstantly? And certaine it is, that Liberius did not make good his subscription (if ever he subscribed to an errour) but revoked it, assoone as he was at liberty, and (as I may say) taken of the Torture; as alwaies before, he had defended the Catholique truth. If Marcellinus sacrificed to Idolls; who will therefore say, that he believed, or defined Idolary to be Lawfull? And vniversally, if you will judg mens Faith by their Actions, whosoever committs theft, murther, or any other sinne against the commandements, must be condemned for an Heretique, as believing theft to be Lawfull. Finally, if you will haue the strength of of S. Hieroms Argumēt, to cosist in this, that Damasus was in the right, only actually, and accidentally, the Saint had begged the Question, and proved his owne Doctrine to be true, because Damasus held with him, and that which Damasus held, de facto was true, though Damasus might erre, as other Bishops might; whereas it is cleare, that S. [Page 904]Hierom (as his words express) grounds himself, vpon that firme and stable Rock, of which our Saviour saied, Thou art a Rock, and vpon this Rock. &c. And this last overthrowes the evasion to which you [...]llie (N. 24.) for interpreting the words of S. Ambros.

25. For your (N. 25.26.27.) I wonder how you could dissemble what Ch. Ma. hath (Part. 2. Chap. 2. N. 31.) whereof see also Bellarm in (De Rom. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 7.) where this matter is handled at large. And who will not make a difference betwene S. Cyprian, being disinterressed, and delivering a generall Doctrine, and prescriptions against all Heretiques, and S. Cyprian, speaking in a particular point, wherein he was ingaged, and which Protestants confess to haue bene an errour, condemned by the whole Church, against the Donatists (namely the rebaptization of such, as had bene baptized by Heretiques) and by those very Bishops, who once adhered to S. Cyprian, as Charity. Maint. in the place cited even now, shewes out of S. Hierom. And you do but deceiue your Reader, in not making a difference, betwene a Decree of Pope Stephen, and a Definition of Faith, which difference you might haue learned in that very place, which you cite out of Bellarmine, and we haue now alledged. In fine, all must answer the difficulty about S. Cyprian, seing he was in an errour against Faith, and therefore could be excused only by ignorance, or pardoned by repentance. In vaine (N. 26.) you tax the translation of Ch. Ma. as if he should not haue saied out of S. Cyprian Epist. 55. ad Cornel. (They are hold to saile to the Chaire of Peter, and to the principall Church, from whence Priestly Vnity hath spruing. Neither do they consider, that they are Romans, whose Faith was commended, by the preaching of the Apostle, to whom falshood cannot haue accesse) but should haue sayd, to whom perfidiousness cannot haue accesse. But this you say without proofe, against the scope and connection of S. Cyprians words, which speak of Faith commended by S. Paul (not of Fidelity) and consequently of falshood or perfidiousness, or errour contrarie to Faith; not of perfidiousness, contrarie to the Morall vertue of fidelity. For what congruity is there in this speach? The Faith of the Romans is commended by the Apostle, therefore perfidiousness, or perfidious dealing cannot haue access to them, as if all who belieue aright, must also besincere, and vpright honest men! Wheras the consequence is very good and cleare, that if their Faith, be true, errour against Faith, or falshood, cannot be approved by them. You would proue that in vaine S. Cyprian had exhorted Cornelius to take [Page 905]heed of those Heretiques, if he had conceived the Bishop of Rome, to be infallible for matters of Faith; as if the certainty of attayning an end did exclude Meanes of Exhortations, Praier, and the like: or as if God could not effectually moue vs, to what he best pleases, vnless he also make vs belieue, that we may tempt him, by omitting all diligence of our owne, towards the attaining of that, to which he moves vs, or interposes a Promise, that he will grant it vs. You say, if we belieue the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon, the Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome of being the principall Church, was grounded vpon this reason, because the City was the principall and imperiall Citie. But I conceiue yourself cannot belieue, that the Greek Church, would or could yeald such a spirituall Prerogatiue to the Latine Church, vpō so slight a ground; though that might be a kind of congruence, supposing an other higher and stronger Reason, to wit, that S. Peter had lived and died Bishop of that Citie, which was, as I may saie, the Primate of Cities. Yet I am not sorie, to heare you say: We do not altogether deny, but that the Church of Rome might be called the chaire of Peter, in regard he is sayd to haue preached the Gospell there. For, to omit, that you dare not deny, that S. Peter was at Rome (which some Protestants impudently deny) you giue so poore a reason, why the Church of Rome, hath bene particularlie, by the Fathers, called the chaire of Peter, that every one may see, there must be some better ground for it, than that which you alledge, of his preaching in that Citie, as it is grāted, that he not only preached in, but was Bishop of the Citie of Antioch, and he preached in many other places, which yet are not wont to be called the Chaire of Peter. I beseech the Reader to peruse that learned Book called Anti-Mortonus (against the Grād imposture of D. Morton) § 4. about the Councell of Chalcedon; ād he will find what Power was acknowledged to be in the Bishop of Rome aboue all Bishops through the whole world: to say nothing for the present, that no Councell without the confirmatiō of the Pope is of validity.

26. Your (N. 28. 29. 30.) containe long discourses, vpon occasion of a place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Irenaeus, who (Lib. 3. Cont. Hoeres. Chap: 36.) saieth: Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great, most ancient, and most knowne Church, founded by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, which Tradition it hath from the Apostles, comming to vs, by succession of Bishops, confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of themselves, or vaine glory, or by blindness, or ill opinion do gather conventicles otherwise then they ought. For to this Church for a more powerfull principality, it is necessary that all Churches [Page 906]resort, that is, all faithfull people of what place soever, in which (Roman Church) the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes beene conserved from those who are every where.

27. To this authority of S. Irenaeus you giue divers answers, which vpon examination, will be found insufficient, and contrary to yourself. You say: the words set downe by Ch: Ma: shew, that what Authority in the matter S. Irenaeus attributed to the Roman Church in particular, the same for the kind (though p [...]rhaps not in the same degree) he attributed to all other Apostolique Churches; Answer, S. Irenaeus is so farre from affirming an equality betwene the Roman, and other Churches: that he expresly prefers her before the rest, in such manner, as though the rest had then had no Being, yet all Heretiques might haue bene confuted by her sole authority. For, seing he acknowledges it needless, to number the successions of other Churches; in order to the force of his Argument, he might as well haue supposed them not to exist, as not to be necessarily taken notice of; which he never saied of any other Apostolique Church. Beside, since he takes the Roman, for as good as all other Apostolique Churches, and (for the same reason) of all other Churches of that tyme (whose successours he held it needless to reckon) it being impossible that all Churches should faile in Faith, we must conclude, even out of S. Irenaeus his Reason, that the Roman Church cannot faile in points of Belief. And (as for you) I wonder how you would end your (N. 28.) in these words If v. Irenaeus thought the Testimony of the Roman Church in this point only humane and fallible, then surely he could never think, either adhering to it a certain marke of a Catholique, or separation from it a certain marke of a Heretique) For, seing Cyou hold hristian Faith te be no more than probable, and that the Tradition for which you receyue Scripture, is humane and fallible, how can you, (these your assertions supposed) affirme, that a testimony humane and fallible may not be sufficient, to proue one a Catholique or Heretique? Vnless you will say, he is no Heretique who rejects Scripture, and all Christianity, nor that he is a Catholique, who believes them, because you profess that the motives for which you belieue them are fallible.

28. You find fault, with the noble Translatresse of Cardinall Perron, for rendring, Ad hane Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam. To this Church it is necessary that every Church should agree. But if you will but consult Cowpers Dictionary you will find, that you haue no reason against that noble Translatresse. See I say, the word Conveni, and you will finde: Convenit in eum haec Contumelia. Cic. This reproach [Page 907]toucheth him justly. Conveniunt hae vites ad quemvis agrum: Cato. Uarro. These vines proue well in all grounds. Conveniebat in tuam vaginam machaera militis. Plautus. The solidours sword was meete for thy Scabbard. Convenit optime ad pedem cothurnus. Cic. The slippar is as meete for the foote as may be. Will you say; This reproach resorts to him; vines resort to the field, the sword resorts to the scabbard, the slippar resorts to the foote? Neither is that Translation either contrary, or different, from the Translation of Ch: Ma: for as much as concernes the matter, and meaning of S. Irenaeus (To this Church it is necessary, that all Churches resort) For why should all Churches resort to this (Roman) Church, but that they may be instructed by her, and agree with her in matters concerning Faith, not that they may correct, controll, and disagree from her? Otherwise it had bene a strang Argument to convince Heretiques by the Roman Church, if he had not taken that Church, as a modell, and Rule with which they ought to agree. Neither doth resort signify a corporall going to Rome, but a recourse for instruction, either by going thither themselves, or by other meanes, as you must say of those who are round about. But you say, if S. Irenaeus had saied, By shewing the tradition of the Roman Church we confound all Heretiques. For to this Church, all Churches must agree, what had this bene, but to giue for a reason, that which was more questionable then the thing in question: as being neither evident in itself and plainly denied by his adversaries, and not at all proved, nor offered to be proved here or else where by Irenaeus. To speak thus therefore had bene weak and ridiculous. Answer: This your Objection, proves too much, even in your owne principles, and therefore proves nothing. For whether you translate it, agree, or resort, you must suppose, that S. Irenaeus conceyved that the Tradition of the Roman Church, was sufficient to confute all Heretiques, and consequently that this sufficiency was not more questionable, then the thing in question. For if it were so, you mak (to vse your owne words) his spea [...]h weak and ridiculous, and worse than a begging of the Question; and yet yourself do not deny, but that his Argument was probable, and sufficient to confound those particular Heretiques, (surely not by a weak and ridiculous Reason:) Yea S. Irenaeus affirmes it to be sufficient to confute not only those, but all Heretiques (all those saieth he, who any way either by ev [...]ll complacence &c.) and therefore Hee must suppose as a principle, believed by all orthodox Christians, that the Tradition of the Roman Church, was powerfull against all Heresies. And I am glad to see you at length reflect, that if S. [Page 908]Irenaeus did not proue, that all Churches must agree with the Roman, his Argument had bene weak and ridiculous. For by this your consideration, I infer, that the Answer which you and other Protestants are wont to giue to S. Austine, or other Fathers is insufficient, to wit; That they alledg against Heretiques the Authority of the Church, not because they believed her to be infallible, but because she was at that time pure in her Doctrines; which had bene only to begg the Question, or as you say, to giue for a reason, that which was more questionable, then the thing in Question; and I beseech the Reader, to consider well this point, as a thing effectuall to make good my confutation of Chillingworths evasions, in divers occasions, and lately in our debate about S. Optatus. And even heere you begg the Question, though you reade it (resort) for the same reason, that you say S. Irenaeus had begd the Question, if we reade (agree.) In the speach which you faine S. Irenaeus to make (as yourself would haue him speak) you say: To this Church, by reason it is placed in the Imperiall Citty, whether all mens affaires do necessarily draw them, or by reason of the powerfull Principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches, there is, and always hath bene a necessity [...]f a perpetuall recourse of all the faithfull round about: who if there hath bene any alteration in the Church of Rome, could not in all probality but haue observed it. But they to the contrary, haue alwaies observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other; where you make good, that powerfull argument of Catholiques against Protestāts; That it was impossible so many errors, and corruptions, should creepe insensibly into the belief of the Roman Church; seing (as you say) to this Church by reason it is placed in the Imperiall Citty, whither all mens affares doe necessarily draw them, or by reason of the powerfull Principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches, there is &c. Who if there had bene any alteration in this Church of Rome, could not in all probability but haue observed it. But they to the contrary, haue alwaies observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other. Which retortion growes to be more strong, if we consider, that from Christ our Lord and Saviour, to the time of S. Irenaeus there passed about the same number of yeares, which are numbred betwene S. Austine▪ and S. Gregory the Great, and yet Protestants commonly grant, that in S. Austines tyme the Church was free from those (falsely pretended) errours, which they say were found in the tyme of S. Gregory: and therefore you must either grant, That S. Irenaeus did vainely impugne those old Heretiques, and that you against reason approue his Argument against them, or els that our new sectaries [Page 909]cannot possibly avoide the Argument, which we Catholiques vrge, to proue, that it was impossible, so many, so great, and so manifest corruptions, should in so short a tyme, possess the whole Church of God; especially seing, to the contrary, all men, in all, and every one of those Ages, did conceyue, that they could obserue in the Church of Rome the very Tradition which came from the Apostles, and no other. And if notwithstanding this, you say, That betwene the tyme of S. Austine, and the Popedome of S. Gregory, so manie errours might enter, without being espied: you make the argument of S. Irenaeus to be of no force at all, and so you must either agree, with Papists, against your Protestant Brethren; or disagree both from S. Irenaeus, and yourself, with whom you cannot agree, vnless you relinquish those your pretended Brethren: and finally we must conclude, that no convincing argument could be brought against Heretiques, drawen from the Tradition of the Roman Church, if once we grant that she is not infallible in her traditions wherin if she be infallible, adhering to her will be a certaine marke of a Catholique, and separation from her a certaine marke of an Heretique.

29. You tax Ch: Ma: for translating vndi (que); every where, and of what place soever, in stead of round about. For that it was necessary for all the Faith full of what place soever to resort to Rome is not true. That the Apostolique Tradition hath alwaies bene conserved from those who are every where, is not sense. Now in stead of conservata read observata, and translate vndi (que) truly round about, and then the sense will be both plain and good; for then is must be rendred thus. For to this Church, by reason of a more powerfull principality, there is a necessity all the Churches, that is, all the Faithfull round about, should resort, in which the Apostlique Tradition hath bene alwaies observed by those who were round about.

30. Answer; if you take the freedom, to make, or create, what premises, you please, you may be sure, to infer what conclusion you like best. That vndi (que) may signify, every where (as Ch: Ma: translates it▪) from all places, parts, and corners, you will finde in Thomas Thomasius and Cowper: and who made you Emperour of words to command a restraint of theyr signification, as may best suite with your ends? S. Austine (super Psalm. 86.) hath thrice, Vndi (que) in this signification. For having saied; Duodecim sedes quid sibi velint, videamus: he adds; Sacramentum est cujusdam vniversitatis, quia per totum orbem terrarum futura erat Ecclesia. Et ideo quia vndique venitur ad judicandum, duodecim sedes sunt: sicut quia vndique intratur in illam civitatem duodecim [Page 910]portae sunt. And; Ab omnibus quatuor ventis vocatur Ecclesia. Quomodo vocatur? Vndique in Trinitate vocatur. Non vocatur nisi per baptismum in nomine Patris, & Filij, & Spiritus Sancti. Will you now limit vndi (que) to places round about, or adjacent, and not grant that it signifies the whole world? The learned Fevardentius, in his Annotations vpon this place of S. Irenaeus, not only affirmes, that by eos, qui sunt vndique fideles, all Churches of the whole world are vnderstood, but proves it with much clearness, and erudition; observing, among other things, that it is saied, Ad hanc Ecclesiam. not, ad vrbis amplitudinem, populorum frequentiam, non ad imperij culmen, non ad Caesarum majestem, sed ad hanc Ecclesiam. Thus your first objection, being proved to be grounded meerely vpon a confidence that vndi (que): must be taken, in this place, as you would haue it; and withall perceiving that even this will not come home to your purpose, without an other voluntary alteration (for it is no less difficult a sense, to say, The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there frō those who are euery where, than to say, The Apostolike Tradition hath alwayes bene conserved there from those who are round about) you fall vpon a conjecture, that in all probability, in stead of conservata, it should be observata, although no copie, either printed, or manuscript, reads it in that manner: and suppose, it were observata, the difficulty would still remaine, what observata might signifie, whether observed, that is kept, and maintayned, (and then it were all one with conserved) or observed, that is, marked, found, perceived, or the like; as you would haue it; not considering, that by this conceypt, you wholy alter the Argument of S. Irenaeus, and substitute an other; For whereas that holy Bishop, and Martyr, grounds his proofe against Heretiques, vpon the Authority and succession of the Roman Church, you make him vrge these Heretiques, only by the Testimony of people round about that Citie, because they never observed any alteration of doctrine in that Church, which, therefore according to this your fiction, must be judged by the neighbouring people, and not they directed by her; which kind of reasoning had bene, a meere begging the Question, and no effectuall confutation of those Heretiques, who would instantly answer, that both Rome, and the adjacent people had altered the Apostlike Tradition, by holding doctrines contrary to theirs; nor could they haue bene confured otherwise, than by supposing, that the Roman Church was by the Promise of our Saviour Christ, secured from all errour against Faith: and (to vse your owne lately [Page 911]recited words) to say, that the people about Rome would haue observed it, if there had bene any alteration in the Church of Rome, had bene but to giue for a reason, that which was more questionable then the thing in question; as being (still to vse your owne words) not evident in it self (according to the principles of Protestants who de facto hold, that many errours crept into the Church without being observed) and plainly denied by S. Irenaeus his adversaries, and not proved by him; especially, if we consider, that (as yourself speak) The Church of Rome had a Powerfull principality over all the adjacent Churches, it had bene more probable, that she might haue led them into errour, which they would haue embraced as an Apostolicall Tradition, than that they would or could, haue corrected her, if indeed she had bene conceyved to be subject to errour, no less than the adjacent Churches. Now as for the difficulty of those words: In which the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who were every where, yourself must answer it, seing you hold your conjecture of, observata, to be but probable, and that all hitherto haue read it, and do still reade it, conservata; and that even though you reade it observata, it will be a hard sense to say; In which Church, the Tradition which is from the Apostles, hath alwaies bene observed from those who are every where: and if in stead of, from, you say, by, hath bene observed by those who are every where (though in that acception you must take (Ab) in a different sense, when it is sayd, ab Apostolis, from, and when it is saied ab his qui sunt vndi (que), by) we may also say, hath bene conserved by those who are every where, and the sense will be, that in the Roman Church, there hath alwaies bene the Tradition from the Apostles, which hath also bene conserved in all Churches, and in which they must agree with Her propter potentiorem Principalitatem, and because she hath an evident and certaine succession, as being founded vpon a Rock: and in this sense we may also say, that the Tradition receyved from all Churches hath bene conserved in the Roman Church, as the center of Ecclesiasticall vnity, (to vse the words of the most learned Perron, in his Reply Lib. 1. cap: 26.)

31. In your (N. 30.) after other discourses, which containe no difficulty, which may not be answered, by what hath bene saied in divers occasions, you come to your old cramben of the Chiliasts or Millenaries, of which you say; Justine martyr (in Dial. cum Tryphon.) Professeth that all good and Orthodoxe Christians of his time belieued it, and those that did not, he reckons amongst Heretiques. Sr. we haue no [Page 912] [...]eason to belieue your word, without some proofe. And that you may not [...]use my proofe against you, as proceding from one, who being a partie, may be suspected of partiality. I oppose to you a learned Protestāt, Doctor Ham: in his Uiew of &c: (Pag: 87.88.89.) who, convinced by evidence of truth, not only confesses, and proves the weakeness of that place in S. Iustine, to conclude any thing against Catholique Tradition, but also demonstrates, that your allegation is an egregious falsification, while you say, Iustine martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it, and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretiques. For S. Justine expresly affirmes, that many doe not acknowledg this doctrine of the 1000. yeares, and those many Christians, that are of pure and pious opinyon or judgment; and that those whom he calls, nominall Christians, Atheists, impious hereticall leaders, are they, who denyed the resurrection, not those that acknowledg the resurrection, and denyed the Millennium. And the Doctour concludes in these very words: By Iustine it cannot be concluded, that the 1000. yeares was a matter of Catholike belief in his time, but only favourd by him, and many others, and consequently, though that were after condemned in the Church, would it not be from this testimony inferred that a Catholick Doctrine. (much lesse a Tradition) were condemned. And he gives vs a Rule, whereby we may answer all that can be objected out of S. Irenaeus, or any other ancient Author; saying (Pag 91.) I confess I acknowledg my opinion, that there were in that age men otherwise minded, as out of Iustin it appeared. I could cite an other, highly qualifyed Protestant, who this very yeare 1651. hath putin print, that Justin confesses, that some good and honest Christians did not acknowledg that Doctrine of the Millenaries, which the Doctor (Pag: 88.) shewes very well, not to be repugnant to an other saying of S. Justin, to which this last Author sayes it is repugnant. Now I beseech you consider, how you can impugne Gods Church, by a pretended tradition, which not only Catholiques, but even learned Protestants, out of S. Justines words, denie to haue bene Catholique or vniversall, in his time, and which this Doctor avouches, not to be asserted as vniverfall by the Lord Faulkland himself; whereby this Objection so often repeeted in your Booke, comes to just nothing: and I haue wondered that so worme-eaten, and obsolete a thing, as this is, should be revived, and vrged as a Demonstration against the Traditions of the Church. But it is Gods Goodness, to confound the enemyes of his Church, by their owne wisdome, and confute them by their owne arguments: and is it not a great proofe for the infallibility of the Church, that these her adversaries, [Page 913]after all labour, and study, can alledg only such a toy as this, to proue the fallibility of the Church for so many Ages, wherein she could not but haue fallen into many mote, and greater, errours, if she had bene subject to accept, and deliver fals, or apocryphall Traditions? If you haue a mind to speak to the purpose, you must produce some cleare and vndoubted Tradition, or some Definition of a Pope, or Councell, for this of the Chiliasts, or any other errour. But this is as impossible for you to doe, as that God can break his Promise, that the gates of hell shall not prevaile against her, and that he will be with her to the worlds end. You say; If this Tradition of a thousand yeares was not conserved, and observed in the Church of Rome, had Irenaeus known so much, he must haue retracted this commendation of that Church. Not so, by your leaue; but, as a true child of Gods Church, if he had bene perswaded his opinyon to be against her Tradition, he would haue retracted his opinyon, and not his commendation of the Church, vpon which he builded his Doctrine against those Heretiques, whom he impugned: otherwise his argument takē from her Tradition, had bene of no force, but petitio principij, proving their Heresies to be false, because the Church of Rome, which in those particulars did not erre, taught the particular opinyons of those men to be false. Especially, since by the confession of S. Justin, Many Christians of pure and pious judgment, held the contrary.

33. Having considered with attention, all the rest that you haue in this (N. 30.) I find nothing which hath not bene answered, either by mee, or by Ch: Ma: (Part: 2. Chap: 2. N. 32.) for as much as belongs to Him; and as for your vaine affected florish against the most learned Cardinall Perron, it is both impertinent to my purpose, and really so slight, that I could not haue imagined, you would in modesty haue premised these fond words: The words of the Cardinall I will here insert, and with short censures dispell, and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants. In a word, I must say; That you do not distinguish betwene matter of Faith, and of Fact; nor consider, that although error against Faith, defended with obstinacie, be, per se loquendo, a sufficient cause of excommunication, yet it may be also necessary, in prudence, for some circumstances, to abstaine from inflicting such a censure: and in the case of Pope Uictor, the success shewed, that even for matter of fact, he was in the right. For after his death, the Councells of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus (which Protestants receiue as Lawfull Generall Councels) excommunicated those, who held the same Custome with the Provinces, [Page 914]which Uictor had excommunicated. I haue no tyme to take notice of your seditious speach (Pag: 35. letter (f)) that inferiors may excommunicate superiors, if they did any thing which deserved it. By which Doctrine you, or any other Socinian might haue excommunicated thē, who excommunicated all such as held the 39. Articles to containe any errour, as is knowne you believed them to containe divers.

33. To your (N. 31.32.33.34.35.) I answer; that in the Authorityes alledged out of the Fathers by Ch. Ma. you will still find a particular preheminence of the Roman Church; and you could not haue done vs a greater favour, than to touch the matter of Appeales to Rome, from the whole world, if it had bene handled by Ch. Ma. as it was not, and therefore I must refer the Reader to Catholique Writers, and in particular to the learned Cardinalls, Bellarmine and Perron, from whom he may receyue full satisfaction. Only to what you say (N. 31.) that S. Austine (Lib. 1. retractat. Chap. 26.) retracts what he had saied, that the Church was builded vpon Peter, I must answer, that (Chap. 26. Retract) there is no such matter as you mention, and what he hath (Chap. 21.) is so answered by Bell. (De Rom. Pont. Lib. 1. Chap. 10.) as your objection will be found to make rather for, than against vs. In your (N. 32. you haue no reason to find fault with Ch. Ma. for translating Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus, the principality of the sea Apostolique did alwayes flourish, seing it is cleare that S. Austine, in that place, attributes a particular priviledg to the Sea of Rome, as the Chaire of Peter and a Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome, as he speakes (In psalm. Con. partem Donati.) Whereby it appeares, that he makes but one chiefe Apostolique Sea: and it seemes this Translation of Ch. Ma. was so good, that yourself could not perceiue or tax it, till an excess of desire to trifle, made you at length put it in your margent: it not occurring tyme enough to find a place in the Text. Maximianus, of whom you speak (N. 36.) is cited by Onuphrius Lib de primatu Petri, parte prima, and by Adamus Tannerus a knowen learned Divine (Tom. 3. Disp. 1. de Fide. Quest. 5. Dub. 3.) Epistolâ ad Orientales, in these words: Omnes fines terrae, quae Dominum sincerè receperunt, & vbique terrarum Catholici veram fidem profitentes in potestatem Romanorum Pontificum tanquam in solem respiciunt &c: Hunc enim (Petrum) de caeteris mortalibus ex toto terrarum orbe conditor orbis elegit, cui Cathedram magisterij principaliter possidendam perpetuo privilegij jure concessit; vt quis quis Divinum aliquid, [Page 915]aut profundum nosse desiderat, ad hujus praeceptionis oraculum, doctrinam que recurrat. You say; Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius I find no such thing in the Councells: Neither can I belieue that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelue hundred yeares a goe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome. But if that be true, which you often inculcate, that deeds are better witnesses than words, even that Maximianus, who succeeded your wicked great Grandfather Nestorius, in the Sea of Constantinople, was a monk, and a holy man, and farre from being a parasite; and an Embassage was sent to Rome from him; the Emperour; and people; in congratulation of the victory gotten chiefly by meanes of Pope Caelestinus, against Nestorius: all which declared, the Authority of the Roman Church 1200, yeares agoe, though you tell vs you cannot beleeue it; ād though you take notice of Maximianus, who succeeded Nestorius, yet you thought fit to dissemble this Embassage &c. Whereof more may be seene in Baronius. Ann: 431.432. Your answer given (N. 37.) to the Anthority cited by Ch. Ma. out of John Patriarch of Constantinople cannot satisfy any who reads his words, and your answer; which is so evident, that I need say no more.

34. For answer to your (N. 38.39.40.41.) if in any occasion, particularly in this, I must intreate the Reader, not to trust your summing vp the Discourse, of Ch: Ma: (N. 20.21.22.23.) but to trust only his owne eyes, which if he doe, I am sure he will finde all that you object against vs, in the saied Numbers, to be answered already, when we proved, that Faith is the Gift of God; and that, in the ordinary course of Gods Providence, it is exauditu, by the preaching of Pastors, Prelats, Doctors &c. And the necessity of a perpetuall succession of Bishops, in the true Church: besides, what hath bene saied heretofore, appeares by the confession of the best learned Protestants, as may be seene in Brereley (Tract: 2. Sect: 6. and Tract: 2. Cap: 3. Sect: 4. and Tract: 2. Cap: 2. Sect: 3. Subdivis: 2.) No man can doubt, but that God may teach vs in what manner he pleases, but seing, de facto, he will haue men to be taught by men, ād that Faith is his Gift (as we proved in the Introduction) we shall be sure, never to attaine this inward gift, otherwise, than by those outward meanes; nor can we belieue the Doctrine of Christ, without the Introduction of Teachers appointed, and taught by his Holy Spirit. Neither doth if follow, that by this meanes, one should be necessitated to be an Heretique, because, that there should haue bene a perpe [...]uall Succession of believers, in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in our power, [Page 816]as you argue most weakely; and seing Protestants teach, that Heresie is a deviation from Scripture, and that it is not in the power of man to conserue Scripture incorrupted, Protestants may be Heretiques, whether they will or no, if your objection were of any force. And why do you not make this argument? Men cannot sinne vnles they exist, and be in their right witts; But that a man be in his right witts, or exist, is not in his Power (for who can be his owne creator?) Therefore, sinning or not sinning depends not on these things. As therefore men may be Heretiques, and sinners; because de facto God conserves Scripture, and preserves men in their being; so, seing he hath promised to conserue his Church, without errour against Faith, and gives every one sufficient grace, to follow her Directions, if they refuse to doe so, they become Heretiques, by their owne free-will, not by any necessity. Your saying (By this reason you should say, as well, that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour, or King, or Magistrate, or Father that succeeds a bad one) is manifestly impertinent; seing the Direction of Faith, is not the personall life, but the publik Definition, and doctrine of such as God hath appointed to be our Guides, and whom he hath commanded vs to obey.

36. Seing your (N. 39.) containes only a heap, or rabble, of demands without telling vs, what you hold, I were much to blame, If I would spend time about thē; especially I having proved out of Fathers, and learned Protestants, that the true Church, cannot subsist without a succession of Bishops, which is the point you desire should be proved, before you answer the argument of Ch. Ma., and your owne demands; whereof I must tell you in generall, some are ridiculous, some dangerous and tending to confusion, some begg the Question, some containe shrewd insinuations against the necessity of Bishops; some are evidently fals, and all, of no force against vs. You ask whether Ch: Ma: in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa, do not forget himself, and contradict what he saied (N: 17.) that they had some of their Sect residing in Rome? But this is a poore contradiction. For, even D. Potter (Pag: 125.) cites S. Austine affirming, that the Donatists held the Church to haue perished through the whole world, except in their Sect in Africa, and (Pag: 126.) the Doctor denies not, but they had some of their Sect in Rome, and you expresly affirme it; yet because they were so few, as could not make any considerable number, it may well be saied, that their Sect de facto was confined to Africa, as they were wont to say, and as Ch: Ma: [Page 617]must speake, in their sense, concerning them: and he is expresly warranted by S. Optatus Lib: 2. saying, that the Donatists Bishop in Rome was Episcopus sine populo. Non enim grex aut populus appellandi fuerant pauci, qui inter quadraginta, & quod excurrit, basilicas locum vbi colligerent non habebant.

37. All that is materiall in your [N: 40.] hath bene answered heretofore, to your small credit. You haue no reason to alter the Translation of Ch. Ma., of the words of Tertullian, How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one Faith? Quid vetisimile est, vt tot ac tantae in vnam Fidem erraverint? Which you say should be translated, should erre into one Faith. For it is certaine, that your obscure expression, should erre into one Faith, must signifie, that it is not likely so many different Churches agreeing, should erre in that Faith, in which they agree, which is according to the cleare expression of Ch: Ma: And it is cleare, that the reason, why they could not erre into one Faith, must be, because error could not consist with one Faith; for if it could, they might erre into one Faith; and so your Translation, if it be good, must be beholding to his expression. You say in the (Pag: 362.) that the Roman Church is Catholique to herself alone, and Hereticall to all the rest of Christian Churches, and in this (Pag: 332. N. 11.) you say, It is not Heresy to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church, but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ: Which sentences put together conclude, the Roman Church to want what is essentiall to a Church, and yet you expresly teach in other parts of your Book, that she errs not in essentiall or fundamētall points. How will you saue yourself from a contradiction in this? As also, in your saying, that it is not Heresy to oppose any truth, but only such a truth as in an essentiall part of the Gospell? Do you not profess through your whole Book that voluntary error against any revealed truth, is a damnable sinne? And what sinne can it be except the sinne of Heresy? But of this particular, els where. Never was there Writer so repugnant to himself as you are! Now, for your (N. 41.) If the true Church cannot be without Succession of Bishops, whatsoever Church wants them, cannot be, a true Church, as if speach were necessary to the being of a man (as it is not) want of it would be a sure argument that he is not a man; and so your argument (that though speach be a certaine signe of a living man yet want of it is no sure Argument that he is dead) is retorted against yourselfe.

[Page 918]

37. You would drawe me in your (N. 42.) to enter vpon an vnreasonable discourse, wherein you do not so much impugne the Catholique Church, as all Christianity; and you are still like yourself, in despising S. Austine, and saying, that the places alledged out of him by Ch: Ma: (N. 24.) deserue not the name of a proofe, and yet S. Austine, (Lib: de Pastorib: Cap: 8.) saieth in express tearmes, the thing for which he was alledged, namely, that not all Heretiques are spred over the face of the [...]arth, but that Faithfull people are dispersed through the whole world. And the arguments which you bring to the contrary, are answered by these words of S. Austine in the same place: Not all Heretiques are spred over the face of the Earth, and yet there are Heretiques spred over the whole face of the earth, some heere, some there; yet they are wāting in no place, they know not one an other. One Sect for example in Africa' an other Heresy in the East, an other in Aegipt, an other in Mesopotamia. In divers places they are divers. One Mother Pride hath begot them all, as one Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world. No wonder then, if Pride breed Dissention, and Charity vnion. To this true distinction of S. Austine, we maie add, that sometyme when the Fathers speak, of the multitude of some particular Sects, they meane of some particular place, or Country, but not comparing those Heretiques, with the whole vniversall Church, diffused through the whole world. You tell vs, S. Austine saies (Ep. 48. ad Uinc:) the Professors of error surpassed the Number of the Professors of Truth in proportion, as the sands of the Sea doe the starres of the Heaven. But I find in that Epistle these words of S. Austine: Fortasse non frustra dictum sit de Semine Abrahae, sicut stellae Coeli, & sicut arena quae est ad oram maris: vt in stellis Coeli pauciores, firmiores, clariores (que) intelligantur, in arena autem maritimi Litoris magna multitudo infirmorum atque carnalium: In which words it seemes, that S Austine speakes not of Professors of error (as you say) but of perfect and imperfect Catholiques; which is nothing to our purpose.

38. Your (N. 43.44.) containe nothing which hath not bene answered, or els is of no consideration. You find fault with Ch. Ma: that being to proue Protestants to be guilty of Heresie, he strikes into an other accusation of them, that the Faith even of the Truth they hold, is not indeed true Faith. But put case it were not, does it follow, that the having of this Faith makes them Heretiques? Aristotle believed there were Intelligences which [Page 919]moved the spheares he believed this with an humane perswasion, ād will you make Aristotle an heretique because he believed so? Answer: Ch: Ma: having proved Protestants to be guilty of heresie, and consequently, not capable of salvation, because Heresie is a deadly sinne; if everie Heresie haue also this effect, that it destroyes all true supernaturall Faith, even of all those points wherein they doe not erre, and that true supernaturall Faith is necessary to salvation, how could Ch. Ma. without prevarication forbeare, to infer, that seing Protestants are proved to be guilty of Heresie, they must be subject to the inseparable effect thereof, which is to be deprived of all supernaturall Faith, and so be incapable of Salvation vpon a double Title, that is, both for a positiue error against Faith, and for want of supernaturall infallible Faith, caused by that error? Whatsoever you are pleased to say, yet I belieue every one beside your self, will conceyue that Ch: Ma: did not digress, if indeed it be true, that every Heresie destroyes all Faith, as he proved it does, but never dreamed, that every Heresie makes the true belief (though only humane) of all other Articles, to be Heresie; or that Aristotle was an Heretique, because he believed only with an humane perswasion, that there were Intelligences which moved the spheares: but if hee, or any other, believed all the mysteryes of Christian Faith, only with an humane perswasion, as he believed those Intelligences, no good Christian can belieue, that such a perswasion were sufficient for salvation; and so your Argument turnes against yourself. Neither haue you any reason to say, that Ch: Ma: hath disjoyned his discourse vpon this Point. For it was necessary, that first the grounds should be laied, and the nature of Faith declared, before he could by degrees proue Protestants to be Heretiques, and thereby to be deprived of all supernaturall Faith, necessary to salvation.

39. Your (N. 45.46.) haue bene answered in divers occasions. You overlash exorbitantly, when (N. 47.) you say to Ch: Ma: Do you not see and feele, how void of reason, and how full of imprety your sophistry is? And why? Let the Reader judge of the cause. Ch: Ma: saieth, Every Protestant as I suppose, is perswaded, that his owne opinions are true, and that he hath vsed such meanes, as are wont to be prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture, as praier, conferring of divers Texts &c: This supposition (not affirmation) being premised, that Protestants haue vsed such meanes as themselves prescribe for interpreting, and yet that they disagree in many importantmatters of Faith, it cleerely followes that the meanes which they prescribe are not certaine, nor effectuall, seing they being put in practise, [Page 920]attaine not that End for the procuring whereof they were prescribed. From whence will follow this principally intended conclusion, that the only effectuall meanes, to compass that end, must be to acknowledg an infallible Living Guide. And I pray, what impiety or sophistry is there in this? You say, The first of those suppositions, (that every Protestant is perswaded, that his opinions are true) must needs be true, but the second is apparently false: I meane, that every Protestant is perswaded, that he hath vsed those meanes which are prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture. But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent, and by as good Logick you might conclude, that Logick and Geometry stands vpon no certaine grounds, because the disagreements of Logicians and Geometricians shew, that some of them are deceived.

40. Answer; If every Protestant be not perswaded, that he hath vsed those means, which are prescribed for vnderstanding of Scripture, you will not be able to defend, that the first part of the supposition must needs be true, to wit, that every Protestant is perswaded, that his opinions are true. For if he be not perswaded, that he hath vsed such meanes, he cannot pretend to be sure that his opinions are true, and then it is cleare, that he who professes not to be sure that Protastant Religion is true, is no Protestant, nor of any Religion, if he doubt of all, or be not certaine of any. And, that which Ch: Ma: collects from those suppositions, to be cleerely consequent, appeares, even by your instances to the contrarie, which are retorted; thus: If you suppose men to follow the Rules and Principles of Logick, and Geometry, and yet disagree (and consequently some of them to be deceyved) you must conclude, that Logick, and Geometry stand vpon no certaine grounds. Now our supposition (for the present) is, that Protestants make vse of those meanes, which they prescribe for vnderstanding Scripture, and yet disagree among themselves (and consequently some of them must be deceived) Therefore we must conclude, that those meanes are not certaine, nor that they haue any certaine ground, whereon to relie, for vnderstanding Scripture, which is the Conclusion of Ch: Ma: In the same manner I answer, and, retort your other instances; That if Christians were supposed to vse aright all the meanes they haue, for finding the truth in matters of Faith, ād men be supposed to procede according to the true Rules of Reason and men did disagree, we might well inferr, that neither Christian Religion, nor Reason, stand vpon certaine grounds: and the same retortion may be applied to your other instances, But Sr., though you [Page 921]say it is fals, that every Protestant, is perswaded that he hath vsed those meanes which are prescribed for vnderstanding Scripture; yet it might seeme a hard censure in you (who pretend so much charity, the property whereof, you say, is to judge the best) to judg, that of so very many disagreeing Protestants, some haue not vsed the meanes which they prescribe to themselves for vnderstanding Scripture, and if they haue, it being cleare by their disagreeing, that some are in an errour, it followes, that the meanes are in themselves defectiue, vncertaine, and insufficient.

41. And in this occasion, I must not omitt to declare the Reason why Almighty God, doth not concurre with Heretiques, to the converting of Nations to Christian Religion; because indeed they might afterward, vpon examination, discover that the grounds of those by whom they were converted, cannot support a certainty in Faith, as they expected, and so they would judge themselves rather to haue bene deluded, or (to vse your owne word) tantalized, than converted; and might be tempted, to revolt from Christ, till they could find some Rock, to which God himself hath promised eternall stability. Besides seing Protestant Religion, cannot be wholy true, as consisting of contrary Sects, if God did ordinarily cooperate with them in order to so supernaturall a work, he might seeme to giue them the credit of true Teachers, and to countenance, and confirme a falshood, which is impossible for him to doe. And even from hence, we may gather à posteriori, that Protestant Religion is not true, seing God doth not take them for his instruments to convert Nations, or work Miracles.

42. All that you say (N. 48.) hath bene answered heretofore at large. To your (N. 49.) whether he who erres against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith (as Ch: Ma: saied (N. 29.) Catholique Divines generally reach) I answer. First; That in reason, Protestants ought to make greater account of the Authority of Catholique Divines (besides whom there were no Orthodox Doctors before Luther, and so to depriue them of estimation and authority, cannot be donne without prejuduce to the vniversall and Catholique Church, and all Christianity) than any Catholique, or any prudent man can make of learned Protestants, who in their opposition to Catholiques, are contrary to all Christian Churches, before Luther, and write, to maintayne such their opposition; whereas Catholique Divines, who wrote before Luther, could not haue any purpose to impugne Protestants; yea the disagreement of Protestants among themselves, and agreement with vs, against [Page 922]their pretended Brethren, must needs very much diminish their authority: and if they remaine with any estimation, or authority, it makes for vs, with whom the chiefest among them agree in many, and great points, of Faith. You say; D. Potter alledged not the meere Authority of Pappus and Flacius to proue this disagreement of Catholiques among thēselves, but proved it with the formall words of Bellarmine, faithfully collected by Pappus. But I pray you, that this collection was faithfull, or to the purpose, how doth Dr. Potter proue, otherwise than by taking it vpon the credit and Authority of Pappus, seing the Doctor doth not alledg, so much as any one instance in particular? As for the pretended disagreements among Catholiques; they can be only in matters disputable, or not defined by the Church, frō which definition if any should swarue, he were no Catholique; and for other matters, we are content, that Pappus muster not only 237., but as many more points, as he pleases. For by such a multiplication, he will onlie make an Addition to his owne manifest Impertinences: as your alledging the Example of Brereley is a meere impertinence, it being cleare, that he alledges the disagreeing of Protestants among themselves, not only in by-matters, or in the manner, or reason of their Assertions, but even in the conclusions themselves; and not only as disagreeing among thēselves, but as directly agreeing with vs, against other Protestants, in the very conclusions: whereof I desire the Reader, for his owne good, and full satisfaction, to peruse Brereley in his Advertisment to him that shall answer his treatise, and his preface to the Christian Reader, Catholick, or Protestant.

43. Secondly, Though you are pleased to call it weakness in Ch: Ma: to vrge Protestants with the authority of Catholique Divines; yet you can haue no pretence to slight, men of their fame, and learning, when they are considered, not as disagreeing from Protestants (nor in a Question controverted betwene them and vs) but are seconded by the chiefest, and learnedst of them, (Protestants.) For what doth it import Protestants, that Heresie, or infidelity, destroies all Divine Faith, vnless they will tacitely confess, or feare, that they are guilty of those crimes? Let vs heare the verdit of some principall Protestants. Luther (in Capit: 7. Matth.) saieth, Heretiques, are not Christians. And; Faith must be round that is, in all Articles believing howsoever little matters. And in tria Symbola Christian Faith must be entire and perfect every waie. For albeit it may be weak and faint: yet it must needs be entire and true. And Epist. ad Albertum: He doth not satisfie, if in other things he confess Christ and his [Page 923]word. For who denieth Christ in one Article or word, denieth him in all, seing there is one only Christ, the same in all. The Magdeburgians (in Praefat: Centur: 6.) They are Anti-Christs, and divels. Beza de puniendis haereticis; They are infidels and Apostates. Mort: (Lib: 1. Apolog. Cap: 7.) Either you must giue the name of Catholiks to Protestants, or we must deny them the name of Christians. Yourself (Pag: 23. N, 27.) speaking of Uerityes, contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture, say; He that doth not belieue all can hardly belieue any, neither haue we reason to belieue he doth so; Which is more than Catholique Divines teach, who affirme, that an heretique may belieue some articles of Faith, by an humane opinion, not purelie for Divine Revelation; and so you also must vnderstand, that he who doth not belieue all that is contained in the vndoubted Books of Scripture, can hardly belieue any for the Authority of Scripture, but if he belieue them, it must be with mixture of some other reason, and so fall farre short of Divine, supernaturall, Faith. Wittenbergenses, in Refutat. Ortodox: Consensus: As he who keepeth all the Law, but offendeth in one, is (witness saint Iames) guilty of all: So who believeth not, one word of Christ, though he seemes to belieue the other articles of the Creed, yet believeth nothing, and is damned, and incredulous. Schlusselburgh (Lib. 1. Theolog. Calvin. Art. 1.) Most truly wrote S. Chrisostom in 1. Gallat. He corupteth the whole doctrin, who subuerteth it in the least Article. Most truly saied Ambrose E: pist: ad demetriadem; he is out of the number of the Faithfull, and lot of Saints, who dissenteth in any point from the Catholike Truth. Calvin (Ephes: 4. V. 5.) vpon that: One God, one Faith, writeth thus: As often as thou readest the word, one, vnderstand it put emphatically, as if he had saied, Christ cannot be divided, Faith cannot not be parted. Perkins (in Explicat. Symboli Colum: 512) Thus indeed fareth the matter, that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in all. Wherevpon Faith is termed an entire copulatiue. As I saied of your words, so I say of these, that they containe more than Catholiques affirme, and to giue them a true sense, they must be vnderstood, that he faileth and erreth, in as much, as he believes not with a divine but only with an humane Faith. Spalatensis (contra Suarem (C. 1. N. 7) Divine Faith perisheth wholy by the least detraction, and consequently, it is no true Church, no not visible, in which entire Faith is not kept in publik profession.

44. The same is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers: Tertullian (de praescrip: Cap: 2.) saieth: Heresies are to destroy Faith, and bring everlasting death. And (Cap 37.) If they be heretiks, they can be no Christians. [Page 924]S. Cyprian (Epist: 73.) saieth, that both by the testimonie of the Gospell and Apostle, Heretiks are called Anti-christs. S. Austine, (Enchirid: Cap: 5.) Christ, in name only, is found with any Heretiks. S. Chrysostom cited by Ch: Ma: (N. 33. in Galat 17.) saieth, that the least error in matter of Faith, destroieth Faith. Let them heare (sayth this holy Father) what S. Paul sayth: Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrowne the Ghospell. For, to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole, he sayd, that the Ghospell was subverted. For as he who clips a litle of the stamp from the kings mony, makes the whole piece of no value: so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound Faith, is wholy corrupted. But enough of this. You do but cavill, and yourself know you doe so, in saying to Ch: Ma: that there is not one Catholique Divine, who delivers for true Doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set downe, That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine Faith. For you cannot be ignorant, that when this Question is propounded by Divines, it is necessarily vnderstood, of culpable error; otherwise it could be no Question. And whereas you say, There is not one Catholique Divine; who delivers &c. Your self did reade in Ch: Ma: S. Thomas delivering that Doctrine in the same manner (2. 2. Q. 5. à 3.) For having propounded the Question; Whether he who denieth one Article of Faith, may retaine Faith of other Articles; in his Conclusion he saieth: It is impossible, that Faith, even informed (or Faith without Charity) remaine in him, who doth not belieue some one Article of Faith, although he confess all the rest to be true. What say you to this? Is not S. Thomas, one Catholique Divine, or is he not, one, instar omnium? And yet he both proposes, and answers this Question, supposing, not expressing, that he speakes of culpable errour; and afterward he speaks expresly of Heretiques, as also Ch: Ma: in this very Number, expresly specifies Protestants, whom you know we belieue to erre culpably, against many revealed Truths. You goe forward, and speak to Ch: Ma: in this manner: They (Catholique Divines) all require (not yourself excepted) that this truth must not only be revealed, but revealed publiquely, and (all things considered) sufficiently propounded, to the erring party, to be one of those, which God vnder pain of damnation commands all men to belieue. But you are more bold, than well advised, in taking vpon you to know, what all Catholique Divines hold and you are even ridiculous, in telling Ch: Ma: what his opinion is. I beseech you produce any one Catholique Divine teaching, that all Divines hold [Page 925]that the errour which destroyes all divine Faith, must be revealed publiquely. Who is ignorant, that many great Divines teach, that he were properly an Heretique, who should reject, or disbelieue a private Divine Revelation sufficiently knowne to be such, by never so secret meanes? Do not yourself heere cite Estius (whom you stile one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of our Church) saying: It is impertinent to Faith, by what meanes we belieue the prime verity. For many of the Ancients, as Adam, Abraham, Melchisedeck, Iob, receyved the Faith by speciall Revelation? Do you not remember, that Zacharie was punished, for his slowness, in believing a revelation, made privately to him, and of a particular object? You speak very confusedly when you say. They (Catholique Divines) require, that this Truth be one of those which God vnder pain of Damnation commands all men to belieue. For, all Catholique Divines, agree, that it is Heresie, to deny any revealed truth proposed by the Church, though other wise it be not comāded to be believed; ād you do not only teach, through your whole Book, that it is damnable, to disbelieue any Truth sufficiciently propounded as revealed by God, but you saie further, that whatsoever, one is obliged, not to disbelieue, at any time, at the same tyme, he is oblged, to belieue it, which latter part though it be false, (as I haue shewed heretofore) yet it shewes, that you must affirme, that God vnder paine of damnation commands all men to belieue (positively and explicitely) all truths sufficiently propounded as revealed by God: so that this your saying, is not only confused, but false, in the opinyon of Catholique Divines, and much more in your opinyon.

45. You say Thomas Aquinas vainly supposeth against reason and experience, that by the commission of any deadly sinne, the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated. But against this provd Pelagian conceypt of yours, I haue proved in the Introduction, that Charity being a supernaturall Habit, infused only by the Holy Ghost, and not acquired by any naturall Acts, cannot be knowne by humane experience, to be present or absent; and being a loue of God aboue all things, cannot possibly consist with any least deadly sinne. I desire the Reader to see of this matter S. Thomas, (2. 2. Q. 24. a 12. Corp:) where he cites S. Aug: saying: Quòd homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur, absente autem continuò tenebratur, à quo non locorum intervallo, sed voluntatis aversione disceditur.

46. Concerning the second Reason of S. Thomas you say to C: Ma: Though you cry it vp for an Achilles, and think like the Gorgons head it will turne vs all into stone, and insult vpon Dr. Potter as if he durst not come neare it, [Page 926]yet in very truth, having considered it well, I find it a serious, graue, prolix, and profound nothing. I could answer it in a word, by telling you, that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe, the main Question between vs that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motiue, or rule, or a necessary condition of Faith: which you know we flatly deny, and all that is built vpon it has nothing but winde for foundation.

47. Answer: What Reader will not conceiue out of your words, that Ch. Ma. had vsed some such vaine brag, as you express by Achilles, Gorgons head, insulting &c: Whereas he without any, evenleast commendation, saies positively, that S. Thomas proves his conclusion, first by a parity with Charity, which is destroyed by every deadly sinne, and then by a farther reason, which there he setts downe, at large in the words of that holy Saint (2. 2. Q. 5. A. 3.) and is comprised in this Summe (Ad 2.) A man doth belieue all the articles of faith for one and the selfsame reason, to wit, for the prime verity proposed to vs in the Scripture, vnderstood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church: and therfore whosoever falls from this reason or motiue, is totally deprived of Faith. Your pride is intollerable, in despising the Reason of S. Thomas, as a serious, graue, prolix nothing; and your saying is ridiculous, that he beggs the main Question between vs, about the infallibility of the Church. For how could he begg that Question, which when he wrote, was granted, and taught, by all Divines? But you do not vnderstand the force of his Argument, which consists in this; that if one assent to one Object, for some motiue or Reason, and assent not to another, for which there is the same motiue or reason, it appeares that he Assents to this other, not for that motiue common to both, but for some other particular Reason. Now, though S. Thomas specifie the authority of the Church, because, de facto she is the proposer of diviue Truths, yet his argument is the same, though it be applied to Scripture. And therfore the same holy Doctor (1. Part. Q. 1. A. 8. Ad 2.) without mentioning the Church, saieth: Innititur sides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt: and we haue heard yourself saying (Pag: 23.) He that doth not belieue all the vndoubted parts of the vndoubted Books of Scripture, can hardly belieue any, neither haue were ason to belieue he doth so. Yea D. Lawd (P. 344.) saieth expresly: We belieue all the Articles of Christian Faith, for the same formall reason in all, namely, because they are revealed from and by God, and sufficiently applied in his word, an by his Churches Ministration.

[Page 927]

48. To this āswer, which I haue confuted, you add, to vse your words, a larg confutation of this vaine fancy out of Estius, vpon (3. sē. 23. dist. § 13. But Estius is so farre from saying the Doctrine of S. Thomas, to be a vain fancy, that he saieth: The Question is on both sides by the Doctours probably disputed. Which is sufficient for our main Question, that according to this Doctor, the Protestants cannot pretend to be a true Church, which must certainly, and not only probably, haue Divine supernaturall Faith, which is absolutely necessary to saluation, necessitate medij. Besides, his last express words shew that the Faith which remaines in an Heretique, is not sufficient for salvation, and therefore Protestants and all Heretiques, even for want of necessary Faith cannot be saved. His words are: Neque tamen propterea fatendum erit Haereticos aut Judaeos Fidem habere, sed Fidei partem aliquam. Fides enim significat aliquod integrum, & omnibus suis partibus completum: vt sit idem Fides simpliciter, & Fides Catholica: Quae nimirum absolutè hominem fidelem & Catholicum constituat. Vnde Hereticus simpliciter infidelis esse, (Mark) & Fidem amisisse, & juxta Apostolum (1. Tim. 1.) Fidei naufragium fecisse dicitur, licet quaedam eâ teneat firmitate assensus, & promtitudine voluntatis qua ab alijs omnia quae fidei sunt tenentur. Neither is the argument of S. Thomas sufficiently confuted by Estius in saying; It is impertinent to Faith, by what meanes we belieue the prime Uerity. For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and preaching of the Church, yet it is certain that by other meanes, faith hath bene given heretofore and is given still. This discourse, I say doth not confute the Argument of S. Thomas, being vnderstood, as I declared, formally; that whosoever disbelieves any article sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth, the same man cannot belieue an other sufficiently propounded to him by the same meanes, whatsoever that meanes be.

49. To the other argument of S. Thomas, taken from a parity of faith, with the Habit of Charity, which is lost by every deadly sinne, Estius doth not answer, and I am sure he would haue bene farr from saying, as you doe that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is not quite extirpated. And this Argument is stronger, than perhaps appeares at the first sight. For, Faith hath no less connection, and relation, to the object of Faith, than Charity to the object of Charity. And therfore as Charity doth so loue God aboue all things that it cannot stand with any sinne, whereby God is grievously offended, so we [Page 928]must say of the habit of Faith, that it is not compatible with any error, whereby his Prime Uerity is culpably rejected: and as it is essentiall to Charity, as long as it exists, to overcome all temptations against the Loue of God; so Faith must of its owne nature, beate downe, and reject all errour, against the Divine Testimony, or Revelation, that both, for will, and vnderstanding, we may say: Nonne Deo subjecta erit anima mea? which entire submission, and subjection, is evidently more necessary in Faith, than in Charity, against which some sinnes may be veniall, whereas every errour against any truth, sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, is a deadly sinne nor can be excused, ob parvitatem materiae.

50. You conclude and say to Ch. Ma. Your Corollaries drawen from it (the Doctrine of S. Thomas) That every errour against Faith involves opposition against Gods testimony, That Protestants haue no Faith no certainty, and that you haue all Faith, must together with it fall to the ground. Which words are either non-sense, or evidently false. For who ever denied (not your self excepted) that every errour against Faith involves an opposition against Gods testimony, which is the very essence, of errour against Faith, that is, of Heresy?

51. Your (N. 50.51.52.) haue bene answered heretofore; and are answered by this one consideration; That your Faith is not raised aboue the probable motives or Arguments of Credibility, which being evident, your kind of Faith, must be evident: but our Catholique Faith, is an assent aboue the saied motives, and is certaine, though not evident, as I haue declared els where: and by this meanes your imitation of the Argument of Ch: Ma: (to proue that the pretended faith of Protestants implied not obscurity) falls to the ground, because we belieue with a greater certainty, than is derived from the sole motives of credibility: so that your Faith must haue evidence, but cannot haue certainty: The Faith of Protestants, who pretended to be assured, what Bookes be Canonicall, by the private spirit, must be certaine and evident (and consequently not obscure) and therefor Calvin (Lib: Institut: Cap: 7. Sect: 2.) saieth, that by the spirit men may discerne true Scripture, as we discerne lucem à tenebris, album à nigro, suaue ab amaro, light from darkness, white from black, sweete from sower: And so the Faith of Catholiques only remaines both certaine and obscure, as Christian Faith ought to be.

52. Your (N. 53.54.55.) haue bene either answered already, or els containe meere sayings, without any proofe. That the Jewes before our Saviours [Page 929]tyme, conserved the Scripture, is no wonder, since at that tyme they were the true Church; and afterward, it was not in their power to corrupt it at their pleasure, in regard the Apostles, and other converted to Christian Religion, could manifestly haue convinced them, as shameless falsaries. But what hath this to doe with that Church, which was the vniversall Church of Christ, before Luther; and if it be fallible, and so could haue bene permitted to corrupt Scripture, you can at this tyme haue no certainty of the Bible? That Luther opposed the Roman Church appeares by what I sayd heretofore: and is demonstrated by Ch: Ma: (Part 1. Chap: 5. N. 29.) and yourself (N. 73.) describe the man in such manner, as makes the matter credible of it self.

53. You tell vs (N. 56.) that the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants. Of this we haue saied enough heretofore. Now I will only put you in minde; First; that this cannot agree with your Doctrine, that Scripture is not a materiall object of Faith, nor which men are obliged to belieue. For if it only be the Religion and Faith of Protestants, and yet be not a point or object of Faith which you are bound to belieue, it followes, that Protestants haue no Religion, or Point of Faith at all. Secondly; We haue heard you say (Pag: 287. N. 82.) that some Protestants tooke for the model, or Idaea of their Reformation, not Scripture only, but also the Decrees of Councells, and the Writings of the Fathers of the first fiue Ages. Thirdly; you say; Whatsoever els they (Protestants) belieue besides Scripture, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion, but as matter of Faith and Religion, neither can they with coherence to their owne grounds belieue it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most Schismaticall presumption. It is strang, that the Approbators of your Book, and other Protestants, did not see a thing verie evident; That in these words, you declare Protestant pretended Bishops, and the Church of England, to haue bene guilty of most high and most Schismaticall presumption, for requiring the belief of the 39. Articles, some of which you belieue, neither to be contained in Scripture, nor to be the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, but to be fals, and repugnant to it. So that we haue reason, more and more, to be even amazed, that such a Book, could at such a tyme be published.

54. Your [N. 57) and the rest till your (N. 72.) inclusiuè, haue bene answered in different occasions, respectiuè. Vnfortunate man! Who will not compassionate your disorder of minde, and pen, when (N. 66.) [Page 930]you are not ashamed to say of Catholiques? It is too too apparent, that your Church hath got and still maintaines her authority over mens consciences, by counterfeiting false stories, by obtruding on the world supposititious writings, by corrupting the monuments of former times, and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you, by warres, by perfecutions, by Massacres, by Treasons, by Rebellions; in short, by all manner of carnall meanes whether violent or fraudulent. If Luther found the Roman Church, and such as were vnited with her, (that is all Orthodox Christian Churches) in such a state as you describe, what a scandall must it needs haue bene to Jewes, Turks, Pagans, and all the enemies of Christian Religion?

55. Whosoever reads your (N, 73.) will find that you abandon Luther, and that you grant very much in favour of the Roman Church, as will appeare by reading Ch: Ma: heere (N. 32.) and I obserue that you confess, with Luther, that in the Papacy are many good things, that haue come from them to vs; and then why do you alwaies deny, that you receiue Scripture from vs, which is one of those many good things that haue come from vs to you, as Luther expressly confesses?

56. In your (N. 74.) you involue, and make things seeme obscure, which are very cleare. You cite Ch. Ma. as if he saied, in generall, certainty and prudence are certaine grounds, of supernaturality, which is evidently fals: it being manifest, that some naturall knowledg, may be certaine and prudent. You say also, that Ch: Ma: makes perswasion and opinion all one. And why? because he saieth the Faith of Protestants is but an human perswasion or opinion; as if you should haue saied, when you say, this, or, that, we make this and that all one: or in saying, such a one studied in Oxford or Cambridg, we make Oxford or Cambridg all one. The truth is, Ch. Ma. neither intended to make them all one, or different; it being sufficient for his purpose, that the Faith of Protestants, was not a certaine, divine, assent; call it otherwise what you please. You ask; how we can assure you, that our Faith is not our perswasion, or opinion, that our Churches doctrine is true? Or if you grant it your perswasion, why is it not the perswasion of men, and in respect of the subjest of it, an humane perswasion! You desire also to know, what sense there is in pretending that our perswasion is, not inregard of the object only and cause of it, but in nature and essence of it supernaturall?

57. Answer; we belieue with certainty, that the Churches doctrine is true, because such our belief depends vpon infallible and certaine grounds, as hath bene shewed heretofore: and we are certaine that every [Page 931]Act of Faith necessary for salvation, is supernaturall in essence, not by sensible experience, and naturall reason, on which you are still harping, but by infallible principles of Faith; because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is vniversally, and in all occasions, necessary for vs to belieue (as I proved in the Introduction) which demonstrates, that the essence of Faith is supernaturall. Your saying; (that if it be our perswasion, why is it not the perswasion of men, and in respect of the subject of it, an humane perswasion?) deserves no answer. Is not even the Beatificall vision, in men, as in the subject thereof? And yet I hope you will not call it, a meere humane Act, and much less an humane perswasion: besides our Faith being absolutely certaine, cannot be called, only a perswasion.

58. Your (N. 75.) containes nothing which is not answered by former Grounds; and in particular by your owne Doctrine, that every culpable error, against any revealed truth is damnable, yea and repugnant to some fundamentall necessary Article; from whence it must follow, that of two dissenting in revealed Truths, he who culpably erres, sinnes damnably, and cannot be saved, without repentance. Your gloss of S. Chrysostome is plainly against his words; seing he speakes expresly of small errours, which he saieth destroie all Faith; as we haue heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. Chrysostome; Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth, the whole Doctrin, who subverteth it in the least article.

[Page 932]

CHAP: XVI. THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER? That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH.

1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter, with your owne words delivered in the beginning of your answer to the preface of Ch: Ma:, where you say: If beginnings be ominous as they say they are C: Ma: hath cause to looke for great store of vningenuous dealing from you, the very first words you speak of him, vz. (That the first foure Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter, are wholly spent in an vnecessary introduction vnto a truth, which I presume never was, nor will be by any man in his wits, either denied or questioned; and that is; That every man in wisdome and Charity to himself, is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation) being a most vnjust and immodest imputation. For, the first three Paragraphs of Ch: Ma: are employed in delivering such Doctrines, as Divines esteeme necessary to be knowne, and for that cause treate of them at large; and I belieue if the Reader peruse those paragraphs, he will Judge them not vnnecessary; and (which heere is chiefly considered) it is very vntrue, that they are spent to proue; that every man in wisdom, and Charity to himself, is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation, which Ch: Ma: never affirmed, [Page 933]and is in itself euidently false: Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best, and not be content with that which is good; to liue according to the Evangelicall Counsells, and not judg the keeping of the commandements to be sufficiēt for salvation; which were to turne all Counsells (or things not of obligation in themselves) to commands, and could produce only scruples, perplexities, and perhaps might end in despaire. What then did Ch: Ma: teach? He having (N. 3.) declared at large, two kinds of things necessary to salvation, necessitate tantum praecepti, or also necessitate medij, delivers these words (N. 4.) Out of the foresaid difference followeth an other, that (generally speaking) in things necessary, only because they are commanded, it is sufficient for avoiding sinne, that we procede prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed, and approved by men of vertue, learning, and wisdom. Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe, or secure part, as long as the Doctrine which we imbrace, proceeds vpon such reasons, as may warrant it to be truly probable, and prudent, though the contrary part want not also probable grounds. For, in humane affaires and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected. But when we treate not precisely of avoyding sin, but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot be saved; I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morally I am able; and am not to follow every probâble opinion, or dictamen, but tutiorem partem, the safer part, because if my probabilitie proue falc, I shall not probably, but certainly come short of salvation. Nay in such case▪ I shall incurre a new sinne against the vertue of Charity to wards myself, which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition, when it is in his power, with the assisstance of Gods Grace, to make the matter sure. Thus saied Ch: Ma: which may be confirmed out of S. Austine (Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3.) graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus, vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret. He speakes of Baptisme, which the world knowes he held to be necessary to salvation. And what say you now? Is this to say vniversally, that every one is obliged to take the safest way to his salvation? Is it not to say the direct contrary, that not in all kinds of things, one is bound to take the safest parte, as shall be further explicated hereafter.

2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch: Ma: saieth (N. 7.8.9.10, 11.) [Page 934]and he will find you could not answer so briefly, as (N. 3.) you pretend you could doe. For I haue proved that by your owne confession we erre not fundamentally, and you grant that Protestants erre damnably (which we deny of Catholiques) therfore we are more safe thā you, seing both of vs consent, that you erre damnably, and we absolutely denie that we doe so.

3. I was glad to heare you confess perforce (N. 2.) that in the Arguments, which Ch: Ma: delivers (N. 12.) there is something that has some probability to perswade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions, or others to leaue their commumion. For this is to grant, that according to a probable, and consequently a prudent opinion, some Protestants, your pretended Brethren, are Heretiques, and that the rest, sinne grievously, in not forsaking the communion of those other; which, vpon the matter, is to yeald, that all Protestants (vpon one of these two accounts or titles] are in state of damnation; and is not this to contradict the title of your Book? The Protestant Religion a safe way to salvation. But I could not but wonder, how you could induce yourself, to say, so absolutely, To proue Protestants in state of sinne while they remaine separate from the Roman Church there is not one word or syllable (in that N. 12.) seing if they forsake those opinions, eo ipso, they come to agree therein with the Roman Church; and if they persist in their errours, and for that cause, be forsaken by their Brethren, these forsakers in that respect, come to agree with the Roman Church, and divide themselves from those other Protestants. Besides; if once it be granted, that Protestants are obliged to forsake one an other, no man to whom the salvation of his soule is deare, will not spedily returne to that Church, from which all of them departed, whatsoever you may speculate, or fancy to the contrary. As for your instance, that Catholiques differ about the Doctrine of Perdetermination, or absolute Election; it is not to the purpose; seing all Catholiques, profess to hold them no otherwise, than as they may consist with freewill, which those Protestants of whom Ch. Ma. speakes deny, and therefore his Inferences are of force against Protestants, not against Catholiques. There is no doubt, but that the consequences of mens opinions, may, and will, be imputed to them, when they might see them, if it were not for some fault of their owne, as even yourself grant in this place.

4. To your N. 5. (so it should be, but is omitted) It is vanity in you to say, It was needless to proue that due order is to be obserued in any thing [Page 935]much more in Charity, seing all Divines treating of Charity propose this Question: and in particular S. Thomas (2.2. Q. 26. Art: 1.) asks expresly, Vtrum in charitate sit ordo; and for proofe thereof he alledges the same Text (Cant: 1.) which Ch: Ma: alledges, Ordinavit in me Charitatem; and yet, you with your wonted confidence, say; It if stood in need of proofe, I feare this place of the Canticles, would be no enforcing demonstration of it. But Cornelius à Lapide from this place, proves literally and learnedly, that in Charity there is an order to be kept,

5. 2. You say to Ch: Ma:; The reason alleaged by you, why we ought to loue one object more then an other, because one thing participates the Divine Goodness more then an other, is phantasticall, and repugnant to what you say presently after. For by this Rule no man should loue himself more then all the world; Vnless he were first vainely perswaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness then all the world. But the true reason why one thing ought to be loved more then an other is, because one thing is better then another, or because it is better to vs, or because God Commands vs to doe so, or because God himself does so, and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God.

6. Answer: It can be nothing, but excess of pride in you, to call the reason of Ch: Ma: phantasticall, it being nothing different from that which S. Thomas, in the place alledged, assignes, and all his Commentators follow: and which is strang, you yourself giue the same, as we shall see instantly. Your errour arises, from ignorance, of a double Order in Charity, Physicall, and morall. The first, is taken from the perfection of the object in itself; the second, is considered in order to the obligation, which God hath imposed vpon vs to loue things in that manner and order, as he hath appointed: and therfore, although we cannot loue ourselves, more than all the world, by the Physicall order of which we spoke, as if we did conceiue ourselves to be of our owne nature, more perfect than all Creatures; yet we are obliged by the morall order, or obligation, which God hath imposed, to prefer the spirituall good of our owne soule, before the whole world: and so your objection appeares very vaine, and must be answered by yourself, who giue for a reason, because one thing is better than an other; and I beseech you, is it not all one to say; One thing is better than an other; and one thing participates of God more than an other? And then as I sayd, you must answer your owne Objection; that by this rule no man should loue himself more than all the world, vnles he were first vainely perswaded, that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness, then all the world. In your other reason, (because one thing is better [Page 936]to vs, then an other) you forget that we speake of Charity, not of Hope, which respects a thing, as good to vs, and therefore in this reason, you pass from one vertue to an other, and giue a reason nothing to our present purpose. In your last reason (because God himself does so, and we are to conforme our affections to the will of God) you either speak non-sense, or els you say the same which Ch: Ma: saied, and which you were pleased to call a phantasticall reason. For God loves things as they are in themselves, or as one thing is better then an other (which was your other reason, though indeed, not distinct from this, which yet you pretend to be different) or as one thing doth more participate of the Divine Goodness or perfection (which though you call phantasticall, yet it is the same with your owne first reason and with this last) and therefore to conforme our affections to the will of God, is no other reason, than that which you call phantasticall. To these absurdities your pride brings you!

7. 3. You say; It is not true, that all Objects which we belieue, doe equally participate the Divine Testimony or Revelation. But you ought to be ashamed to conceale the immediatly following words of Ch: Ma: which declare the matter most evidently. For (sayth he) For Divine Testimony, or Revelation, we belieue a like all things propounded for such. For it is as impossible for God, to speak an vntruth, in a small, as in a great matter. Is not this true? Is not the contrary, plaine blasphemy?

8. In your (N. 6.) you say 1. It is not true that we are to wish or desire to God a nature infinite, independent, immense: for it is impossible I should desire to any person that which he hath already, if I know he hath it.

9. Answer; Ch: Ma: speakes in the phrase of the holy Scripture, and spirituall men, who, to shew the ardent loue they beare to God, and deepe complacence they take in the Perfections, and Attributes, which they know he enjoyes, declare their affection, by wishing them to him; as hee in the Panegyrick could say to his Emperour, etiam praesens desideraris. Desire in our soule, is like to hunger and thrist in our body; and yet we reade (Eccl. 24.29.) Qui edunt me, adhuc esurient; & qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient. S. Thomas (1.2. Q. 33. art. 2.) proposes this Question; vtrum delectatio causet sui sitim vel desiderium, mark how he declares thirst to signify a desire and (in corp.) answers; si per sitim vel desiderium intelligatur sola intensio affectus tollens fastidium, sic delectationes spirituales maxime faciunt sitim vel desiderium suiipsarum, and adds; cum pervenitur ad consummationem in ipsis. Behold a desire of-things, present and possest! Which he declares [Page 937]by the words which I cited out of (Eccles. 24.) Qui bibunt me adhuc sitient; and proves it; Quia etiam de Angelis qui perfecte Deum cognoscunt, & delectantur in ipso, dicitur (1. Pet. 1.) quòd desiderant in eum conspicere. Vpon which words Cornelius à Lapide saieth devoutely; Angeli in Spiritum Sanctum prospicere desiderant, id est, desideranter & cupidè prospiciunt, desiderando satiantur, & satiando desiderant; and cites to the same purpose these elegant words of S. Gregory (18. Morall. C. 28.) Deum Angeli vident, & videre desiderant, & sitiunt intueri, & intuentur. Ne autem sit in desiderio anxietas, desiderantes satiantur: & ne sit in satietate fastidium desiderant. Et desiderant sine labore, quia desiderium satietas comitatur; & satiantur sine fastidio, quia ipsa satietas ex desiderio semper accenditur. And these other out of venerable Bede: Contemplatio divinae praesentiae ita Angelos beatificat, vt ejus semper visa gloria satientur, & semper ejus dulcedinem quasi novam insatiabiliter esuriant.

10. 2. You say to Ch: Ma: Whereas you say, That in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to preferre the spirituall good of the whole world before his owne soule: in saying this you seeme to me to condemne one of the greatest Acts of Charity, of one of the greatest Saints that ever was, I mean S. Paul, who for his brethren desired to be Anathema from Christ. And as for the Text alledged by you in confirmation of your saying, what doth it availe a man, if he gaine the whole world, and sustaine the dammage of his owne soule? It is nothing to the purpose: For without all Question it is not profitable for a man to do so but the Question is, whether it be not Lawfull for a man to forgoe and part with his owne particular profit, to procure the vniversall, spirituall, and eternall benefit of other?

11. Answer: I must truly affirme, that all the difficulty I can haue in confuting you, is to conjecture, what you would haue, or how to reconcile your Contradictions. Ch: Ma: saied; In things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, to prefer the spirituall good of others, before his owne soule. And is not this evidētly true? Hath not God committed to every man the care of his owne soule, and commanded him not to damne it for all eternity? And haue we not heard you saying, (N. 5.) that the true Reason why one thing ought to be loved more then an other is because God commands vs so do so No man can be damned, or forfeit his salvation, except by sinne; and I hope you will not say, it is lawefull to [Page 938]sinne, which were to say, it were a sinne, and yet were no sinne. Even in this place, to the saying of Ch: Ma: It is directly against Charity to ourselves, to adventure the omitting of any meanes necessary to salvations, you answer; this is true: But so this is also, that it is directly against the same Charity, to adventure the omitting any thing, that may any way help or conduce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure or lesse dangerous. I haue proved aboue, this last part of your saying to be false; but for the present, I say, if to omit any thing necessary to salvation, be against the vertue of Charitie to ourselves, it must be a sinne, and therefore not to be committed in any case, for any respect, of the temporall, or spirituall good of the whole world; and so yourself contradict yourself, and by saying it is against Charity, to omit any thing, that may any way conduce to our salvation, a fortiori you make good the saying of Ch: Ma: that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case to prefer the spirituall good of the whole world before his owne soule. In alledging that Text of S. Paul, you doe as Heretiques are wont to doe, impugning cleare truths, or evident places of Scripture, by some obscure and difficult Text, as this of S. Paul is held by all Interpreters to be. Sure I am, that it can serue your turne, in this sense only, that S. Paul, for the good of others, did hartily, effectually, and all things considered, wish to be deprived of salvation, and separated from Christ, and I am sure, that this cannot be affirmed without blasphemy, seing it must implie, that S. Paul, did effectually desire to commit a deadly sinne, without the committing whereof, he knew very well, he could not de facto, and effectually be separated from Christ, and salvation. Divers expositions of this Text may be seene in Cornelius à Lapide. For the present, it is sufficient to haue proved, that it is very ill applied by you: and (which may seeme strang) though heere you saie the desire of S. Paul was one of the greatest acts of Charity, yet (Pag: 219. N. 49.) you say; On condition the ruptures made by them (Errours) might be composed, I do hartily wish, that the cement were made of my deerest blood, and only not to be an Anathema from Christ. In the same manner is confuted your evasion of the text (Matth 16. V. 26.) seing one cannot loose his soule except by deadly sinne, and our Saviour in that Chapter doth expresly teach vs to carie our cross, least otherwise, we incurre eternall damnation, and I hope you will not deny cut that we are obliged to avoide sinne, and Hell: nor that our Saviour perswaded to that which was both profitable ād best. Indeed your boldness in interpreting Scripture is intollerable. I [Page 939]will end this Number, with observing; First; your little fervour and constancy in your owne Faith; which you express in your next (N. 6.) in these words: Sure I am, for my part, that I haue done my true endeavour to finde it true, (that obedience is due to the Roman Church) and am still willing to doe so. For is it possible that after so many changes, and even after the writing of your Book, you are yet ready to leaue Protestancy? What account ought others to make of your Book, since yourself are so willing to abjure it? Secondly; I must obserue your charity towards vs Catholiques, of whom in the close of this (N. 6.) you say: To, liue and die in it (the Roman Church) is as dangerous as to shoote a gulfe which though some good ignorant soules may doe and escape, yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries. And now who can accuse vs, for want of Charity toward Protestants, since you, a chosen champion for them, are so vncharitable towards vs, yea towards many of the chiefest Protestants, who, as I haue often saied, agree with vs, against their other pretended Brethren?

12. In your (N. 7.) there is no difficulty requiring Answer: yet I will not wholy omit it. I deny, that your ignorance, of being obliged to obey the Roman Church can be probable, as I haue proved heretofore. And besides this, you should consider, that seing evē according to your owne confession, the ministery of the Church, is a necessary condition to beget Faith, and that Faith is ex auditu; the precept of obeying the Church implies a command to obey that Authority, without which (in the ordinary course) we cannot attaine that which is absolutely necessary to salvation, and consequently, the obligation, we haue, to seek, and obey the true Church, is not only because we are commanded to do so, but we are commanded to do so, because it imports a matter necessary for our salvation.

13. You say to Ch: Ma: Wheras you say, that besides these things necessary because commanded, there are other things, which are commanded because necessary: of which number you make Divine infallible Faith, Baptisme in Act for Children, and in desire for those who are come to the vse of Reason and the Sacrament of confession, for those who haue committed mortall sinne: In these words you seeme to me to deliver a strange Pardox viZ. That Faith, and Baptisme and confession are not therefore necessary for vs, because God appointed them, but are therefore appointed by God because they were necessary for vs, antecedently to his appointment; which if it were true, I wonder what it was beside God that made them necessary, and made it necessary for God to command them!

[Page 940]

14. Answer: First; although the words of Ch: Ma: had bene the same, which you set downe, yet your collection from them, is so foolish and false, that the Reader cannot but take it ill, that you should imagine him to be so weake, as not to perceiue it. Suppose, I say, Ch: Ma: had saied as you alledge him, that there are things which are commanded because necessary; doth it follow that they are appointed as necessary by any but by God, who commands them, by appointing them to be necessary? Doth Ch: Ma: saie, as you would haue him? Faith &c. are not therefore necessary for vs, because God appointed thē, but are therfore appointed by God, because they were necessary for vs antecedētly to his appointment? He saith only (even as you cite him) that they were commanded because necessary, not that they were necessary antecedently to his appointment, as you falsify him turning commanded, into appointed, ād making him say absurdly; Other things are appointed (by God) because they were necessary for vs, antecedently to his appointmēt. But your malice, will be yet more patēt by setting downe the very words of Ch: Ma: which are these (N. 3.) Some other things are saied to be necessary to salvation necessitate medij; because they are meanes appointed by God (mark appointed by God, and how then could you say, I wonder what it was beside God that made them necessary?) to attaine our End of eternall salvation, in so strickt a manner, that it were presumption to hope for salvation without them. And as the former meanes are said to be necessary, because they are commanded; so the latter are commonly said to be commanded, because they are necessary; that is; Although there were no other speciall precept (mark speciall precept) concerning them; yet supposing they be once appointed as meanes absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but rise an obligation of procuring to haue them, in vertue of that vniversall precept of Charity, which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his owne soule. These words of Ch: Ma: are so cleare and true, that you may blush, for having endeavoured to put vpon them, any such absurd sense, or paradox, as we haue heard you express. The remainder of this Number about the Faith, and Baptisme of infants, is an Argument not belonging to this place, or Work, and every one may find it treated learnedly, and largely, by Bellarmine, and other Catholique Writers.

15. Your (N. 8.) laies a heauy charge vpon Ch: Ma:, who, you say, delivers this false and wicked Doctrine, that for the procuring our owne salvatiō we are alwaies bound ūder pain of mortall sinne to take the safest way, but for avoiding sinne we are not bound to doe so, but may follow the opinion of any probable [Page 941]doctors, though the cōtrary may be certainly free frō sinne, ād theirs doubtfull.

16. But you plainly falsify the words and meaning of Ch: Ma:, as appeares by what I cited aboue out of his (N. 4.) for he never affirmes, that for the procuring our owne salvatiō we are alwaies bound vnder pain of mortall sinne to take the safest way (which is evidently false, as I shewed aboue) but that for avoiding sinne we are not bound to do so, but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors, though the contrary may be certainly free from sinne, and theirs be doubtfull: Whereas he speakes not of a doubtfull conscience (which to follow, is alwaies a sinne) but of a truly probable, and prudent opinion, which whosoever followes, shall not only probably, but certainly avoide sinne; (as it is not meerely probable, but certaine, that from probable premises, a probable conclusion must follow) and sinne according to the Doctrine of Ch: Ma: is alwaies to be avoided; though no man can deny, but that, to avoide sinne, more certainty must be had in some things, than in other, according to the quality of them; as, for example, one is obliged vnder sinne, to vse greater diligence for attaining the knowledg of fundamentall, than vnfundamentall points of Faith; and in generall no man of discretion can deny that more certainty is to be sought in the choise of the true Faith, and Religion, then in a sute of Law, or deliberation whether some positiue Law oblige or no; or other cases disputable on both sides, and not touchin [...] vpon any thing, absolutely, and indispensably necessary to salvation: and so still it is true, that we must avoide sinne to the vttermost of our power, and this (if we speak of deadly sinne) is absolutely necessary to salvation. You say; Religion is one of those things which is necessary only because it is commanded: For if none were commanded vnder pain of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any? But, by your leaue, in this you shew great ignorance; not distinguishing betwene a command of a thing, which is not appointed by God, as a meanes, absolutely necessary to salvation; and of a thing, which is appointed as simply necessary, as v.g. true Faith, Religion, Repentance of sinnes &c: as, in proportion, you say, that some things are necessary to be believed, because they are revealed; and other revealed, because they are necessary. And if one should object, and say to you, if nothing were revealed, nothing could be necessary to be believed, would you not say he did but cavill? The rest of this Number, tasts of nothing but gall, and bitterness, and is such, as if you were now aliue, you would haue wished vnwritten. Seing our salvation, is either endangered, or secured, according [Page 942]to the proportion, that we are in danger of sinne, or secured from it, with what consequence, can you so hypocrytically talk, of taking alwaies the absolutely safest way, for avoiding all sinne, and yet teach, that men are not alwaies obliged to take the safest meanes for salvation, especially since you also teach, that to avoide sinne to the vttermost of our power is a necessary meanes of salvation? Neither do you consider, that while you pretend to teach, that for avoiding sinne, it is not sufficient to follow a truly probable, and prudent opinion, you do much more confirme, the chiefe Purpose, and Intent of Cha: Ma: which was to proue, that in things absolutely, and indispensably, necessary to salvation, men are obliged to seek and embrace the safer patte; and in the meane tyme, I pray you, see if by your Divinity, you can perswade all litigants to parte with theyr goods (though they prudently and probably Judge they maintayne a just cause) because, forsooth, it is safer to yeald, than overcome, seing it is not impossible but the Adversarie may be in the right. And though, heere you talk magnificently, of the necessity men haue to avoide sinne to the vttermost of their power, as a necessary meanes of salvation, yet (Pag: 19. N. 26.) you were content to say: I am verily perswaded, that God will not impute errours to them as sinnes who vse such a measure of industry in finding truth, as humane prudence, and ordinary discretion (their abilities and oportunities, their distractions and hinderances, and all other things considered) shall advise them, in a matter of such consequence. Lastly; who will not wonder, to see you so much depress Probability, in morall cases, seing you teach, that even Christian Faith, vpon which salvation depends, doth not excede Probability?

17. Your (N. 9.10.11.12.13.14.15.) are answered out of grounds laied heretofore: And in particular that Cha: Ma: (N. 5.) saied very truly, that seing all Protestants pretend the like certainty, and goe vpon the same grounds, and haue the same Rules for interpreting Scripture, and yet cannot agree, it is a signe, that their very Rules, and grounds, are vncertaine, and insufficient to settle an Act of Faith; as I declared aboue; and if this could truly be saied of Protestants, and Papists; of all Christians; of all Religions; of all Reason; it is cleare, that they could not truly pretend to any certainty. But, God be ever blessed for it, we Catholiques haue Rules, and an infallible Authority, the Church, most able to erect, a certaine, infallible belief. With what conscience can you say, that Arcudius acknowledges, that the Eucharist [Page 943]was in Cyprians time given to infants, and esteemed necessary, or at least profitable for them? For this disjunctiue, (necessary, or at least profitable) may signifie, that Arcudius doubts whether it were not esteemed necessary, which never came to his thoughts. Yea he proves expresly and largelie that it is not necessary. We grant, that it might be profitable to infants, by producing Grace in their soules, but, it being not necessary, the Church for just causes, may think fitt, not to administer it to them. Your talking of an humane Law, obliging men to confess their secret sinnes, and even sinfull thoughts, will. I belieue rather cause laughter, than any belief, that such a Law could oblige; and therfore seing you do not denie, but that the Protestant Centurie Writers, alledged by Cha: Ma: (N. 5.) acknowledg, that in the tymes of Cyprian, and Tertullian, priuate confession even of Thought was vsed, and commanded, and thought necessary, we must infer, that it was held necessary, as commanded by God; yea, seing you say, it might be then commanded, and being commanded be thought necessary, shewes that you dare not deny, but that private, or auricular Confession, was vsed, as a thing commanded, even in those primitiue Ages. You know the story of the Protestants in Germanie, who finding by experience, the huge inconveniences, that accompanied the want of Confession, supplicated the Emperour, that he would command it by some Law; but were deservedly rejected with scorne, as if men would think themselves obliged to obey his Law, who had rejected the Law of God, in that matter. To all which if we add, that you belieue not, that true Priests haue power to absolue from sinne; and if they had, yet Protestants not being true Priests, what Law of man, can be of force, to oblige men to confess even their thoughts?

18. Your (N. 16.17.18.) touch only, vpon what hath bene handled in other places, and need no Answer heere. How litle hope of salvation Protestants can conceyue from the Doctrine of Cha: Ma: and how impossible it is for them to repent, and not relinquish their errours, hath bene shewed at large heretofore

19. Though your (N. 19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.) containe no new difficulty, yet I answer them briefly by these considerations; that S. Austine, and other Catholiques, never granted that the Donatists had true Divine Faith, but only, that they believing divers, or most, of the Truths, which Catholiques believed, had the same Faith or Belief materially; as the Jewes belieue many Truths, [Page 944]contayned in the Old Testament, which Christians belieue, and yet cannot be saied to haue true supernaturall saving Faith; that you are very ignorant of Catholique Divinity, if you conceiue (as by your words it seems you do) that we hold an Hereticall, or Schismaticall Bishop, not to administer validè (though illicitè) such Sacraments as depend only vpon Potestas Ordinis; and therefore you say vainely to Char: Ma: Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church, Eris mihi magnus Apollo; That Dr: Potter citing the doctrine, or saying of the Donatists, in a different letter, ought not to haue saied more, than the words of S. Austine in the margent (vpon which the Doctor grounds himself) did express, which was only Baptisme, not salvation, whatsoever otherwise the Donatists held, against the salvation of Catholiques: That Dr: Potters words, that Protestants cut vs not of from the hope of salvation, and therefore are excused from Schisme, haue beene considered heretofore, and your defense of them confuted: That whosoever reads the (N. 8. and 9.) of Cha: Ma: will finde, that your answer is in no wise satisfactorie, consisting meerely of Points, which you know we deny, our Argument being grounded vpon the Confession of the most, and best learned Protestants, who deny not salvation to vs, which we cannot yeald to them; and so in the judgement of both parts, we are safe, but you are not: That the Act of Rebaptization was sacrilegious, and the error that it was lawfull, an Heresie, after the matter was declared by the Church: And concerning S. Cyprian; see what hath bene saied heretofore, and also by Cha: Ma: (Part: 2. Chap 4. N. 4.) which you were willing to conceale. In your (N. 27.) you say, (as S. Austine saies, that Catholiques approue the Doctrine of Donatists, but abhorre their Heresy of Rebaptization, &c:) But you should say (in stead, of Doctrine) Baptisme, as Cha: Ma: hath it. For how can S. Austine approue the Doctrine of Donatists, and yet hold that they taught an Heresy, of Rebaptization?

20. In your (N. 29.) you say to Cha: Ma: I conceiue, you were led into errour;, by m [...]aking a supposition of a confession, for a confession; a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors, for a positiue assertion. He saies indeed of your errors, Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess, ye [...] for vs to profess what we belieue not, were without question damnable. But to say, though your errors be not damnable, we may not profess them, is not to say, your errors are not damnable, but only though they be not. As if you should say, though the Church erre in points not fundamentall, yet you may not [Page 945]separate from it: Or, though we do erre [...]in believing Christ really present, yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry: or, as if a Protestant should say, Though you do not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host, yet being vncertaine of the Priests intention to consecrate, at least you expose yourself to the danger of it: I presume you would not think it fairely done, if any man should interpret either this last speach as an acknowledgment, that you do not commit idolatry, or the former as confessions, that you doe erre in points not fundamentall, that you do erre in believing the reall presence. And therefore you ought not so to haue mistaken D. Potters words, as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not dānable, when he saies no more but this, Though they be so, or, suppose or put the case they be so, yet being errors, we that know thē may not profess the to be divine truths.

21. Answer: is It possible that a man should speak so correctingly, ād magisterially as you doe in this place, ād yet be so palpably mistakē, as you are? you say Dr. Potter saies of our errors, Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess, yet for vs to profess &c. (vpon which words you ground your whole discourse) and yet both you, and the Doctor, disclaime from these words (though of themselves they be not damnable) and put them among the errata of the Printer in both your Books, to be corrected thus; though in the issue they be not damnable; so as you obtrude to vs the fault of the Print, for the words of Dr. Potter, and will needs haue Ch: Ma: partaker of your gross mistake, in a point vpon which you say a great part of his Book is grounded. Now, then the print being corrected, in this manner, (though in the issue they be not damnable to them which belieue as they profess) I beseech you, doth not (though) signifie that indeed they are not damnable to them, which belieue as they profess? And is not this the constant doctrine of Dr. Potter and yourself, that Catholiques who in simplicity of hart belieue as they profess, may be saved? And therefore your owne correction, and this very place of the Doctor so corrected, returnes vpon yourself, and proves that he spoke not as vpon a supposition of a confession, but vpon a confession, concession, and positiue assertion, and that you should haue vnderstood it so, though it had bene as He and you cite it (though of themselves they be not damnable.) And who is ignorant, That the word (though) joynd with a verb of the present tense implies a thing existent in truth; and if you will express only a supposition, you must vse an other Tense, and say, though your errors were not damnable in themselves, yet &c:, or though your errors were supposed not to be damnable &c: and your declaring (Though they be so) by (suppose, or put the case they be so) is against the common sense, of all [Page 946]that vnderstand English. Neither will any Catholique say; though the Church erre in points not fundamentall, yet you may not separate from her: but, though the Church did erre in points not fundamentall, or suppose the Church did erre in such points, yet you may not separate from her. For betwene the Present, and Preter-imperfect-tense, in our case there is as great difference, as betwene a positiue Affirmation, and a meere suppositiō, which as Phiosophers speak nihil ponit in esse. The like I say of your other exāple, though we do erre in believing Christ really present yet that whosoever did speak in that manner, could not be excused from denying the reast presence; and the same is evident in your other examples, which therefore still returne against yourself. If one should say; though Christian Religion be superstitious and fals, yet many Christian men lead a morall life, would any Christian take such a speach, in any other sense, than that Christian Religion is fals? Or if one should say; Though Mr. Chilling worth deny the blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of the Sonne of God, originall sinne, &c: yet he pretends to be a Protestant, and to defend their cause against Ch: Ma:; who would not vnderstand that speach, as an assertion, and not only as a Supposition, that you deny the Trinity? Or if one should say to an other; though thou be a knaue, and my enemy, yet I will pray for the; were this a meere supposition? And heere it may seeme some what strange, that the Doctor both in the first and second Edition of his Book, should haue (though of themselves they be not damnable) and you also in your first Edition (for I haue not the second, and therfore cannot examine it) should haue the same (yea and ground your discourse against Ch: Ma: vpon it) and yet in the correction of the Errata, both of you haue (in the issue:) neither can I see any reason hereof, except, because, that strength of truth, and coherence with some Principles of Protestants, made you say, that our errours are not damnable of themselves, and yet vpon further advise, finding this confession also, disadvantagious, you though best to turne (of themselves) into (in the issue:) But the truth is, that in these matters of damnable, fundamentall, not fundamentall errours; of the infallibility of the vniversall Church; of the nature of Heresie, and the like; Protestants haue no settled grounds, but must say, and vnsay, as they are prest by different, or contrary occasions, (as hath bene noted els where) and therefore it imports litle, what you cite out of Potter against vs, seing that can only shew, that he is forced to contradict himself, as also other Protestants are. Now how full [Page 947]the Doctor, yourself, and other chiefest Protestants are in favour of vs, and our salvation, hath bene proved heretofore, at large, out of their owne words.

22. Your (N. 30.31.32.33.34.) doe only demonstrate, that you vndertake to declare the Doctine of Protestants (about good works, repentance, justification &c:) without any commission from them; which you could not but see, and therfore are forced (N. 33.) to say: If this doctrine (about justification by Faith onlie) be otherwise expounded then I haue here expounded, I will not vnder take the justificatiō of it. And therefore you had no reason to affirme, that C: Ma: spoke without sense in saying that according to the rigid Calvinists, Faith is either so strong, that once had, it can never be lost; or so more then weake, and so much nothing, that it can never be gotten. For seing, that Faith which Calvinists hold to be justifying, can never be lost, if once it be gotten, this Disjunctiue must needs be evidently true, either it cannot be gotten, or if it be gotten, it cannot be lost. That which you vntimely talk heere, of the subject wherein God hath placed the Authority of defining matters of Faith, hath bene answered already, as much as this Work can permit, without descending to particular Controversies against the purpose, and Intention of Cha: Ma: who yet (Part: 2. Chap: 5. N. 15.16.21.) answers all the particular Authorities of Catholiques, which Potter objects about this matter, and shewes his ill dealing in alledging them. But this is not the first tyme, that you dissemble, what Cha: Ma: delivers in his second Part, though yet you make vse of it, when it may serue your turne, which certainlie is no just kind of proceding. But to returne to your defense of other chiefe Protestants; whereas Cha: Ma: saied heere (N. 12. out of his Chap: 3. N. 19.) that justification by Faith alone is by some Protestants avouched to be the soule of the Church, the principall Origin of salvation; of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest; yet you say heere (N. 32.) For my part. I doe hartly wish, that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should euer preach or print this Dostrine that Faith alone justifies, vnless he joynes these together with it, that vniversall obedience is necessary to salvatiō (if the Commandments cannot be kept, how can the observation of them, or vniversall obedience, be taught as necessary to salvation?) And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by Faith, without the works of the Law (mark heere how impertinently Protestants apply the Authority of S. Paul against justification by works, seing Mr. Chillingworth declares that he speaks of the works of [Page 948]the law) were never read in the Church, but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist. to the Corinth: concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision, read together with them. So diffidēt are you of this soule of the Church, this principall origen of salvation of Protestants! Your last lines are so obscure, and confused, that after consideration by myself, ād with others, I can drawe from them nothing, but non-sense; and for such I must leaue them. Concerning our greater safety I haue touched in the Preface to the Reader, some Points, taken from your express doctrine, and words which heere I judge needles to repeete.

23. For Conclusion of my Book, I disposed myself to giue a particular Answer to the conclusion of yours (wherein you are not ashamed to say, that you are well assured that Ch. Ma. had in his hands your Book twelue-months before it was published, which vpon my certaine knowledg is must vntrue.) But vpon carefull examination thereof, I finde that labour to be needless. You would make the Reader belieue that Ch: Ma: omitted to answer some materiall points of Dr. Potters Book; and, that you had observed all the Directions which were given in that litle Treatise, intituled: A Direction be to observed by N. N. If he meane to proceede in answering the Book intituled Mercy and Truth, or Charity Maintayned by Catholiques &c: But both these affirmations, are fully and truly answered, by an absolute deniall, that either of them is true, as any man will judge, who shall consider the Answer of Cha: Ma: to Dr. Potter, and this my answer to you. And as for the latter in particular; How can it be denied, that you procede in a destructiue way (which in that Direction you were warned to avoide) who deny Christian Religion to be infallibly true? And how can Christian Faith be supernaturall, if it be only a probable Conclusion, evidently deduced from evident probable Premises? And I wonder with what face you can say heere § And lastly: that thefe archer of all hearts knowes, that you had no other end in writing this Book, but to confirm the truth of the divine and infallible Religion of our dearest lord and Saviour Christ Iesus, seing you haue endeavoured nothing more, through your whole Book, than to proue that Christian Religion is not infallible? That you haue contradicted Dr. Potter, hath bene shewed heretofore in severall occasions: And the same, (I meane, that you haue not observed those Directions) might be demonstrated, in everie particular, if it were worth the labour; but for that Direction, which was, (not to contradict yourself) you haue trangressed it so notoriously, as I should never haue believed, if my owne experience [Page 949]had not convinced me thereof; which made it, as hard to giue an answer to your Book, as it is to make on coate fitting the moone in all its changes (which is your owne similitude) which I confess was one of the greatest difficultyes in answering; to find you so various, obscure, contrary, and contradicting yourself (accordingly as you were prest with different Arguments) that I could not but often say with much Truth.

Quis teneat vultus mutantem Protea Nodus?

FINIS.

[Page]

INDEX.

In which Pr. signifieth the Preface: I. the Introduction: C. the Chapter: N. the Number: P. the Page.

A.

Absolution validly given by an Heretique, if he be a true Priest, and hath intention to administer the Sacrament. C. 4. N. 42. P. 377. 578.

Absurdityes in Catholique Faith falsely supposed by Chil: c. 1. n. 76. p. 90. but proved by his owne tenets to be truly in his Faith. N. 77. and p. 97. n. 84 & seq:

Accidents dispose to effects more noble then themselves: yea held by many to be reall [...]uses of substances. c 1. n 79. 80. p 94. 95.

Acts proper to necessary Powers must needs be produced, if the meanes to worke be compleate: but free Powers may with compleate meanes suspend the act. c 11. n 65. p 694. & seq. The essence of acts ignorantly discoursed of by Chil: c 12. n 21. p 721. & seq.

Advertisements for whomsoever shall vndertake to answere this Booke not to follow Chil: his stepps in commencing new controversies. Pr. n. 5. 6. p. 2. 3.

If the Apostles could erre in any poynt of Religion they can be certainly believed in none c. 2. n. 95. p. 200. c. 12. n. 47. p. 742. & alibi. Out Saviours Words to them as private persons, and as representing the Church mus [...] be differently vnderstood. c. 12. n. 80. p. 767. and seq: Their authority must be believed before we can belieue what they spake or wrote c. 3. n. 22. p. 294. n. 31. p. 300. & passim. Apostles for the essentiall are and alwayes must be in the Church c. 12. n. 99. p. 782. All the Apostles commanded to preach, none to write. c. 2. n. 25. p. 131. The Apostles being the salt of the earth atheistically explicated by Chil: c. 12. n. 91. p. 777.

Apprehension taken for the first operation of the vnderstanding agrees not to Faith, which is an assent, or judgment: taken in generall, as knowledge often is, it agrees to Faith as knowledge doth. c. 15. n. 4. p. 886, 887.

How argumēts of credibility may be elevated to produce certainty, and in what sense they are the word ād voyce of God. c. 1. n. 79.80. p. 95.96.

Attrition without absolution insufficient for salvation. VVhat conditions it must haue to obtaine absolution, c. 8. n. 3. p. 597. & seq.

S. Austin rejected and alleadged by Chil: for the selfe same poynt: and shewed to be adversary to Chil: c. 2. n. 193. p. 265. and seq. His advise for the vnderstanding of Scripture. n. 201. p. 269. his sense of Tradition and of the practice of the Church n. 209. p. 274. c. 11. n. 26. p. 667. and seq. VVhy he is an eyesoare to the Socinians. c. 7. n. 123. p. 544. He is defended against Chil: his forgery. c. 12. n. 57. p. 749. and seq: c. 2. n. 207. p. 273. & alibi saepius.

B.

Baptisme acknowledged by Protestants ne [...]essary, and as required by Scripture and Antiquity, c. 4. n. 60. p. 389. and seq: It is to be given to children by the authority and practice of the Church ibidem. p. 389. and seq: The difference and absurdityes amongst Protestants concerning Baptisme. c. 2. n. 39. p. 146. & seq: It is validly administred by Iewe or Gentill, if they intend to doe what Christians doe. c. 4. n. 42. p. 377. 378. Baptisme in tho Doctrine of divers Protestants pardons all sinnes past, present, and to come c. 2. n. 85. p. 187.

Beatificall vision, if Faith be naturall, and only probable, is also naturall, and may be a [Page 2]meere fiction. c. 1. n. 113. p. 118. 119.

To belieue only that Iesus is the sonne of God is acknowledged even by heretiques insufficient for salvation. c. 2. n. 169. p. 245. 246. VVho believes not one poynt sufficiently propounded can haue no supernaturall Faith about any other c. 11. n. 13. p. 658. c. 15. n. 43. p. 922. and seq: This proved by Heretiques and Catholiques, ibidem. Not to belieue any revealed truth sufficiently propounded is a mortall sinne n. 49. p. 927. I believe not the speaker, whē I only assēt for the reason he gives, or for some other authority cited by him c. 12. n. 49. p. 744. & alibi.

Bellarmine viudicated from Chil: his cavills c. 2. n. 98. p. 201. and seq:

VVhat Byshop or Episcopus signifyes cannot evidently be knowne by Scripture alone. c. 2. n. 11. p. 126. That Byshops in the Church are not juris divini is an heresy c. 5. n. 4. p. 429. & seq: Doctor Andrewe [...] his contradictiō in this poynt ibidem. Bishops haue no succession in England ibidem

Bookes published to forwarne Chil: to cleare himselfe of his vnchristiā doctrines, which he would never be induced to doe pr. n. 4. p. 2.

C

Caiphas in Chillingworthes doctrine spoke truth when he wickedly sayd that our Saviour blasphemed c. 11. n. 38. p. 675.

Canon of Scripture cleered from Chill: his malicious imputation c. 11. n. 22. (it should be 21.) p. 663. & seq:

The Canonicalness of the bookes of Scripture is to be taken from the declaration of the Church c. 11. n. 6. 7 p. 653. (falsly put 953) & passim alibi: every Canonicall writer wrote all that was necessary for the end inspired him by the holy Ghost, not all that was necessary for salvation, or for the Church to belieue c. 2. n. 136 p. 223 & seq: ac alibi.

Causabons miserable end c. 6 n. 9 p. 444

Catholiques by the confession of Protestants may be saved c. 2 n. 83 p. 185 c. 7 n. 145 p. 563 & seq: ac alibi.

No visible Church but the Catholique Romane out of which Luther departed c. 7 n. [...]1 p. 522

Reasons why the Catholique Church is not to be forsaken, n. 124 p. 545. 546 If she could erre, her errours were rather to be professed, then her Communion forsaken n. 132 p. 551 & deinceps.

Catholiques judge charitably that Protestancy vnrepented destroyes salvation: ād Piotestāts, if they hold their Religion true, should judge the like of Catholiques c. 9 n. 2 p 624 Catholiques guided by the infallibility of the Church cannot be prejudiced by translations of Scripture, nor feare corruptions. c. 11 n. 16 p. 659

The Catholique Church an easy way to find Christs doctrine. c. 3 n. 89 p. 348 She is infallible, or all Christianity a fiction. c. 4 n. 1 p. 352

Not Catholiques, but Lutherās exposed to idolatry c. 4 n. 65 p. 393. Catholiques freed by Protestants from that imputation Ib. p 395

Catholiques prooue their Faith without a circle. Toto c. 5 but Sectaryes cannot. Ibid: And particularly n. 14 15 p. 437 438 Also c. 2 n. 55 p. 158

Catholiques falsly charged by Chill: that they hold Faith to haue no degrees of perfection. c. 1 n. 43 44 p. 68 69

Catholique writers falsly cited by Potter as holding that Catholiques and Protestants doe not differ in the essence of Religion. c. 7 n. 148 p. 567

Catholiques, though falsly suposed to err, their errour must be invincible c. 7 n. 158 p. 578 & seq:

Causes by divine power may be elevated to produce effects nobler then themselves, as also by concauses c. 1 n. 79 p. 94

Certainty in the vnder [...]anding forces not the will c. 1 n. 62 p. 80 & seq:

Ceremonies, vide Rites.

Charity Maintayned alledged and impugned by Chil: either with falsification, or ommitting his arguments, or with some other fraud, is often shewed through this whole Booke. His Booke is not answeared by Chil: but new heresies broached, and old fetched from Hell to overthrow all Christianity. Pr: n. 3 p. 1. 2

Charity highly broaken by Protestants in judginge Catholiques vncharitable c. 9 n. 7 p. 628 It is ordered either according to the Phisic all perfection of the things loved or the [Page 3]morall obligation of loving, imposed by God c. 16 n. 6 p. 935 936

Chillingworths Tenets and consequences.

He holds that Faith is only a probable rationall assent I. n. 16 p. 11 & seq: and c. 10 n. 13 p. 640 641 That to hold Christian faith infallible is presumptuous, vncharitable, erroneous doctrine, of dangerous and pernicious consequence c. 1 n. 1 p. 37 And that it excludes all progress in charity n. 71 p. 86 That Faith may stand with Heresie I. n. 51 p. 35 He rejects grace with Pelagius, and free-will with Calvin c. 1 n. 65 p. 82 & seq: Many hideous Tenets of his concerninge Faith discovered in all the first Chap: He holds that Charity may stand with deadly sinne I. n. [...]1 p. 35 c 15 n. 45 p. 925 That the contents of Scripture are not more certaine then humane Histories I. n. 18 p. 13 14 That we are not bound to belieue Scripture to be of Divine authority c. 2 n. 58 p. 159 & alibi. And it is evident in his grounds that God is no more to be believed then man, if God give no better reason for what he sayes, then man doth c. 1 n. 101 p. 108 That it is no matter if controversies concerning truths only profitable be continued and increased c. 2 n. 78 p. 182 That Scripture is no materiall object of Taith, and that there is no obligation to beleeue it c. 3 n. 4 p. 281 and in other numb: before and after. Also c. 13 n. 39 p 818 That the Apostles after the cominge of the Holy Ghost erred in a point clearly revealed c. 7 n. 24 p. 472. 473 c. 3 n. 28 p. 298 He brings all Christian Faith to a humane invention c. 3 n. 83 p. 344 & seq: He puts such a contrition for salvation, which a sinner cannot possbly haue at the hower of death c. 4 n. 50 p. 384 That all Scripture is not divinely inspired c. 12 n. 38 p. 735 That our Saviours promise that the Holy Ghost should remaine with the Apostles was not for their successo [...]s but only for the terme of their lives: nor that but conditionally c. 12 n. 83 p. 771 He revives VViclifs Heresie n. 85 p. 774. That contradictoryes may both be true, with many horrid impietyes which strike at the roote of Christian Religion c. 13 n. 20 p. 802 & seq: His insolent treatie of S. Tho: of Aqui: c. 15 n. 45 46 47 p. 925 926 His little considence in his owne Religion c. 16 n. 11 p. 939 His absurdity in contending that it is all one to say: Though such a thing be so: and though it were so. n. 21 p. 945 946 His impudent callinge God to witnesse of his sincerity in writing his Booke, to confirme the infallible Religion of our Saviour, which he strives in his whole Booke to prooue fallible c. 16 n. 23 p. 948

Many other of his pernitious Tenets appeare in this whole Booke, and his errours against Scripture, toto c. 3. His contradictions are so frequently shewed, that no particular place needs be cited. The like is of his continuall begging the question or asking impertinently, in place of proofe why may not such athing be; with out any proofe.

Church.

To follow the Church, is to follow Scripture, which recommends the Church vnto vs c. 2 n. 201 p. 270 To her recourse must be had not to be deceaved in interpreting Scripture Ibid: Her vniversall practice is to be held an Apostolicall Tradition Ibid: Many things are to be done for her authority without expresse Scripture n. 209 p. 274 She ceases not to be a Church for sinnes of Manners, but of Faith c. 7 n. 85 p. 517 & seq:

Vnity necessary to be members of one Church, must be in all points sufficiētly proposed, sundamentall, or not fundamentall n. 74 p. 505 & seq: And in externall Communion Ibid: which in divine service is vnlawfull with those of a different Faith n. 82 p. 511 It is all one to leaue the Church and to Ieaue her externall Communion: nor can any separate from her and remaine a part of her n. 73 p. 503 & sequen: He not only separates from the Church, who separates from her externall Communion, but alsomorally from himselfe n. 110 p. 532 & seq: No Church, no Schisme n. 93.94 p. 523

If the Church be infallible in fundamentalls, she must also be so in vnfundamentalls. n. 126 p. 547 548 He can be no member of the Church who disbeleeves any poynt sufficiently proposed as revealed by God c. 10 n. 5 p. 635 Nor can the Church remaine a Church with any such errour n. 6 p. 635 & seq: She beinge infallible it is damnable to oppose her n. 9 p. 637 638 She determines controversies as emergent occasions require: [Page 4]and is for them eudued with infallibility n. 11 p. 639 640 Her fallibility for one age discredits her for all c. 11 n. 26 p. 667

The true Church easy to be found, by her notes in every age n. 31 p. 670 & seq: Many disparityes between the Church and the Synagogue n. 38 p. 674 The Church having approved Scripture for Canonicall proves out of it particular truths concerning her selfe n. 67 p. 697 In what sense she is an infallible keeper of Scripture c. 3 n. 52 p. 320 & seq: She never questioned, or rejected any thing of Scripture which the had once defined for Canonicall n. 54 p. 322 The true Church wanted not evident notes and proofes before Scripture was c. 4 n. 24 p. 365 & toto c. 5 She is viâ ordinariâ the meanes for matter of Religion c. 4 n. 67 p. 396 & seq: The Church was before Scripture Ibid: & passim alibi. She was never devested of infallibility c. 4 n. 72 p. 399 & sequen: She cannot perish nor be invisible, nor deceaved in points belonging to Salvation. She is the ordinary meanes to teach, and therefore to be sought n. 79. p. 403 & sequen: Infallibility granted her, for all points belonging to Religion; but nor for curiosityes n. 95 p. 418 & sequen: She vsed disputations and discourse for her definitions n. 99 p. 424 42 [...] She essentially requires vnity in Faith and in in the externall worship of God. Divivision from her in Faith is heresie; in externall communion is Schisme c. 7 n. 2. 3 p. 458 459 460 If she be not infallible but falls into errour all must shun her communion n. 22 p. 471 472 She is indued by Christ with all requisits for the whole mysticall body, for every degree, for every particular person c. 2 n. 2 p. 122 & seq: She is recommended by him for the interpretation of Scripture, and who refuses it, resists him, n. 28 p. 124 She must haue infallible meanes to declare with certainty, things though only profitable, n. 73 p. 176 & seq: It would be damnable in her to neglect truths only profitable, n. 77 p. 181 If she should out of negligence mistake or be ignorant, her errour would be damnable, c. 14 n. 17 p. 724 & seq: She is extensiuè of equall infallibility with the Apostles, but not intensiuè. i.e. in the manner, num; 35 p. 731 & seq: If her authority be c [...]taine for Scripture, it must be the like for whatsoevet she proposes, n. 52 p. 746 She being once prooved to be infallible, may giue irrefragable testimony of her owne infallibility, n. 107 p. 787

How the Church is alwayes visible, c. 14 n. 4 p. 848. 849 VVhat right and power she had, and for many ages had bene peaceable possessed of at Luthers cominge, n. 48 p. 880.

The commandements may be kept with the grace of God, but not without it, J. n. 26. p. 20. 2.

No communion in Divine service can be lawfull with those of a different Faith, c. 7 n. 82 p. 511 VVho leaves to communicate in what all agree, leaves the communion of all. And in what all, otherwise devided, doe agree must be true, n. 118 p. 538. 539. Communion of Protestants is composed of contradictory members, and consistent with all sorts of Heretiques, n. 67 p. 501 & sequen:

In what sense a Community can oblige it selfe, c. 11. n. 47 p. 680

Private Confession averred by Protestants to be necessary, and that otherwise Christ had given the power of the eyes in vaine, c. 2 n. 17 p. 128 It is a Divine precept, c. 16 n. 17 p. 943

Consequences, probably only deduced out of points of Faith are not points of Faith, c 10 n. 21 p. 646

Contradictoryes not vnderstood to be such, may be be beleeved, c. 1. n. 54. p. 76. Concerning centradictoryes, Chill: Doct [...]ine is discussed, disproved, and the bad consequences of it shewed, c. 13. n. 20. p. 802. & sequentibus.

The Councell of Trent sufficient to convince the truth of Catholique Religion, J. n. 10. p. 7. Generall councells if not infallible cannot end controversies of Faith, c. 2. n. 45. p. 483. The Doctrine of Lawd concerning Generall Councells and sequels drawne from it in favour of Catholiques, c. 7. n 40. p. 481. & sequen: Also from the Doctrine of Chil: and Potter concerning the same, n. 160. P. 579, & sequen: ād n 48 p. 48 [...].

[Page 5]

Of the Creed through all the c. 13. It is averred by Chil. to be receaved by vniversall tradition, independent of Scripture, and that the principles of Faith may be knowne by it independent also of Scripture, and yet teaches that only Scripture is receaved by vniversall Tradition, and that it is necessary to know the principles of Faith. c. 13. n. 5. p. 791. Proved that it cannot be a sufficient Rule of Faith, seeinge Potter graunts it needs a new declaration for emergent heresies, n. 6. p. 792.

D

Doctrine may be taught effectually, and yet resistibly, c. 12. n. 79. p. 766.

The Donatists had a Bishop at Rome to seeme true Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome, c. 15, n. 11. p. 894 Their hatted to Catholiques imitated by Protestants, n. 12. p. 895. They were justly sayd to be confind to Africa, having no where else any considerable number, n. 36. (it should haue been 35.) p. 916. (which is put, 816.) They had no Divine Faith, c. 16. n. 19. p. 943. 944. Their heresy of rebaptization, Ibid:

A doubt properly taken destroyes probability, c. 1. n. 53. p. 75. 76. Reflected vpon and embraced it is not vnvoluntary, n. 54. p. 76. Apprchended but rejected is no voluntary doubt, Ibid:

E

Errours in themselves not damnable cannot be damnable to be held, c. 14. n. 44. p. 877. 878.

The Evangelists did not themselves put the Titles of their Gospells, c. 2. n. 158. p. 235. Evangelists alwayes in the Church, c. 12. n. 100. p. 783.

Eucharist altered in matter and forme by heretiques, c. 2. n. 40. p. 147. 148. Never held necessary by the Church to be given to Infants, n. 207. p. 273. If in the Eucharist Christ be present, Protestants expose thē selves more to sinne, then Catholiques, if he be not present, c. 4. n. 65. p. 394. 395.

Evidence of things contained in Scripture, diversly vnderstood, e. 2. n. 6. p. 123. & seq: In what sense Catholiques may affirme that all things necessary for the church are evidently contayned in Scripture, n. 9. p. 125. Evidence to Sectaryes is what they fancye, c. 7. n. 56. p. 491.

Of Evils the lesser may, and must be to llerated for avoiding greater, c. 12. n. 57. p. 751. And n. 59. p. 753. Uide Perplexity.

Excommunicaton doth not first separate a Schismatique from the church, but presupposes his owne voluntary▪separation; which also may remaine a though the excommunication were taken of, c. 7. n. 64. p. 499. & deinceps. Chilling: must separate from the church of England which exeommunicates whosoever affirmes that the 39. Articles, containe superst [...]ō or errour, n. 66. p. 501. The difference betwixt excommunication and Schisme n. 64. p. 499. and n, 104. p. 529.

F

Faith of Christians proved infallible, c. 1. per totum. VVithout a circle, c. 5. per tonum. Infallible Faith strictly commanded as the first stepp to all merit, c. 1. n. 95. p. 103 The infallibility of it is taught by the light of reason, and instinct of nature, as that there is a God, n. 2. 3. 4. p. 38. 39. Acknowledged by Protestants, n. 5. p. 39. & sequent: It is proved by Scripture, by Fathers; by reason, n. 9. p. 30. & sequen: It is required for acts of supernaturall vertues, and consequently it selfe is supernaturall, n. 98. p. 105. It takes its essence from Diuine Revelation c. 12. n. 20 (it is put 14) p. 720. It is of its essence indivisible, but divisible in intension c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 & seq: It is an intellectuall vertue repugnant to errour n. 28 p. 59 It determines to truth, and corrects reason, c. 1. n. 29 p. 60 Compared with naturall science an act of Faith is most certaine: but the acts of Faith compared amongst themselves may exceed one another in graduall perfection c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 & seq: Supernaturall Faith may be without Charity, but cannot [Page 6]overcome the world without it n. 61 p. 80 Nor is it an efficient cause of the habit of Charity n. 67 p. 83 84 The certainty of it takes not away free will n. 62 p. 81 & seq: The infallibility of Faith is only requisit for the generall grounds [...] for the particular applicatiō or matter of fact a morall certainty suffices: c. 4 n. 11 p. 357 & seq: and n. 30 p. 376 377 what is necessary for the e [...]ercising a true act of Faith n. 13 p. 359

Heretiques opposit doctrines about Faith c. 1 n. 1 p. 38 Potter and Chil: directly opposit about the infallibility of it n. 6 p. 40 The Faith of Chil: and the sequels of it in his owne grounds paraleld with the Catholique, and convinced to be most preiudiciall to salvation n 75 p. 88 89 90

Fallibility of Christian Faith is scandalous to Iewes, Turks and Painims n. 1 p. 37 It brings to Athisme Ib: and n. 100 p. 107 casts into agonyes and perplexityes. Those that hold it dare not declare themselves Ib: Chil: would seeme to admitt of infallibility n. 39 p. 66 67 and supernaturality n. 93 p. 103 His examples to shew that fallible Faith is sufficiēt for salvation, are examined and convinced to proue the contrary A nu: 102 p. 109 ad finem capit. Fallible Faith is alwayes ready to destroy it selfe n. 105 p. 111 112 It was cause of Chil: so often changes; Ibid: He acknowledges that in such a Faith nothing cā be settled n. 22 p. 54 55 He obliges to vnsetlednes n. 25 p. 57 and professed himselfe was so n. 24 p. 56 This kind of Faith brings liberty of life n. 26 p. 58 destroyes Christian beleefe in all points n. 8 p. 41 (fall [...]y put 45) is a certaine way to perditiō n. 106 p. 113 & seq: and with its fallibility infallibly damnes n. 31 p. 63

Faith of Sectaryes runns in a circle c. 5 n. 14.15 p. 437 438

Faith of Miracles mistaken by Chill: for saving Faith c. 1 n. 48 p. 72 and n. 96 p. 104 105

Free-will accorded with grace I. n. 5 p. 3 n. 8 p. 5 n. 9 p. 6 n. 13 p. 8

Concerning Fundamentalls, and not fundamentalls, toto c. 6 Fundamentall and not fundamētall po [...]nts are distinguished by their materiall objects c. 7 n. 170 p. 585 &c. what is vnderstood by them c. 6 n. 1 p. 440

Fundamentalls must be knowne by Protestants in particular n. 18 p. 449 450 Yet haue they no meanes for it Ibid: The Creed can be no Catalogue of them n. 12 p. 446 Chil: holds a particular Catalogue of fundamenmentalls vnnecessary ād vnpossible; and contradicts himselfe much in it n. 6 p. 442 & seq: Contradictions of Protestants concerning fundamentalls c. 6 n. 2. 3 p. 441

To know fundamētalls, only Catholiques haue certaine meanes c. 6 n. 29 (it is put 59) p. 456. 457 This meanes is the Church, which manifests them as necessity requires, and this serves for an exact Catalogue of them n. 18 p. 449 450

G

How we desire to God his owne perfections c. 16 n. 9 p. 936 937

Goths converted from Gentilisme by Catholiques, perverted by Arians c. 11 n. 77 p. 669

Actuall Grace necessary for all actions of piety I. n. 12 p. 7 & seq: To beleeue, n. 16 p. 10 & seq: To hope, n. 22 p. 17 & seq: For Charity, n. 23 24 p. 18 For keeping the commandements, and overcoming temptations n. 25 p. 19 & seq: For Repentance, n. 27.28 p. 26 For Perseverance, n. 29 p. 22 & seq:

Habituall grace necessary to keep the commandements n. 34 p. 24 & seq: It is a participation of the whole divine nature n. 40 p. 27 The Elogiums of it out of H. Fathers n. 41 p. 27 28 Proved to be supernaturall ād inherent in vs n. 42 p. 28 & seq: It is inconsistent with mortall sinne n. 45 46 p. 32

How the Grecians haue oftē submitted to the Roman Church, and agree with her against Protestants c. 11 n. 78 p. 704 & seq:

Only a living guide ād infallible cā keep mē from straying in Faith. The necessity of such a Guide proved through this whole Booke.

H

Three sorts of Habits c. 8. n. 11 p. 605 &c. The difference betwixt infused and acquired Habits J. n. 4. p. 3 What dependance the reall entityes of naturall Habits haue one of another, or of naturall acts, or of supernatuall acts or habits c. 8 n. 12 p. 607 &c Supernaturall Habits are nor produced by acts [Page 7]as naturall are, but infused by God, not to facilitate, but to enable to produce acts, and are properly rather Powers then Habits n. 13 14 p. 609 610 They are not discernable sensibly Ibid: and J. n. 50 p. 35 Nor acquired or destroyed as are the naturall, reall habits, which are only properly habits, by little and little, but all at once c. 8 n. 15 p. 611 what it is that is reversed in vicious or morall habits by repentance n. 11 p. 605 &c. Habituall sinne may remaine without the Phisicall habits of vice, and these without habituall sinne Ibid: If reall habits of vice be habituall sinne, the reall habits of naturall vertues must be sanctity though acquired by force of nature, which is Pelagianisme n. 15 p. 611 The efficient cause of the Habit of Faith is not actuall grace J. n. 21 p. 16

Heresie is a more grievous sinne then a meer externall false profession c. 7 n. 134 p. 555 Acknowledged for heresy by Protestāts to say that the Church Militant may possibly be dryven out of the world n. 143 p. 563 It is a marke of heresie to separate from the Church, ād proved such by places of Fathers c. 15 n. 16 p. 897 & seq:

Of two disagreeing in a point sufficiently proposed to both as revealed, one is an hererique c. 12 n. 8. 9 p. 713 714 Heretiques old and new by strange glosses of Scripture destroy all the chief points of Christianity c. 2 n. 31 p. 137 & seq: They are batten of spirituall Children n. 73 p. 77 The reason of this, and why they worke no Miracles c. 15 n. 41 p. 921

The Hierarchy of Protestant, Bishops and Priests overthrowne by Chill: c. 4 n. 31 p. 369 & seq:

S. Hierome cleared about the Cannon of Scripture c. 11 n. 21 p. 664 & seq:

I

Jewes and Sectaryes remaining such may by Chil: repentance be saved c. 10 n. 3 p 633

Meere Ignorāce and positive errour distinguished: and Chill: gross mistakes in this point c. 12 n. 10 p. 714 & seq:

The vse and worship of Images allowed by Protestants c. 7 n. 122 p. 543

Indulgences in Catholique Doctrine consistent with the feare of Purgatory and Hell c. 2 n. 84 85 p. 186 187 By them is not pardoned the guilt of sinne, much less sinnes to come Ibid:

Who is in himselfe Infallible hath the ground of an infallible guide, and may exercise it if accidentall impediments be removed c. 4 n. 88 p. 414 415

Intention required by Protestants for administring Sacraments c. 4 n. 32 p. 372 It is sufficient if it be to doe what the Church intends n. 33 p. 372 373 Other things essentially required may more easily chance to be wanting in the administration of Sacraments then intention n. 31 p. 371

S. Irenaeus notoriously falsifyed by Chill [...] c. 2 n. 161 p. 237 & seq: His true sense concerning the vnwritten word c. 11 n. 50 p. 683 & seq: His argument for the infallibility of the Church of Rome made good against Chill: c. 15 n. 27 p. 906 & seq:

Of the necessity of a living infallible judge c. 2 per totum, and c. 4 ac alibi saepe

Justice is a supernaturall quality infused, against Pelagius; in herent in vs against Calvin I. n. 39 p. 27 Proved to be so n. 42 p. 28 & seq: It is inconsistent with deadly sin n. 45 p. 32 & seq:

S. Justine defended against Chill: by the testimonyes of leatned Protestants c. 15 n. 31 p. 911 &c.

K

Knowledge is differently taken, but in generall any act of the vnderstanding, though obscure, as Faith, may be called knowledge c. 15 n. 3 p. 884 & seq:

L

Doctor Lawds discourse about Generall Councells c. 7 n. 40 p. 481 & seq: His testimony, and of other chief Protestāts cited by him, that Romane Catholiques haue what is necessary for salvation n. 151 p. 572

Liberius Pope never subscribed to herefie, and what he subscribed in matter of fact against S. Athanasius he revoaked as soone as he was at liberty c. 15 n. 24 p. 903

Luthers Tenet; that to hold an obligation of keeping the commandements is to deny Christ and abolim Faith J. n. 25 p. 19 That [Page 8]lawes and good workes are more to be shunned then sinnes, Jbid: His desperate remorse for leaving the church, c. 7. n. 14. p. 468. and c. 14. n. 50. p. 882. His division from the whose church proved out of Protestants, c. 7. n. 116. p. 537. His shamless falsification of Rom: 3.28. and Chill: conscienceless endeavour to make it good, c. 11. n. 16. p. 6 [...]9

M

Maximinianus Patriarche of Constantinople his testimony for the Principality of the Romane Church, c. 15. n. 33. p. 914. 915.

Merit by good workes excludes not grace c. 15. n 17. p. 800.

Milenaryes Doctrine never decreed nor delivered by the church, c. 9. n. 5. p. 626. and c. 15. n 31. p. 911. &c. Chill: imposture vpon S. Justine Martyr concerning it, confuted by testimonyes of Protestants, Ibi.

Miracles perpetually wrought by the church doe not only confirme some particular point, but all her Doctrine; and to say the contrary is injurious [...]s God, and makes the Doctrine of the Apostles, and of all the church vnfitt to convert people, c. 5. n. 7. p. 433. 434. Shewed by Scripture to be proofes of true Faith, n. 9. p. 435. To deny thē is to oppose our Saviour and his Apostles, and to vndermine all Christianity, n. 8. p. 434. VVrought before Protestants were dreamt of in confirmation of particular points in which they disagree from Catholiques, Ibid: Yet they are not necessary for every point of christian doctrine, c. 3. n. 33. p. 301. Acknowledged by Luther to haue been in the church through all ages, for these 1500. yeares. c 5. n. 4. p. 429. By them haue been converted Jewes and Gentles, yet cannot move Protestants, c. 3. n. 76. p. 338. Chill. holds that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men, n 76. p. 337 and c. 2 n. 186 p. 261.

N

Nature to conserue itselfe embraceth by instinct great naturall difficultyes, as less evills then its owne destruction, c. 1 n. 114. p. 119. To affirme that it is as easy to obey the Ghospell as to performe, what the common instinct of nature commands, is iniurious to our Saviours merits, Ibid. As natu [...] instinct for its naturall conservatiō is cer [...] ād invariable, so must the light of Faith be for supernaturall conservation, Ibid.

Divers vnderstandings of things Necessary to salvation, c. 2. n. 1. p. 122. & seq.

Notes of credibility authorize the writers before their writings, c. 5. n. 1. p. 426. & seq. and n. 5. p. 431. 432. They authorize the church independently of Scripture and fall primarily vpon her, not vpon Scripture, Jbid. VVhat church they authorize is to be infallibly beleeved in all points, n. 6. p. 433. God of his goodness could not permitt them be found as they are in the catholique Romane church, if her Faith could be false, n. 7. p. 433. and n. 10. 11. 12. p. 436. 437. These notes cannot be pretended by Protestant [...] and other Sectaryes, n. 4. p. 429. 430.

O

Objects are not obsure, evident, certain [...], probable &c. in thēselves, but only so denominated extrinsecally by the acts to which those affections are proper. c. 15. n. 6. p. 888. 889.

Observations to āswear many of Chil. objections about the creed, c. 13. n. 8 p. 793. 794.

Aprobable Opinion may be safely followed in things necessary for salvation, only necessitate Praecepti, but not in such as are necessitane Medij, c. 16. n. 1. p. 933. and n. 16. p. 941.

P

In case of perplexity what is to be done, c. 7. n. 132. p. 551 & seq. and c. 12. n 57. p. 751. and n 59. p 753.

A speculatiue Perswasion differs much from a practicall, c. 14. n. 46. p. 879.

S. Peter and the Apostles vindicated from the errour imputed to them by Chill. c. 3. n. 34. 35. p. 303. 304.

S Peters Primacie over all the Apostles, c. 14. n. 35 p. 871. & seq. He was not presēt whē the Apostles contended who was the greater, n. 36. p. 873. His name Peter is a title of great honour, n. 39. p. 874. his power over all the church descended to his successors, n. 41. p 875. & seq.

Points necessary and principall rightly declared, c. 2. n. 128 p. 218. 219. the most points of catholique Religion held by some Protestants, or other, n. 91. 92. p. 193 194. 195. & alibi. Those by which catholiques are made most odious to the vulgar held by chiefest Protestant Doctours, n. 92. p. 195.

The Pope held infallible by Potter if he [Page 9]hath but the assistance which the high Priest of the Jewes had, c. 11. n. 36. p. 673. This saying of Potter falsly and foolishly interpred by Chill: n. 39. 40. p. 675. many disparities betwixt the Church and the Synagogue, n. 38. p. 674. & seq:

The Primacie of the Church of Rome is de Jure Divino, c. 14. n. 31. p. 868. It is acknowledged by Protestants to be accordinge to order, wisely appointed, and necessary to be retained; yea that no common government can be hoped for without it, c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. (falsly put 167.) ād n. 60. p. 496.

Profession of an errour, if it it be meerly exexternall is a less sinne then internall Heresie, n. 133. (falsly put 123.) p. 554.

By Prophesye is not only vnderstood the fortellinge of things, but also the interpretation of Scripture; and in both senses is found in the Church, c. 12. n. 81. p. 769. 770. which hath alwayes had such Prophets, n. 100. p. 783

An indefinite Proposition in matters of Faith is equivalent to an vniversall, c. 12. n. 57. p. 749.

Protestants were not first forced by excomunication to separate from the Church, but their precedēt obstinat separation forced the Church to excommunicate them, c. 7 n. 62. p. 497. & seq: For this separation they could haue no grownd, n. 169. p. 584. the learned of them taxing of igno [...]ance and absurdity those that deny salvation to Romane Catholiques, n. 151. p. 573. Nor can they haue any evidence against Catholique Doctrine, n. 52. p. 490. & seq: Whose objections were answeared longe before Protestants appeared in the world, n. 59. p. 495. Their arguments to proue that by Scripture alone the Articles of Faith are to be knowne, fully answeared, c. 2. n. 57. p. 159. & seq: & alibi. Learned Protestants confesse that the Fathers agree with vs against them, c. 2. n. 90. p. 192.

They make their owne reason not Scripture, as they pretend, the Rule of Faith and judge of controversies, c. 11. n. 61. p. 692. Whence they must needs haue a Chimericall Church patched vp of as many members repugnant in Faith as are their fancies concerning all sorts of Articles, c. 13. n. 35. p. 815. & seq: Hence Grotius one of the learnedest of them despaired of their vnion except vnder the Pope. c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. For once devided from the Roman Church they must make endless divisions amongst themselves, n. 15. p. 468. & seq: And they take more liberty to disagree in matters of Faith then Catholiques in Philosophicall questions, c. 13. n. 41. p. 819. 820. Because having left the true Church their only Guide is their fancy: Ib: their Church being not so much as a foundation is for a house. n. 43 p. 820. & seq: This causes them to destroy all Churches, and say that none can be free from damnable errours against Divine Revelation, and must needs make every man an Independent, and be dayly changing his Tenets, c. 7. n. 154. p. 574. & seq: For Protestants Faith hath no infallible generall grounds as that of Catholiques hath into which it is resolved, c. 4. n 20. p. 364. Hence their many contradictions and disagreeings amongst themselves, of which divers I note in particular occasions. By their owne fault they haue brought vpon themselves an obligation to search all Scripture, ād cā free themselves from it only by submitting to the Roman Church, c. 2. n 62. p. 165. to which they prudently can only adhere, c. 4. n. 21. p. 364. 365.

By their Doctrine of all sinnes past, present, and to come, pardoned in Baptisme, and of their certaine predestinating Faith, they take away all feare of sinning, c. 2. n. 84. p 186. & seq: Shewed by divers considerations, that they can giue no releefe to an af [...]icted Soule, but only chalk out a way to desperation, c. 13. n. 43. p. 823. & seq: If they vse the meanes they haue to finde true Faith, and yet disagree, the meanes must ueeds be insufficient; if they doe not vse them, they cannot be sure that they are in the truth, c. 15. n. 40. p. 920, 921.

Prudence necessary for true Faith, c. 1. n. 88. p. 100. and 101. VVhat, and why, c. 15. n. 7. p. 889. It requires not ability to giue reasons, Jb: and c. 1. n. 89. p 102 VVhat we seeme prudētly to beleeue, if indeed it be not so, although we cannot discover our imprudence, is not beleeved with an act of Divine Faith, yet may facilitate for it, Jb: not all pruent acts are supernaturall, but all supernaturall are prudent, n. 92. p. 102 (the 2. for it is put twice.)

[Page 10]

Q

Quartadecimans heresie, c. 9. n. 5. p. 626.

R

Reason not established by infallible Faith, is continually subject to changes, c. 1. n. 105. 106. p. 112. &c. Vnable to wade through maine difficultyes in Scripture, or to convince it selfe of the misteryes of our Faith, which are so much aboue it, c. 3. n. 75 76. p. 337, 338. It requires an infallible living Guide, Ib: Its dutie concerning Faith, c. 11. n 32. p. 671. & seq: It is quite destroyed by Chill: c. 1 3. n. 21. p. 803. 804.

Religion is convinced by the instinct of nature to be a worship of God certainly true, c. 1. n. 100. p. 107.

Of Repentance, toto c 8. None true without grace, I. n. 27.28. p. 21. 22. True repentance absolutly necessary for salvation, c. 8. n. 3. p. 598. It instantly obtaines pardon. n. 16. p. 612. & seq: And perfect repentance destroyes in the habits acquired by finfull acts the morall denomiration of sinfull, but not the Physicall or reall being of it, n. 11 p. 605.606. VVith which reall being, both true repentance and grace may, and doe commonly stand. n. 12 p 607. & seq:

Divers opinions of heretiques concerning repentance, n. 2 p. 597. Chill: generall repentance contradicts his owne grounds, n. 5 p. 601. Drives to disperation. Ib: and n. 6 p. 602. It cannot stand with the Tenets of Protestants that only Faith justifyes, and that the commandements cannot be kept, Ib: n. 7. It implyes that no sinner can be converted nor baptized in his blood by martirdome n. 8 It is shewed to be impossible by the nature of the habits which he requires to be rooted out, and is alwayes full of perplexity, n. 9. 10. p. 603 604 605.

Reprodu&ion or factum facere implyes not evident contradiction; but factum infectum facere, doth, c. 11 n. 12 p. 657.

Resolution of Catholique Faith without a circle, toto c. 5. But Protestants and their pretended Bretheren runn in a circle, Ib: and particularly n. 13 14 15 p. 437 438.

Rites or ceremonyes of themselves indifferent, may be without sinne observed, but if they be held as necessary the observance may be deadly, c. 14 n. 2 p. 847. That it be certainly knowne that they are vsefull ād not hurtfull the infallible declaration of the church is required, c. 11 n. 46 p. 678. 679.

The Roman Church assisted aboue all other by the holy Ghost not to err, c. 7 n. 58 p. 492. 493. By her is vnderstood not only that of the Diocesse of Rome, but all that agree with her, in which sense she is called the Catholique or vniversall Church, n. 84 p. 515. & seq: In this sense she was the only visible on earth when Luther apostared, who therefore was properly a Schismatique. Ib: She is acknowledged by Protestants to haue been pure for the first 500 yeares, n. 18. p 492. 493. Impossible she should immediatly after that ty me fall into the corruptiōs pretēded by thē, ād none take notice of it, Ib: ād p 494 they also cōfesse that she wāts nothing for salvation, n. 147. 148. p. 564. & seq: ac alibi. Proved to any judicious man that we are secure for salvation, n. 158 p. 578. & seq:

S

Sacraments destroyed by Heretiques both for matter and forme, c. 2 n. 40. p. 147. 148.

Salvation depends not of chance, c. 4, n. 45. 46. p. 378. 379. It requires obedience to the true Church, c. 16 n. 12 p 939. And preparation of mind to beleeue all revealed points sufficiently proposed c. 12. n. 16 p. 717. & seq: The salvation of our owne soule is to be preferred before the good of the whole world, c. 16. n. 11 p. 937. 938.

Of Schisme, all the 7. c. Schisme as distinct from heresie supposes agreement in Faith, n. 75 p. 506. 507. It is a sinne against Charity which vnites the members of the Church, n. 98 p. 526. 527. It is destructiue of the whole Church, n. 133. (falsly put 123.) p. 554. It differs much from excommunication, n. 64. p. 499. and n. [...]04 p. 529. 530. and is not caused by it, but is before it, n 62 p. 407 & seq: No cause of Schisme can be given by the Church, n. 5 p. 460. 461. and n. 23 p. 472. 473. (falsly put 472) & passim, Pretence of reformation cannot excuse it, n. 11 p. 465. To say that they from whom it separates are not cutt off from hope of salvation, doth not excuse, but rather makes the Schisme more greavous, n. 10 p. 463. 464. Potters [Page 11]cōtradiction̄ affirming that the Romācehurch hath all thats necessary for salvation, and yet that her externall communion may be left without Schisme. n. 8 p. 463. By his owne Tenets they are proved Schismatiques who separate from the communion of the Church of Rome, n. 7 p. 462 & seq: Schisme vnlawfully begunn cannot be lawfully continued by others, n. 96 p. 524. 525. Schisme may accidentally be more preiudiciall then Heresy, n. 134 p. 555. It is ill defined by Chil: n. 19 p. 470 and n. 23 p. 472. He falsly calls it a separation of some part of the Church, n. 173 p. 589 & seq:

Of Chill: errours against Scripture toto c. 3. In his grounds it is of lesse assurance then prophane authours, n. 44 p. 313. It is a materiall object of our Faith (n. 2. p. 279 & se:) even independently of its contents, n. 20 p. 292. 293 & seq: with his contradictions. Prorestants must beleeue it before they can beleeue the contents, n. 21 p. 293. If they were not obliged to beleeue it, they should not be obliged to beleeue the contents, n. 4 p. 281. 282.

Scripture affirmed by some Protestants to to be knowne by it selfe to be the word of God; denyed by others. c. 2. n. 88. p. 190. 191. It is hard to be vnderstood, n. 27 p. 135 and n. 71 p. 174. where it is shewed by 2. Pet. 3.15.16. The reason why it is so, touched. n 71 p. 174. and declared in sequentibus. Protestants would make men beleeue, that it is cleare, yet doe they assigne many rules necessary for the vnderstanding of it, which few can possibly obserue, n. 43 p 151. Nor are they sufficient, as is demonstrated by the vnanswerable arguments of Dr. Hierome Taylour, n 44 p. 152 & seq: and appeares by the irreconciliable disagreements amongst themselves. n 91 P. 193 & seq: By their thinking that the ancient Fathers erred in holding Doctrine contrary to theirs, by the agreeing of many chief Protestants with vs against their Brethren, n 90. 91. p 192. 193. According to Chill: every man though vnlearned must know every Text of Scripture, yet he supposes that even the learned are not obliged to it n 26 p. 134. Out of his Tenets Scripture proved insufficient to be any Rule of Faith, n 94 p 198 199 and c. 3 per totum.

In what sense it may be affirmed by Catholiques that Scripture containes evidently all things necessary, c. 2 n 7. 8. 9. p. 124. 125. Scripture needs not be plaine to every privates mans capacity, the Church being alwayes extant to interpret and direct, c. 4 n. 9 p. 355. 356. The necessity of this Interpreter proved in the chief misteryes of Christianity, c. 2. n. 30. 31 p. 136 & seq:

The difference betwixt Scripture and the definitions of the Church, c. 4 n. 99 P. 424.

Scripture cannot be compared for matter of Faith to the corporall eye; but the vnderstanding together with some supernaturall comprincipium of the act, may, c 11 n. 10 11 p 654 & seq:

Sinne and indeliberation are inconsistent, c 1 n 71 p 85. 86. It can neither be committed without knowledge, nor repented whilst it is actually committing, c 8 n 20 p 617 & seq: One sinne not repēted drawes on others 1. n 35. 36 p 24. 25. God gives fewer helps to people in mortall sinne then in the stare of grace, n 38 p 25. 26. A mortall sinne is worse then the torments of hell, n 47 p 34 Sinne in a thing not necessary necessitate medij is avoyded by following a probable opinion, c. 16 n 16 p 941

About the edition of Sixtus 5. his Bible, c. 3 n 56 p 325

The Socinianisme of Chill: the way to Atheisme, c 1 n 100 p 107

D. Stapleron vindicated from Potters falsification, c 4 n 95 p 418 & seq: His Doctrine about the Churches infallibility, Jb: and n 99 p 424

T

Temptations may be overcome by the grace of God, but not without it, I. n. 26 p. 20. 21. Texts of Scripture answeared.

Many concerning the chief points of Christianity alleaged by Chill: to proue the evidēce of Scripture in things necessary, shewed even by the errours of old and new Heretiques, to require a living infallible judge, c 2 n 32 p 140 & seq:

Deut: 4.2. Yee shall not add to the word &c. answered c 2 n 61 p 161. 162

Act: 17.11. of the Bereās deaily searching the Scriptures, answeared n 64 p 168

[Page 12]

Apoc: 24 v. 18. 19. If any man shall ad to these things &c. n. 65 p 169. 170 & seq:

S. Iohn 5.39. search the Scriptures, n 62 p 162 & seq:

S. Iohn 20.31. These are written that yee may beleeue, n. 63 p. 166. & seq: and n. 168 p. 245 & seq:

S. Luke 1. v. 1. 2. 3. Act: 1. v. 1. 2. explicated, n. 99 p. 203 & seq: S. Paule Rom: 14 5. prophanely applyed by Chill: c. 11 n. 31 p. 670.

S. Paule 1. Tim: 3.15. about the infallibility of the vniversall Church c. 12 n. 89 p. 777.

S. Paul, 2. Tim: 3. v. 14. 15. 16. 17. All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach &c: c. 2 n. 66 p. 170 & seq: and n. 175 176 p. 250 & seq:

How a Tipe or figure differs from a patterne c. 11 n. 48 p. 682

The Title of Chill: Booke, Protestant Religion a safe way to salvation, proved not to agree to it, and shewed what he should haue putt. Pr. n. 12 p 6 & seq:

Against Tradition no dispute, c [...] n 209 p 274 & seq: Tradition without Scripture, but not Scripture wthout Tradition sufficient to begett Faith, c 11 n 49 p 682. Tradition proved out of holy Fathers, c 2 n 165 p 240 & seq: and n 202 p 270 & seq: Whitaker very angry with S. Chrysostome about Tradition, n 202 p 271 Tradition wholy destroyed by Chill: although he would seeme to rely vpon it c 3 n 80 p 341 & seq: and n 85. 86 p 345 & seq: Yet it is confessed by many Heteriques to be the only ground for many chief points of Christianity. c 2 n 42 p 149 150. 151. Traditions vnwritten amongst the Iewes, n 61 p 161

Transubstantiation is of lesse difficulty to naturall reason then the mistery of the B. Trinity, c 11 n 12 p 657

V

Pope Uictor was in the right, c. 15. n 32. (falsly put 33.) p. 913.

The Vnderstanding cannot dissenr from a truth represented with evidence: yet the will may doe contrary to it, c. 11. n. 65. 66. p. 694. & seq:

Vniversall taken by Potter in a Logicall sense and ignorantly opposed to Catholique, c. 7. n. 148. p. 565.

W

The difference betwixt a VVay evidently knowne by sense from that which is knowne by Scripture, c. 4. n. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. p. 415. & seq:

The VVill is not alwayes able to follow the vnderstanding without grace. c. 1 n. 113 p. 118

Good works acknowledged by Chill: to be required in Scripture for salvation, c. 2 n. 36. 37 p. 144. 145

Holy VVriters doe no lesse deliver Counsells then commands by Divine inspiration, c. 3. n. 38. p. 306. & seq:

VVhy no one VVriting taken alone in its owne nature, is sufficient to keepe from errour, c. 2. n. 178. 179. 180. p. 252. 253. 254. and n. 181 p. 256 & seq: this shewed a fortiori of writings containing divine and sublime misteryes', n. 184 p. 258 & seq: If writings by a singular miracle be alwayes and by all vneerstood a like, it is not for the nature of the writings, but by the Power of God supernaturally supplying what should be done by a liuing infallible interpreter or judge, n. 186. 187. p. 261. 262. 263.

X

Xenaias a fugitiue slaue, vnbaptized, faining Christianity crept into a Bishoprique, ād was the first that made wart against Images, c. 7. n. 122. p. 543.

[Page]

ERRATA.

Many of which arè left out, but such as is hoped will not trouble the vnderstanding Reader. No wonder if a stranger to our language did often mistake, Where either Page or § is put false, it is corrected in the Index, when any such place is cited.

Page	Line	Error	Correction
pr 8	3	this for	for this
pr 9	15	proue to so to do all.	proue to do so to all.
13	19	othe	other
39	21	Christians	Christian
61	24	degree	degrees
106	14	not be	not to be
130	7	collectinei	collectiuè
173	5	of sared	sayed of
187	38	every	a very
192	11	on	no
220	31	o	of
222	11	of	if
225	2	appeare your	appeare by your.
226	9	cae	case.
240	7	and necessity	ād hold the necessity.
267	10	Augustrana.	Augustana
267	34	A rist.	Christ
277	4	y	by
282	1	het	the
314	12	rihes no higher	rises no higher
315	21	the exercising to ā act	to the exercising ā act
365	34	Goind	God in
377	38	wared	waved
394	7	that that	then that
438	34	avoide	avoide not
458	9	ormall	formall
468	0	About Fundamentall [points c. 6.	Protestants guilty of [schisme c. 7
459	18	iust brande	iustly branded
531	1	you	yet
533	20	member	number
539	13	Greg. Millius in Ar[gumēta	Georg. Millius in Au[gustana.
556	24	officiously	officious ly
557	38	his submit to	to submit his
588	7	errors	error
590	25	deest	i.e.
590	28	deest	3.
602	38	afterfor their	after sorrow
616	22	to obiect wherof his	the object herof is
617	21	preceede	proceede sinns
638	12	it	he
619	4	pertinent	penitent
627	15	is	it
632	2	Chillingwort: I.	Chillingworth)
639	4	proosd	proposed
641	11	but wavering ād fear[full assent a	but a wavering ād fe(arfull assēt
707	19	could	would
716	17	hold	cold
748	4	of Sections or	or Sections of
766	1	if he will not, so	if he will, not so
781	16	it is was	it was
801	24	Seurrall	severall
807	38	vrge it against	vrge against
811	35	as thewed	as I shewed
823	8	it will	he will
823	9	he cannot	it cannot
826	23	to soone	so soone
828	38	is not it all one	it not, is all one
838	19	prencipuum	praecipium
856	1.2	recs	records
868	16	if Peter	of Peter
876	1	ayme	time
877	3-4	may another	may not another
885	32	not	dele
890	1	an	any
920	36	and men	and yet
935	5	It if	If it

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.

Infidelity vnmasked, or, The confutation of a booke published by Mr. William Chillingworth vnder this title, The religion of Protestants, a safe way to saluation [i.e. salvation]

Author: Knott, Edward, 1582-1656.1652

SECTION I. The necessity of Grace for all actions of Christian Piety, in generall.

SECTION II. The Necessity of Grace to Belieue.

SECTION III. The necessity of Grace to Hope as vve ought for saluation.

SECTION IV. Grace necessary for Charity.

SECTION V. The Necessity of Grace for keeping the Commandements, and ouercoming temptations.

SECTION VI. Grace Necessary for true Repentance

SECTION VII. Grace is necessary for perseuerance.

SECTION VIII That Habituall or justifying Grace is ne­cessary to keepe the commandements.

SECTION IX. Of Habituall, or justifying Grace in it selfe.

CHAP. II. ALL THINGS NECESSARY to be believed, ARE NOT IN PARTICVLAR, Evidently contayned in Scripture alone.

CHAP: III. A CONFVTATION OF M R. CHILLINGVVORTHS ERROVRS AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTVRE.

CHAPTER IV. A LIUING INFALLIBLE IVDG IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH.

CHAP: V. IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHVRCH

CHAP. VI. ABOVT FVNDAMENTALL AND NOT FVNDAMENTALL POYNTS OF FAITH.

CHAP: VII. PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY OF THE SINNE OF SCHISME.

CHAP: VIII. Mr. CHILLINGVV ORTHS ERROVRS CONCERNING REPENTANCE, ARE EXAMINED, AND CONFVTED.

CHAP: IX. THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE OF CHARITY MAINTAYNED IS EXAMINED.

CHAP: X. The Ansvver to his FIRST CHAPTER, ABOVT THE STATE OF THE QVESTION: And VVhether amongst men of DIFFERENT RELIGIONS one side only can be saved.

CHAP: XI. The Ansvver to his second Chapter CONCERNING THE MEANES WHERBY THE REVEALED TRVTHS OF GOD ARE CONVEYED TO OVR VNDERSTANDING, And vvhich must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion.

CHAP: XII. THE ANSWER TO HIS THIRD CHAPTER ABOVT FVNDAMENTALL AND NOT FVNDAMENTALL POINTS.

CHAP: XIII. THAT THE CREED CONTAINES NOT ALL POINTS NECESSARILY TO BE BELIEVED: IN ANSWER TO HIS FOVRTH CHAPTER.

CHAP: XIV. THE ANSWER TO HIS FIFTH CHAPTER ABOVT SCHISME.

CHAP: XV. THE ANSWER TO HIS SIXTH CHAPTER ABOVT HERESY.

CHAP: XVI. THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER? That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWE TO THEMSELUES to re-unite themselves to the ROMAN CHVRCH.

A.

B.

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

V

W

X

SECTION VIII That Habituall or justifying Grace is necessary to keepe the commandements.

CHAP: III. A CONFVTATION OF M ^R. CHILLINGVVORTHS ERROVRS AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTVRE.